Art. 1456.

If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law,
considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.

1. Constructive trust created. — Where a party acquires through mistake or fraud a legal title to
property to which another has a better right, there is created by law what is termed in jurisprudence
as “constructive trust” in favor of the aggrieved party who is truly entitled to it or his successors-in-
interest, and grants to the latter the right to recover his or their title over the property by way of
reconveyance while the same has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value, in keeping with
the primary principle of law and equity that one should not unjustly enrich himself at the expense of
another.

A constructive trust unlike an express trust does not emanate from, or generate a fiduciary relation. While in
an express, a beneficiary and trustee are linked by confidential or fiduciary relations, in a constructive trust,
there is neither a promise nor a fiduciary relation to speak of and the so-called trustee neither accepts any
trust nor intends holding the property for the beneficiary.

The presence of fraud or mistake creates an implied trust for the benefit of the rightful and legal
owner giving him the right to seek reconveyance of the property. All that must be alleged in the
complaint are two (2) facts: (a) that the plaintiff was the owner of the property; and (b) that the
defendant had illegally dispossessed him of the same.

Example: A buyer of a parcel of land at a public auction to satisfy a judgment against a widow,
acquired only 1/2 interest on the land corresponding to the share of the widow and the other half
belonging to the heirs of her husband became impressed with a constructive trust in behalf of
said heirs.

2. Not the “trust” in technical sense- The trust alluded to, as just pointed out, is constructive trust
arising by operation of law. It is not trust in the technical sense. for in a typical trust, confidence is
reposed in one person for the benefit of another respecting property which is held by the former for
the benefit of the latter.

3. Remedy of owner under the Torrens system. — The sole remedy of the landowner whose property
has been wrongfully or erroneously registered under the Torrens system in another’s name is, after
one year from the date of the decree of registration, not to set aside the decree but, respecting it as
incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of
justice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser
for value, for damages.

Where a party is in actual possession of the property, the action to enforce the trust and recover the
property and thereby quiet title thereto, is imprescriptible.
Art. 1457. An implied trust may be proved by oral evidence.

An express trust concerning an immovable or any interest therein may not be proved by parol or oral
evidence. (Art. 1443.)

(1) An implied trust, however, whether involving realty or personalty, may be proved by oral evidence.

In order to establish an implied trust in real property, by parol evidence, the proof should be as fully
convincing as if the acts giving rise to the trust obligation are proven by an authentic document. An implied
trust, in fine,
cannot be established upon vague and inconclusive proof.

(2) An implied trust cannot be established contrary to the recitals of a Torrens Title, upon vague and
inconclusive proof. Thus, in a case, where the supposed trustees had appeared to be the registered owners
of
the lot in question for more than forty years and had possessed it during that period, and the trustors who
created the alleged trust, died a long time ago, “their title and possession cannot be defeated by oral
evidence which can be easily fabricated. Any pretension as to the existence of an implied trust should not be
countenanced.”

(3) The doctrine of implied trust finds no application where there are no proven facts to support it .
While an implied trust (of real and personal property) does not require the formalities of an express trust
over realty which as mandated by Article 1443 cannot be proved by oral evidence, still there must be proof
that the trustor wanted to grant one party only the beneficial ownership of a property, although said
beneficiary may have legal title in himself.

(4) The bare existence of confidential relation between grantor and grantee (mother-in-law and son-in-law)
does not, standing alone, raise the presumption of fraud. A deed (of sale) will not be set aside merely
because the grantor and the grantee sustained a confidential relationship where the evidence shows no
fraud or abuse of confidence.