Case Digests for Trust

8/10/2019 Case Digests for Trust

1/14

1. SOLEDAD CAEZO vs. CONCEPCION ROJAS (G.R. No. 148788, November2, 2!!7 "

#AC$S%

The subject property is an unregistered land with an area of 4,169 square meterssituated at Naval, iliran! "n a complaint on 199#, petitioner $oledad %a&e'o alleged that

she bought such parcel of land in 19(9 from %risogono )impiado, although the sale was

not reduced into writing! Thereafter, she immediately too* possession of the property! "n194+, she and her husband left for indanao and entrusted the said land to her father,

%rispulo -ojas, who too* possession of, and cultivated the property! "n 19+., she found

out that the respondent,%oncepcion -ojas, her stepmother, was in possession of theproperty and was cultivating the same! $he also discovered that the ta/ declaration over

the property was already in the name of his father!

-espondent asserted that it was her husband who bought the property from

)impiado,which accounts for the ta/ declaration being in %rispulo0s name!fter thehearing, T% rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner, ma*ing her the real and

lawful owner of the land! -espondent appealed to the -T% of Naval, iliran, which

reversed the T% decision on the ground that the action had already prescribed and

acquisitive prescription had set in! 2owever, acting on petitioner0s motion forreconsideration, the -T% amended its original decision and held that the action had not

yet prescribed considering that the petitioner merely entrusted the property to her father!

The ten3year prescriptive period for the recovery of a property held in trust wouldcommence to run only from the time the trustee repudiates the trust! The -T% found no

evidence on record showing that %rispulo -ojas ever ousted the petitioner from the

property!

etitioner filed a petition for review with the %, which reversed the amendeddecision of the -T%! The % held that, assuming that there was a trust between the

petitioner and her father over the property, her right of action to recover the same would

still be barred by prescription since 49 years had already lapsed since %rispulo adverselypossessed the contested property in 194+!2ence, this petition for review!

ISS&E%5hether or not there is an e/istence of trust over the property e/press orimplied between the petitioner and her father

'ELD% N7N8! trust is the legal relationship between one person having an

equitableownership of property and another person owning the legal title to suchproperty, the equitableownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain

duties and the e/ercise of certain powers by the latter! Trusts are either e/press or

implied! 8/press trusts are those whichare created by the direct and positive acts of theparties, by some writing or deed, or will, or bywords evincing an intention to create a

trust! "mplied trusts are those which, without beinge/pressed, are deducible from the

nature of the transaction as matters of intent or, independently,of the particular intentionof the parties, as being superinduced on the transaction by operation of law basically by


2/14

reason of equity!

s a rule, the burden of proving the e/istence of a trust is on the party asserting its

e/istence, and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the e/istence of the trustand its elements! The presence of the following elements must be proved :1; a trustor or

settlor who e/ecutes the instrument creating the trust< :=; a trustee, who is the persone/pressly designated tocarry out the trust< :(; the trust res, consisting of duly identified

and definite real properties< and:4; the cestui que trust, or beneficiaries whose identitymust be clear!

ccordingly, it was incumbent upon petitioner to prove the e/istence of the trust

relationship! nd petitioner sadly failed to discharge that burden!The e/istence of e/presstrusts concerning real property may not be established by parol evidence! "t must be

proven by some writing or deed! "n this case, the only evidence to support the claim that

an e/press trust e/isted between the petitioner and her father was the self3serving

testimony of the petitioner!lthough no particular words are required for the creation of

an e/press trust, a clear intention to create a trust must be shown< and the proof offiduciary relationship must be clear and convincing! The creation of an e/press trust must

be manifested with reasonable certainty and cannot be inferred from loose and vaguedeclarations or from ambiguous circumstances susceptible of other interpretations!"n the

case at bench, an intention to create a trust cannot be inferred from the petitioner0s

testimony and the attendant facts and circumstances!

