Compilation of Trust Cases

8/10/2019 Compilation of Trust Cases

1/106

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme CourtManila

THIRD DIVISION

SOLEDD C!E"O# substitute$ b% &ILLIMC!E"O an$ VICTORINO C!E"O

Petitioners#

' (ersus '

CONCEPCION RO)S#Respon$ent*

+*R* No* ,-./..

Present0

1NRES'SNTI+O# )*#

Chairperson# 2STRI'MRTINE"# CHICO'N"RIO# NCH2R# an$ RE1ES# ))*

Promul3ate$0

No(ember 45# 466/

7'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''7

D E C I S I O N

NCH2R# )*0

This is a petition for re(ie8 on certiorari from the Decision9,: of the Court ofppeals# $ate$ September /# 4666# in C'+*R* SP No* ;545e?o file$ a Complaint94: for the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn1


2/106

reco(er% of real propert% plus $ama3es 8ith the Municipal Trial Court @MTCA of Na(al#

Biliran# a3ainst her fathers secon$ 8ife# respon$ent Concepcion Roas* The subect

propert% is an unre3istere$ lan$ 8ith an area of -#,e?o attache$ to the complaint a )oint ffi$a(it95:

e7ecute$ on Ma% ,6# ,=/= b% Isi$ro Catan$ian an$ Ma7imina Ca>e?o attestin3 to heracuisition of the propert%*

In her complaint# the petitioner alle3e$ that she bou3ht the parcel of lan$ in ,=5=

from Criso3ono Limpia$o# althou3h the transaction 8as not re$uce$ into 8ritin3*

Thereafter# she imme$iatel% tooF possession of the propert%* &hen she an$ her husban$

left for Min$anao in ,=-.# she entruste$ the sai$ lan$ to her father# Crispulo 9-:Roas#

8ho tooF possession of# an$ culti(ate$# the propert%* In ,=.6# she foun$ out that the

respon$ent# her stepmother# 8as in possession of the propert% an$ 8as culti(atin3 thesame* She also $isco(ere$ that the ta7 $eclaration o(er the propert% 8as alrea$% in the

name of Crispulo Roas*9;:

In her ns8er# the respon$ent asserte$ that# contrar% to the petitioners claim# it

8as her husban$# Crispulo Roas# 8ho bou3ht the propert% from Criso3ono Limpia$o in

,=-.# 8hich accounts for the ta7 $eclaration bein3 in Crispulos name* Grom then on#

until his $eath in ,=/.# Crispulo possesse$ an$ culti(ate$ the propert%* 2pon his $eath#

the propert% 8as inclu$e$ in his estate# 8hich 8as a$ministere$ b% a speciala$ministrator# Bien(eni$o Ricafort* The petitioner# as heir# e(en recei(e$ her share in the

pro$uce of the estate* The respon$ent further conten$e$ that the petitioner ou3ht to ha(e

implea$e$ all of the heirs as $efen$ants* She also ar3ue$ that the fact that petitioner file$

the complaint onl% in ,==/ means that she ha$ alrea$% aban$one$ her ri3ht o(er the

propert%*9e?o an$a3ainst $efen$ant Concepcion Roas b% $eclarin3 plaintiff the true an$la8ful o8ner of the lan$ more particularl% $escribe$ un$er para3raph ; ofthe complaint an$ hereb% or$ers $efen$ant Concepcion Roas0
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn6


3/106

aA To (acate an$ surren$er possession of the lan$

toplaintiff

bA To pa% plaintiff the sum of P5-#666*66 actual

$ama3es# P,6#666*66 for attorne%s feesan$ liti3ation e7penses an$cA To pa% the costs*

SO ORDERED*9/:

Despite the respon$ents obection that the (erbal sale cannot be pro(en 8ithout

infrin3in3 the Statute of Grau$s# the MTC 3a(e cre$ence to the testimon% of the

petitioners t8o 8itnesses attestin3 to the fact that Criso3ono Limpia$o sol$ the propert%

to the petitioner in ,=5=* The MTC also foun$ no e(i$ence to sho8 that Crispulo Roasbou3ht the propert% from Criso3ono Limpia$o in ,=-.* It hel$ that the ,=-. ta7

$eclaration in Crispulos name ha$ little si3nificance on respon$ents claim# consi$erin3

that in ,=-.# the countr% 8as then rehabilitatin3 itself from the ra(a3es of the Secon$

