It seeks to remove the temptation that might arise out of ones relation to serve anothers interest forhis own benefit. Here, while the legal title of Guillermo is not questioned, it must be deemed as to inure to the benefit of the estate of Melecio Severino, as the cestui que vie with superior equitable right. It must be noted that the property shall inure to the ESTATES benefit and not to the daughter who brought the action since it is the estate who will apportion all the claims. Moreover, the legitimacy of Fabiola as a natural child is also being questionedIt seeks to remove the temptation that might arise out of ones relation to serve anothers interest forhis own benefit. Here, while the legal title of Guillermo is not questioned, it must be deemed as to inure to the benefit of the estate of Melecio Severino, as the cestui que vie with superior equitable right. It must be noted that the property shall inure to the ESTATES benefit and not to the daughter who brought the action since it is the estate who will apportion all the claims. Moreover, the legitimacy of Fabiola as a natural child is also being questionedIt seeks to remove the temptation that might arise out of ones relation to serve anothers interest forhis own benefit. Here, while the legal title of Guillermo is not questioned, it must be deemed as to inure to the benefit of the estate of Melecio Severino, as the cestui que vie with superior equitable right. It must be noted that the property shall inure to the ESTATES benefit and not to the daughter who brought the action since it is the estate who will apportion all the claims. Moreover, the legitimacy of Fabiola as a natural child is also being questioned