The petitioner testified only to the effect that her agreement with her father was thatshe will be given a share in the produce of the property! This allegation, standing alone as

it does, is inadequate to establish the e/istence of a trust because profit3sharing per se,

does not necessarily translate to a trust relation!"n light of the disquisitions, we hold that

there was no e/press trust or resulting trust established between the petitioner and herfather! Thus, in the absence of a trust relation, we can only conclude that %rispulo0s

uninterrupted possession of the subject property for 49 years,coupled with theperformance of acts of ownership, such as payment of real estate ta/es, ripened into

ownership!etition denied! >ecision of the % affirmed

2. PN vs CA G.R. No. )882 *+ 17, 1))

#+-s%

Two parcels of land under the common names of the respondent 8pifanio dela %ru', his

brother and sister were mortgaged to the etitioner hilippine National an*! The lotswere mortgaged to guarantee the by three promissory notes! The first two were not paid

by the respondent! The third is disputed by the respondent who claims that the correct

date is ?une (., 1961eed of $ale

and a %ertificate of $ale was e/ecuted in favor of the petitioner! The final >eed of $alewas registered in -egistry of roperty! "nasmuch as the respondent did not buy bac* the


3/14

lots from N, N sold on the same in a B>eed of %onditional $aleB! The Notices of

$ale of foreclosed properties were published on arch =+, pril 11 and pril 1=, 1969 in

a newspaper!-espondent brought a complaint for the reconveyance of the lands, whichthe petitioner allegedly unlawfully foreclosed! The petitioner states on the other hand that

the e/trajudicial foreclosure, consolidation of ownership, and subsequent sale were all

valid!

The %A" rendered its >ecision< the complaint against the petitioner wasdismissed!Cnsatisfied with the judgment, respondent interposed an appeal that the lower

court erred in holding that there was a valid compliance in regard to the required

publication under $ec! ( of ct! (1(@!-espondent court reversed the judgment appealedfrom by declaring void, inter alia, the auction sale of the foreclosed pieces of realty, the

final deed of sale, and the consolidation of ownership! 2ence, the petition with$% for

certiorari and intervention!

ISS&E% 57N the required publication of The Notices of $ale on the foreclosed

properties under $ec! ( of ct (1(@ was complied!

'ELD%No! The first date falls on a Ariday while the second and third dates are on aAriday and $aturday, respectively!$ection ( of ct No! (1(@ requires that the notice of

auction sale shall be Bpublished once a wee* for at least three consecutive wee*sB!8vidently, petitioner ban* failed to comply with this legal requirement! The $upreme

%ourt held that The rule is that statutory provisions governing publication of notice of

mortgage foreclosure sales must be strictly complied with, and those even slightdeviations therefrom will invalidate the notice and render the sale at least voidable

528-8A7-8, the petitions for certiorari andintervention are hereby dismissed and the

decision of the %ourt of ppeals is hereby affirmed in toto

. /DA. DE RE$&ER$O /S. ARZ 72 SCRA 712

#AC$S%etitioners are the heirs of anfilo -etuerto, while respondents are the heirs ofedro ar' who is the sole heir of ?uana ere' ar'! ?uana ere' ar' was the original

owner of )ot No! +96 having an area of 1(,16. square meters! efore her death on pril

16, 19=9, ?uana ere' e/ecuted a >eed of bsolute $ale in favor of anfilo -etuerto overa parcel of land, identified as )ot No! +963, a subdivision of )ot No! +96, with an

appro/imate area of =,@.@ square meters! 7n ?uly ==, 194., the %ourt issued an 7rder

directing the )and -egistration %ommission for the issuance of the appropriate >ecree in

favor of anfilo -etuerto over the said parcel of land! 2owever, no such >ecree wasissued as directed by the %ourt because, by >ecember +, 1941, the $econd 5orld 5ar

ensued in the acific! 2owever, anfilo failed to secure the appropriate decree after the

war!