&orl$ &arJ an$ the 3o(ernment 8as more intereste$ in the increase in ta7 collection

than the obser(ance of the niceties of la8*J9.:

The respon$ent appeale$ the case to the Re3ional Trial Court @RTCA of Na(al#

Biliran* On October ,4# ,==.# the RTC re(erse$ the MTC $ecision on the 3roun$ that theaction ha$ alrea$% prescribe$ an$ acuisiti(e prescription ha$ set in* The $ispositi(e

portion of the Decision rea$s0

&HEREGORE# premises consi$ere$# the $ecision of the Municipal

Trial Court of Na(al# Biliran a8ar$in3 o8nership of the $ispute$ lan$ tothe plaintiff an$ further allo8in3 reco(er% of $ama3es is hereb%REVERSED in toto* There is no a8ar$ of $ama3es*

The sai$ propert% remains as the le3itime of the $efen$ant

Concepcion Roas an$ her chil$ren*SO ORDERED*9=:

Ho8e(er# actin3 on petitioners motion for reconsi$eration# the RTC amen$e$ its

ori3inal $ecision on December ,-# ,==.*9,6: This time# it hel$ that the action ha$ not
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn10


4/106

%et prescribe$ consi$erin3 that the petitioner merel% entruste$ the propert% to her father*

The ten'%ear prescripti(e perio$ for the reco(er% of a propert% hel$ in trust 8oul$

commence to run onl% from the time the trustee repu$iates the trust* The RTC foun$ no

e(i$ence on recor$ sho8in3 that Crispulo Roas e(er ouste$ the petitioner from the

propert%* The $ispositi(e portion of the amen$e$ $ecision rea$s as follo8s0

&HEREGORE# in (ie8 of the fore3oin3 consi$erations# the$ecision of this Court $ate$ October ,4# ,==. is hereb% set asi$e an$another is hereb% entere$ mo$if%in3 the $ecision of the Court a uo an$$eclarin3 Sole$a$ Roas V$a* De Ca>e?o as the true an$ la8ful o8ner of aparcel of lan$# more particularl% $escribe$ an$ boun$e$ as follo8s0

parcel of lan$ situate$ at Hi3atan3an# Na(al#Biliran# boun$e$ on the North b% Policarpio Limpia$o on

the South b% Gi$el Limpia$o on the East b% Seashore an$on the &est b% Crispolo @sicA Limpia$o 8ith anappro7imate area of -#,e?o# Or$erin3 the $efen$ant'appellantConcepcion Roas to pa% the plaintiff'appellee the sum of P5-#666*66 inactual $ama3es# an$ to pa% for the loss of her share in mone% (alue of thepro$ucts of the coconuts of sai$ lan$ from ,=/= to ,==/ an$ to pa% furtheruntil the case is terminate$ at the rate ofP466*66 per uarter base$ on there3ular remittances of the late Crispolo Roas to the plaintiff'appellee# an$to pa% the costs*

SO ORDERED*9,,:

The respon$ent file$ a motion to reconsi$er the men$e$ Decision but the RTC

$enie$ the same in an Or$er $ate$ pril 4;# ,===*

She then file$ a petition for re(ie8 8ith the Court of ppeals @CA# 8hich
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn11


5/106

re(erse$ the men$e$ Decision of the RTC on September /# 4666# thus0

&HEREGORE# the amen$e$ $ecision $ate$ December ,-# ,==.ren$ere$ in Ci(il Case No* B',6-, is hereb% REVERSED an$ SETSIDE* The complaint file$ b% Sole$a$ Ca>e?obefore the Municipal Trial

Court of Na(al# Biliran is hereb% DISMISSED on 3roun$s of laches an$prescription an$ for lacF of merit*

SO ORDERED*9,4:

The C hel$ that the petitioners inaction for se(eral %ears casts a serious $oubt

on her claim of o8nership o(er the parcel of lan$* It note$ that ,/ %ears lapse$ since she

$isco(ere$ that respon$ent 8as in a$(erse possession of the propert% before she institute$

an action to reco(er the same* n$ $urin3 the probate procee$in3s# the petitioner $i$ not

e(en contest the inclusion of the propert% in the estate of Crispulo Roas* 9,5:

The C 8as con(ince$ that Crispulo Roas o8ne$ the propert%# ha(in3 bou3ht the

same from Criso3ono Limpia$o in ,=-.* Supportin3 this conclusion# the appellate court

cite$ the follo8in3 circumstances0 @,A the propert% 8as $eclare$ for ta7ation purposes in

