CASE DIGEST: Ramos vs Ramos

TRUST
EMILIANO B. RAMOS, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. GREGORIA T. RAMOS, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
December 3, 1974. G.R. No. L-19872. AQUINO, J
Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines
TRUST – is defined as the right, enforceable solely in equity, to the beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal title to
which is vested in another.

Article 1440 of the Civil Code: A person who establishes a trust is called the TRUSTOR, one in whom
confidence is reposed as regards property for the benefit of another person is known as the TRUSTEE and the
person for whose benefit the trust has been created is referred to as the BENEFICIARY.

There is FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP between the trustee and the beneficiary regards certain property, real,
personal, money or choses in action.

FACTS

● Plaintiff Emiliano Ramos was one of the 7 natural children of their father, Martin Ramos while
defendant Gregoria is the widow of Jose Ramos, one of the 3 legitimate children of Martin
Ramos and Candida Tanate.
● After the death of their father in 1906, a special proceeding was instituted to settle the intestate
estate of spouses Martin and Candida.
● Rafael Ramos, younger brother of Martin was appointed administrator of the estate for 6 years.

● In 1913, a partition projected was submitted and was signed by the 3 legitimate children, Jose, Agustin,
and Granada and by the two natural children, Atanacia and Timoteo, and by Timoteo Zayco as
guardian of the other five natural children who were allegedly minors. The partition and
guardianship were approved by Judge Ricahrd Campbell.
● Further, in 1914, a manifestation signed by Jose, Agustin, Granada, Atanacia and Timoteo, all surnamed
Ramos, and by Timoteo Zayco, the guardian, was submitted by the administrator in compliance to the
order issued by Judge Nepomuceno ordering the distribution of the shares of the heirs.
● In 1957, an action for reconveyance was filed by the then alleged minor natural children in their
favor against defendants Gregoria and daughter Candida, in whose names of the 8 lots are now
registered which amounts to the 1/6 portion of his legally acknowledged natural children under
Art. 840 of the old Civil Code. It is predicated on the theory that plaintiffs’ shares were held in
trust by the defendants.
● The defendants denied the existence of a trust. They pleaded the defenses of (a) release of claim as
shown in the project of partition, the decision and the receipt of shares forming part of the expediente of
Civil Case No. 217, (b) lack of cause of action, (c) res judicata and (d) prescription.

LOWER COURT: Dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata. The plaintiffs as well as the
defendants appealed.

ISSUE/S
1. WON there is an existence of trust. - NO
2. WON the action has already been prescribed. - YES

RULING
 1. NO.

Under Art. 1441, Civil Code, trusts are either express or implied. Express trusts are created by the
intention of the trustor or of the parties. Implied trusts come into being by operation of law.

Further, under Artciles 1443 and 1457, no express trusts concerning an immovable or any interest therein
may be proven by oral evidence. An implied trust may be proven by oral evidence.

In this case, the plaintiffs did not prove any express trust in this case. The expediente of the intestate
proceeding, Civil Case No. 217, particularly the project of partition, the decision, and the manifestation
as to the receipt of shares negates the existence of an express trust. Those public documents prove
that the estate of Martin Ramos was settled in that proceeding and that adjudications were made to his
seven natural children.

A TRUST must be proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. It cannot rest on vague and
uncertain evidence or on loose, equivocal, or indefinite declarations. As already noted, an express trust cannot
be proven by parol evidence.

Neither have the plaintiffs specified the kind of implied trust contemplated in their action.

Therefore, it can be concluded that there is no existence of trust in the case at hand.

2. YES

Under Act 190, whose statute of limitations applies to this case (Art. 1116, Civil Code), the longest period of
extinctive prescription was only ten years.

In this case, Atanacia, Modesto and Manuel, all surnamed Ramos, were already of age in 1914. From that
year, they could have brought the action to annul the partition. Maria Ramos and Emiliano Ramos were both born in
1896, they reached the age of twenty-one years in 1917. They could have brought the action from that year. But the
instant action was filed only in 1957. As to Atanacia, Modesto and Manuel, the action was filed forty-three years after
it accrued and, as to Maria and Emiliano, the action was filed forty years after it accrued. The delay was inexcusable.
The instant action is unquestionably barred by prescription and res judicata.

Therefore, the action has prescribed.

The court said, all those contentions would have a semblance of cogency and would deserve serious
consideration if the plaintiffs had not slept on their rights. They allowed more than forty years to elapse before they
woke up and complained that they were much aggrieved by the partition. Under the circumstances, their claims can
hardly evoke judicial compassion. Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. “If eternal vigilance is the price of
safety, one cannot sleep on one’s right for more than a tenth of a century and expect it to be preserved in its pristine
purity”.

The plaintiffs have only themselves to blame if the courts at this late hour can no longer afford them relief
against the inequities allegedly vitiating the partition of their father’s estate.

DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, the trial court's judgement is affirmed with the clarification that defendants'
counterclaim is dismissed.

No costs.
ADDITIONAL NOTES