$ometime in 1966, edro ar', as the sole heir of ?uana ere', filed and application, with

the then %A" of %ebu for the confirmation of his title over )ot +96 which included the )ot

sold to anfilo -etuerto! The %ourt ruled in his favor declaring him the lawful owner of


4/14

the said property, and thus 7riginal %ertificate of Title No! @=1 was issued! )ot No! +963

however was continuously occupied by the petitioners! Thus, a confrontation arose and

as a result respondents filed an action on $eptember @, 19+9 for DEuieting of Title,>amages and ttorney0s Aees!F "n their answer, petitioners claimed that they were the

owners of a portion of the lot which was registered under the name of edro ar' and

therefore the issuance of the 7riginal %ertificate of Title in edro ar'0s name did notvest ownership but rather it merely constituted him as a trustee under a constructive trust!

etitioners further contend that edro ar' misrepresented with the land registration court

that he inherited the whole lot thereby constituting fraud on his part!

ISS&E% 5hether or not petitioners0 defense is tenable!

R&LING%N7, the contention is bereft of merit! %onstructive trusts are created in equityto prevent unjust enrichment, arising against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of

confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and

good conscience, to hold! etitioners failed to substantiate their allegation that their

predecessor3in3interest had acquired any legal right to the property subject of the presentcontroversy! Nor had they adduced evidence to show that the certificate of title of edro

ar' was obtained through fraud!

8ven assuming arguendo that edro ar' acquired title to the property through mista*e orfraud, petitioners are nonetheless barred from filing their claim of ownership! n action

for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes within ten years

from the time of its creation or upon the alleged fraudulent registration of the property!$ince registration of real property is considered a constructive notice to all persons, then

the ten3year prescriptive period is rec*oned from the time of such registering, filing or

entering! Thus, petitioners should have filed an action for reconveyance within ten years

from the issuance of 7%T No! @=1 in November 16, 196+! This, they failed to do so!

4. C'IAO LIONG $AN /. CO&R$ O# APPEALS 228 SCRA 70

#AC$S%

%hiao )ong Tan claims to be the owner of a 19#6 "su'u 8lf van! s owner thereof,

petitioner says he has been in possession, enjoyment, and utili'ation of the van until

his older brother, Tan an Gong, unlawfully too* it away from him!

Peoer re3es o e 5+-%

1! That the van is registered under his name!

=! 2e claims to have bought the vehicle from isu'u balintawa*evelopment %orporation! 7n ?uly =, 19+., T%T No! =(@@= was issuedcancelling T%T No! =19=6< T%T No! =(@@( cancelled T%T No! =19=@< and T%T

No!=(@@4 cancelling T%T No! =19=4, all in the name of defendant K$"$!

fter defendant K$"$ had re3acquired the properties sold to Gor*stown >evelopment%orporation, it began disposing the foreclosed lots including the e/cluded ones! 7n pril

#, 199.,-epresentative 8duardo $antiago and then plaintiff ntonio Lic Mulueta e/ecuted

an agreement whereby Mulueta transferred all his rights and interests over the e/cluded

lots! laintiff 8duardo $antiago0s lawyer, tty! 5enceslao ! Trinidad, wrote a demand


11/14

letter dated ay 11, 19+9 to defendant K$"$ as*ing for the return of the eighty3one :+1;

e/cluded lots! 7n ay #, 199., ntonio Lic Mulueta, represented by 8duardo !

$antiago, filed with the -egional Trial %ourt :-T%; of asig %ity, ranch#1, and acomplaint for reconveyance of real estate against the K$"$!

$pouses lfeoand Nenita 8scasa, anuel """ and $ylvia K! Crbano, and arciana !

Kon'ales and the heirs of amerto Kon'ales moved to be included as intervenors andfiled their respective answers in intervention! $ubsequently, the petitioner, as defendant

therein, filed its answer alleging inter alia that the action was barred by the statute of

limitations andHor laches and that the complaint stated no cause of action! $ubsequently,Mulueta was substituted by $antiago as the plaintiff in the complaint a quo! Cpon the

death of $antiago on arch 6, 1996, he was substituted by his widow, -osario 8nrique'

Lda! >e $antiago, as the plaintiff! fter due trial, the -T% rendered judgment against the

petitioner ordering it to reconvey to the respondent, -osario 8nrique' Lda! >e $antiago,in substitution of her deceased husband 8duardo, the seventy3eight lots e/cluded from the

foreclosure sale!