Crispulos name an$ he ha$ been pa%in3 the ta7es thereon from ,=-. until his $eath in

,=/. @4A Crispulo a$(ersel% possesse$ the same propert% from ,=-. until his $eath in

,=/. an$ @5A upon his $eath in ,=/.# the propert% 8as inclu$e$ in his estate# the

procee$s of 8hich 8ere $istribute$ amon3 his heirs*9,-:

The C further hel$ that# assumin3 that there 8as an implie$ trust bet8een the

petitioner an$ her father o(er the propert%# her ri3ht of action to reco(er the same 8oul$

still be barre$ b% prescription since -= %ears ha$ alrea$% lapse$ since Crispulo a$(ersel%

possesse$ the conteste$ propert% in ,=-.*9,;:

On Ma% =# 466,# the C $enie$ the petitioners motion for reconsi$eration for

lacF of merit*9,


6/106

settin3 asi$e petitioners contention that the Petition for Re(ie8 file$ b%respon$ent CONCEPCION RO)S before the Court of ppeals 8asGILED O2T OG TIME

That the Court of ppeals erre$ an$ committe$ 3ra(e abuse of

$iscretion amountin3 to lacF or e7cess of uris$iction 8hen it $eci$e$ thatthe filin3 of the case b% SOLEDD C!E"O for Reco(er% of RealPropert% 8as alrea$% barre$ b% PRESCRIPTION ND LCHES*9,/:

The petitioner insists that the respon$ents petition for re(ie8 before the C 8as

file$ out of time* The petitioner posits that the C ma% not 3rant an a$$itional e7tension

of time to file the petition e7cept for the most compellin3 reason* She conten$s that the

fact that respon$ents counsel nee$e$ a$$itional time to secure the certifie$ cop% of his

anne7es cannot be consi$ere$ as a compellin3 reason that 8oul$ ustif% an a$$itional

perio$ of

e7tension* She a$mits# thou3h# that this issue 8as raise$ for the first time in their motion

for reconsi$eration# but insists that it can be raise$ at an% time since it concerns the

uris$iction of the C o(er the petition*

The petitioner further posits that prescription an$ laches are una(ailin3 because

there 8as an e7press trust relationship bet8een the petitioner an$ Crispulo Roas an$ his

heirs# an$ e7press trusts $o not prescribe* E(en assumin3 that it 8as not an e7press trust#

there 8as a resultin3 trust 8hich 3enerall% $oes not prescribe unless there is repu$iationb% the trustee*

Gor her part# the respon$ent ar3ues that the petitioners are no8 estoppe$ from

uestionin3 the C Resolution 3rantin3 her secon$ motion for e7tension to file the

petition for re(ie8* She notes that the petitioner $i$ not raise this issue in the comment

that she file$ in the C* In an% case# the 3rant of the secon$ e7tension of time 8as

8arrante$ consi$erin3 that the certifie$ true cop% of the assaile$ RTC or$ers $i$ not

arri(e at the office of respon$ents counsel in Cebu Cit% in time for the filin3 of the

petition*

On the merits# the respon$ent asserts that the complaint is barre$ b% prescription#

laches an$ estoppel* Grom ,=-. until his $eath in ,=/.# Crispulo culti(ate$ the propert%

an$ 8as in a$(erse# peaceful an$ continuous possession thereof in the concept of o8ner*
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn17


7/106

It tooF the petitioner -= %ears from ,=-. before she file$ the complaint for reco(er% of

the propert% in ,==/* +rantin3 that it 8as onl% in ,=.6 that she foun$ out that the

respon$ent a$(ersel% possesse$ the propert%# still petitioner allo8e$ ,/ %ears to elapse

before she asserte$ her alle3e$ ri3ht o(er the propert%*

Ginall%# the respon$ent maintains that the other co'o8ners are in$ispensable

parties to the case an$ because the% 8ere not implea$e$# the case shoul$ be $ismisse$*

The petition has no merit*

On the proce$ural issue raise$ b% the petitioner# 8e fin$ no re(ersible error in the