Isse%:1; 5hether or not the petitioner acted in bad faith in consolidating ownership andcausing the issuance of titles in its name over the subject lots, notwithstanding that thesewere e/pressly e/cluded from the foreclosure sale!

:=; 5hether or not etitioner0s K$"$O defend on prescription is tenable!

'e3%

#rs Isse%Peoer A-e + #+ >ES.

The acts of defendant3appellant K$"$ in concealing from the Muluetas the

respondent0s predecessors3in3interestO the e/istence of these lots, in failing to notify orapprise the spouses Mulueta about the e/cluded lots from the time it consolidated its titles

on their foreclosed properties in 19#@, in failing to inform them when it entered into a

contract of sale of the foreclosed properties to Gor*stown >evelopment %orporation in19+. as well as when the said sale was revo*ed by then resident Aerdinand 8! arcos

during the same year demonstrated a clear effort on its part to defraud the spouses

Mulueta and appropriate for itself the subject properties! 8ven if titles over the lots had

been issued in the name of the defendant3appellant, still it could not legally claimownership and absolute dominion over them because indefeasibility of title under the

Torrens system does not attach to titles secured by fraud or misrepresentation! The fraud

committed by defendant3appellant in the form of concealment of the e/istence of said lotsand failure to return the same to the real owners after their e/clusion from the foreclosure

sale made defendant3appellant holders in bad faith! "t is well3settled that a holder in bad

faith of a certificate of title is not entitled to the protection of the law for the law cannotbe used as a shield for fraud!

The %ourt agrees with the findings and conclusion of the trial court and the %! The

petitioner is not an ordinary mortgagee! "t is a government financial institution and,li*e


12/14

ban*s, is e/pected to e/ercise greater care and prudence in its dealings,including those

involving registered lands!

Se-o Isse%rescription

N7! 7n the issue of prescription, generally, an action for reconveyance of real property

based on fraud prescribes in four years from the discovery of fraud< such discovery is

deemed to have ta*en place upon the issuance of the certificate of title over the property!-egistration of real property is a constructive notice to all persons and, thus, the four3year

period shall be counted therefrom! 7n the other hand, rticle14@6 of the %ivil %ode

provides

rt! 14@6! "f property is acquired through mista*e or fraud, the person obtainingit is,by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the

person from whom the property comes!

n action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in tenyears from the alleged fraudulent registration or date of issuance of the certificate of title

over the property! The petitioner0s defense of prescription is untenable! s held by the%, the general rule that the discovery of fraud is deemed to have ta*en place upon the

registration of real property because it is Dconsidered a constructive notice to all personsF

doesnot apply in this case!The % correctly cited the cases of dille v! %ourt of ppeals and $amonte v! %ourt

of ppeals, where this %ourt rec*oned the prescriptive period for the filing of the action

for reconveyance based on implied trust from the actual discovery of fraud!

%ontrary to its claim, the petitioner unarguably had the legal duty to return thesubject lots to the Muluetas! The petitioner0s attempts to justify its omission by insisting

that it had no such duty under the mortgage contract is obviously clutching at straw!

rticle == of the %ivil %ode e/plicitly provides that Devery person who,through an act ofperformance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of

something at the e/pense of the latter without just or legal ground,shall return the same to

him!528-8A7-8, the petition is >8N"8> for lac* of merit! The assailed >ecision

dated Aebruary ==, =..= and -esolution dated $eptember @, =..= of the %ourt of ppeals

in %3K!-! %L No! 6=(.9 are AA"-8>"N T7T7! %osts against the petitioner

1. ?em+ vs 'ers o5 $r+

#+-s%%ynthia Phemani here is the registered owner of )ot 1.# which was purchased from ?ose

ena! 2owever, heirs of nastacio Trinidad herein are claiming ownership and allege that

their predecessors in interest have openly, publicly, peacefully and adversely possessedsaid subject land in the concept of an owner since 19@.

efore all of these controversies arose, it must be noted that the land in dispute has

already been decided upon in a previous case which involved ?ose ena! )ot No!


13/14

1.#constituted a part of )ot (@@ before! $uch land :)ot (@@ inclusive of )ot No! 1.#;

was sold to ?ose ena! ena requested the o) :ureauof )ands; to adjust the area of the

lot awarded to him but the o) denied such request since it stated that it belonged to thegovernment!

7 The 7ffice of the resident however decided and held that theentire area of )ot (@@belonged to ena and not to the government!

7 endo'a :another third party; filed a special action for certiorati claiming that he wasdenied due process when the 7ffice of the resident decided to award the lot to ena! 2e

asserted ownership over them on the strength of a iscellaneous $ales pplication!

7 This case was elevated to the $upreme %ourt which was decided upon in favor of ena!

t present, despite the decision over )ot 1.# in the past wereproclaimed, the heirs of

Trinidad are now claimingownership over said lot and state that the have beenpossessing

it since 19@. They further claim that they applied for a iscellaneous $ales pplication over

the land which was approved by the o)!

The heirs of ena motioned to dismiss the case alleging that thepredecessors in interest

were mere Binformal settlersB who had been allowed by endo'a :the former adverseclaimant to the land; to occupy it and that since there was already a decision in the

previous case, that this was res judicata!

"n their answer, respondents claim that they are not barred since they were not parties to

the case and there is no identity of causes of action! The -T% denied the motion to

dismiss! They filed a petition for certiorari to the % which held that certiorariis not theproper remedy and that there is no re judicata!

"ssue

:1; 5hether or not a petition for certiorari under -ule 6@ was the proper remedy inassailing the order of the -T% in denying the motion to dismiss!

:=; 5hether or not there is res judicata

'e3%The filing of petition for certiorari is proper! "t has been settled that an order denying a

motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates nor disposes a case!

s such, the general rule is that an order denying a motion to dismiss cannot bequestioned in a certiorari case!

7 ut there are e/ceptions to this general rule! "t is allowed when the ground is

improper venue, lac* of jurisdiction or res judicata as in the case at bar

There is no res judicata in this case since there is no identity of parties and causes of

action! -es ?udicata literally means a thing judicially acted upon or decided< a thingsettled by judgment! "t is said that there is res judicata when the ff! requisites concur


14/14

7 Aormer judgment is final

7 "t is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties

7 "t is a judgment or an order on the merits

7 There is between the first and the second actionsidentity of parties, subject matter and causes of action!

Q

The cause of action in the first case was the alleged grave abuse of discretion of the7ffice of the resident in awarding the lands to ena and in the second, the basis is on

their adverse possession of the land in the concept of an owner for over 4. years and the

alleged fraudulent issuance of a patent and certificate of title to ena!

7 The parties in the two cases have their own rights and interests in relation to the subjectmatter in litigation!

Q

ccording to >1@=9, a person deprived of his land through actual fraud may institute

an action to reopen or review a decree of registration within one year from entry of suchdecree!

"n this case, the patent was issued in favor of ena on $ept=., 199( and the filing for

review of decree was instituted on ?anuary =#, 1994 or well within the prescribed one

year period!7 lso, under the petitioners name in the title, a Notice of )is endens, it cannot be said

that petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value as well aware of respondents claim over

the property!

7 8ven if they filed it after = year, they may still file an action based on an implied trust

which prescribes in ten years from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over

the property!

Cnder the circumstances, it would be more in *eeping with the standard of fairness to

have a full blown trial where the evidentiary matters are thrashed out

14. Ros+ro vs CA

Case Digests for Trust

Documents

Transcript of Case Digests for Trust