3rant b% the C of the secon$ motion for e7tension of time to file the respon$ents

petition* The 3rant or $enial of a motion for e7tension of time is a$$resse$ to the soun$$iscretion of the court*9,.: The C ob(iousl% consi$ere$ the $ifficult% in securin3 a

certifie$ true cop% of the assaile$ $ecision because of the $istance bet8een the office of

respon$ents counsel an$ the trial court as a compellin3 reason for the reuest* In the

absence of an% sho8in3 that the C 3rante$ the motion for e7tension capriciousl%# such

e7ercise of $iscretion 8ill not be $isturbe$ b% this Court*

On the secon$ issue# the petitioner insists that her ri3ht of action to reco(er the

propert% cannot be barre$ b% prescription or laches e(en 8ith the respon$ents

uninterrupte$ possession of the propert% for -= %ears because there e7iste$ bet8een heran$ her father an e7press trust or a resultin3 trust* In$ee$# if no trust relations e7iste$# the

possession of the propert% b% the respon$ent# throu3h her pre$ecessor# 8hich $ates bacF

to ,=-.# 8oul$ alrea$% ha(e 3i(en rise to acuisiti(e prescription in accor$ance 8ith ct

No* ,=6 @Co$e of Ci(il Proce$ureA*9,=: 2n$er Section -6 of ct No* ,=6# an action for

reco(er% of real propert%# or of an interest therein# can be brou3ht onl% 8ithin ten %ears

after the cause of action accrues* This perio$ coinci$es 8ith the ten'%ear perio$ for

acuisiti(e prescription pro(i$e$ un$er Section -,946: of the same ct*

Thus# the resolution of the secon$ issue hin3es on our $etermination of thee7istence of a trust o(er the propert% ''' e7press or implie$ ''' bet8een the petitioner an$

her father*

trust is the le3al relationship bet8een one person ha(in3 an euitable o8nership

of propert% an$ another person o8nin3 the le3al title to such propert%# the euitable
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn20


8/106

o8nership of the former entitlin3 him to the performance of certain $uties an$ the

e7ercise of certain po8ers b% the latter*94,: Trusts are either e7press or implie$*944:

E7press trusts are those 8hich are create$ b% the $irect an$ positi(e acts of the parties# b%

some 8ritin3 or $ee$# or 8ill# or b% 8or$s e(incin3 an intention to create a trust* 945:

Implie$ trusts are those 8hich# 8ithout bein3 e7presse$# are $e$ucible from the nature ofthe transaction as matters of intent or# in$epen$entl%# of the particular intention of the

parties# as bein3 superin$uce$ on the transaction b% operation of la8 basicall% b% reason

of euit%*94-: n implie$ trust ma% either be a resultin3 trust or a constructi(e trust*

It is true that in e7press trusts an$ resultin3 trusts# a trustee cannot acuire b%

prescription a propert% entruste$ to him unless he repu$iates the trust*94;:The follo8in3

$iscussion is instructi(e0

There is a rule that a trustee cannot acuire b% prescription theo8nership of propert% entruste$ to him# or that an action to compel atrustee to con(e% propert% re3istere$ in his name in trust for the benefit ofthe cestui ue trust $oes not prescribe# or that the $efense of prescriptioncannot be set up in an action to reco(er propert% hel$ b% a person in trustfor the benefit of another# or that propert% hel$ in trust can be reco(ere$ b%the beneficiar% re3ar$less of the lapse of time*

That rule applies suarel% to e7press trusts* The basis of the rule is

that the possession of a trustee is not a$(erse* Not bein3 a$(erse# he $oes

not acuire b% prescription the propert% hel$ in trust* Thus# Section 5. ofct ,=6 pro(i$es that the la8 of prescription $oes not appl% in the case ofa continuin3 an$ subsistin3 trust*

The rule of imprescriptibilit% of the action to reco(er propert% hel$

in trust ma% possibl% appl% to resultin3 trusts as lon3 as the trustee has notrepu$iate$ the trust*

7 7 7 7cuisiti(e prescription ma% bar the action of the beneficiar%

a3ainst the trustee in an e7press trust for the reco(er% of the propert% hel$in trust 8here @aA the trustee has performe$ uneui(ocal acts ofrepu$iation amountin3 to an ouster of the cestui ue trust @bA suchpositi(e acts of repu$iation ha(e been ma$e Fno8n to the cestui ue trust#an$ @cA the e(i$ence thereon is clear an$ conclusi(e*94


9/106

s a rule# ho8e(er# the bur$en of pro(in3 the e7istence of a trust is on the part%

assertin3 its e7istence# an$ such proof must be clear an$ satisfactoril% sho8 the e7istence

of the trust an$ its elements*94/: The presence of the follo8in3 elements must be

pro(e$0 @,A a trustor or settlor 8ho e7ecutes the instrument creatin3 the trust @4A a

trustee# 8ho is the person e7pressl% $esi3nate$ to carr% out the trust @5A the trust res#consistin3 of $ul% i$entifie$ an$ $efinite real properties an$ @-A the cestui ue trust# or

beneficiaries 8hose i$entit% must be clear*94.: ccor$in3l%# it 8as incumbent upon

petitioner to pro(e the e7istence of the trust relationship* n$ petitioner sa$l% faile$ to

$ischar3e that bur$en*

The e7istence of e7press trusts concernin3 real propert% ma% not be establishe$ b%

parol e(i$ence*94=: It must be pro(en b% some 8ritin3 or $ee$* In this case# the onl%

e(i$ence to support the claim that an e7press trust e7iste$ bet8een the petitioner an$ herfather 8as the self'ser(in3 testimon% of the petitioner* Bare alle3ations $o not constitute

e(i$ence a$euate to support a conclusion* The% are not eui(alent to proof un$er the

Rules of Court*956:

In one case# the Court allo8e$ oral testimon% to pro(e the e7istence of a trust#

8hich ha$ been partiall% performe$* It 8as stresse$ therein that 8hat is important is that

there shoul$ be an intention to create a trust# thus0

&hat is crucial is the intention to create a trust* &hile oftentimes theintention is manifeste$ b% the trustor in e7press or e7plicit lan3ua3e# suchintention ma% be manifeste$ b% inference from 8hat the trustor has sai$ or$one# from the nature of the transaction# or from the circumstancessurroun$in3 the creation of the purporte$ trust*

Ho8e(er# an inference of the intention to create a trust# ma$e from

lan3ua3e# con$uct or circumstances# must be ma$e 8ith reasonablecertaint%* It cannot rest on (a3ue# uncertain or in$efinite $eclarations* ninference of intention to create a trust# pre$icate$ onl% on circumstances#

can be ma$e onl% 8here the% a$mit of no other interpretation*95,:

lthou3h no particular 8or$s are reuire$ for the creation of an e7press trust# a

clear intention to create a trust must be sho8n an$ the proof of fi$uciar% relationship

must be clear an$ con(incin3* The creation of an e7press trust must be manifeste$ 8ith
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn31


10/106

reasonable certaint% an$ cannot be inferre$ from loose an$ (a3ue $eclarations or from

ambi3uous circumstances susceptible of other interpretations*954:

In the case at bench# an intention to create a trust cannot be inferre$ from the

petitioners testimon% an$ the atten$ant facts an$ circumstances* The petitioner testifie$onl% to the effect that her a3reement 8ith her father 8as that she 8ill be 3i(en a share in

the pro$uce of the propert%# thus0

0 &hat 8as %our a3reement 8ith %our father Crispulo Roas8hen %ou left this propert% to him

0 E(er% time that the% 8ill maFe copra# the% 8ill 3i(e a share*0 In 8hat particular part in Min$anao 9$i$: %ou sta% 8ith %our

husban$0 Bansalan# Da(ao $el Sur*0 n$ 8hile %ou 8ere in Bansalan# Da(ao $el Sur# $i$ Crispolo

Roas compl% 8ith his obli3ation of 3i(in3 %our share the procee$s of thelan$

0 &hen he 8as still ali(e# he 3a(e us e(er% three monthssometimes P466*66 an$ sometimes P566*66*955:

This alle3ation# stan$in3 alone as it $oes# is ina$euate to establish the e7istence of a trust

because profit'sharin3 per se# $oes not necessaril% translate to a trust relation* It coul$also be present in other relations# such as in $eposit*

&hat $istin3uishes a trust from other relations is the separation of the le3al title

an$ euitable o8nership of the propert%* In a trust relation# le3al title is (este$ in the

fi$uciar% 8hile euitable o8nership is (este$ in a cestui ue trust* Such is not true in this

case* The petitioner alle3e$ in her complaint that the ta7 $eclaration of the lan$ 8as

transferre$ to the name of Crispulo 8ithout her consent* Ha$ it been her intention to

create a trust an$ maFe Crispulo her trustee# she 8oul$ not ha(e ma$e an issue out of this

because in a trust a3reement# le3al title is (este$ in the trustee* The trustee 8oul$necessaril% ha(e the ri3ht to transfer the ta7 $eclaration in his name an$ to pa% the ta7es

on the propert%* These acts 8oul$ be treate$ as beneficial to the cestui ue trust an$

8oul$ not amount to an a$(erse possession*95-:

Neither can it be $e$uce$ from the circumstances of the case that a resultin3 trust
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn34


11/106

8as create$* resultin3 trust is a species of implie$ trust that is presume$ al8a%s to ha(e

been contemplate$ b% the parties# the intention as to 8hich can be foun$ in the nature of

their transaction althou3h not e7presse$ in a $ee$ or instrument of con(e%ance*

resultin3 trust is base$ on the euitable $octrine that it is the more (aluable consi$eration

than the le3al title that $etermines the euitable interest in propert%*95;:

&hile implie$ trusts ma% be pro(e$ b% oral e(i$ence# the e(i$ence must be

trust8orth% an$ recei(e$ b% the courts 8ith e7treme caution# an$ shoul$ not be ma$e to

rest on loose# eui(ocal or in$efinite $eclarations* Trust8orth% e(i$ence is reuire$

because oral e(i$ence can easil% be fabricate$*95


12/106

,=/.* trust terminates upon the $eath of the trustee 8here the trust is personal to the

trustee in the sense that the trustor inten$e$ no other person to a$minister it*9-,: If

Crispulo 8as in$ee$ appointe$ as trustee of the propert%# it cannot be sai$ that such

appointment 8as inten$e$ to be con(e%e$ to the respon$ent or an% of Crispulos other

heirs* Hence# after Crispulos $eath# the respon$ent ha$ no ri3ht to retain possession ofthe propert%* t such point# a constructi(e trust 8oul$ be create$ o(er the propert% b%

operation of la8* &here one mistaFenl% retains propert% 8hich ri3htfull% belon3s to

another# a constructi(e trust is the proper reme$ial $e(ice to correct the situation*9-4:

constructi(e trust is one create$ not b% an% 8or$ or phrase# either e7pressl% or

implie$l%# e(incin3 a $irect intention to create a trust# but one 8hich arises in or$er to

satisf% the $eman$s of ustice* It $oes not come about b% a3reement or intention but in the

main b% operation of la8# construe$ a3ainst one 8ho# b% frau$# $uress or abuse ofconfi$ence# obtains or hol$s the le3al ri3ht to propert% 8hich he ou3ht not# in euit% an$

3oo$ conscience# to hol$*9-5:

s pre(iousl% state$# the rule that a trustee cannot# b% prescription# acuire

o8nership o(er propert% entruste$ to him until an$ unless he repu$iates the trust# applies

to e7press trusts an$ resultin3 implie$ trusts* Ho8e(er# in constructi(e implie$ trusts#

prescription ma% super(ene e(en if the trustee $oes not repu$iate the relationship*

Necessaril%# repu$iation of the sai$ trust is not a con$ition prece$ent to the runnin3 of the

prescripti(e perio$*9--: constructi(e trust# unliFe an e7press trust# $oes not emanatefrom# or 3enerate a fi$uciar% relation* &hile in an e7press trust# a beneficiar% an$ a

trustee are linFe$ b% confi$ential or fi$uciar% relations# in a constructi(e trust# there is

neither a promise nor an% fi$uciar% relation to speaF of an$ the so'calle$ trustee neither

accepts an% trust nor inten$s hol$in3 the propert% for the beneficiar%*9-;:The relation of

trustee an$ cestui ue trust $oes not in fact e7ist# an$ the hol$in3 of a constructi(e trust is

for the trustee himself# an$ therefore# at all times a$(erse*

In a$$ition# a number of other factors militate a3ainst the petitioners case* Girst#the petitioner is estoppe$ from assertin3 o8nership o(er the subect propert% b% her

failure to protest its inclusion in the estate of Crispulo* The C# thus# correctl% obser(e$

that0

E(en in the probate procee$in3s institute$ b% the heirs of Crispulo
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/148788.htm#_ftn45


13/106

Roas# 8hich inclu$e$ her as a $au3hter of the first marria3e# Ca>e?one(er conteste$ the inclusion of the conteste$ propert% in the estate of herfather* She e(en participate$ in the proect of partition of her fathersestate 8hich 8as appro(e$ b% the probate court in ,=.-* fter personall%recei(in3 her share in the procee$s of the estate for ,4 %ears# she su$$enl%

claims o8nership of part of her fathers estate in ,==/*

The principle of estoppel in pais applies 8hen '' b% ones acts# representations#

a$missions# or silence 8hen there is a nee$ to speaF out '' one# intentionall% or throu3h

culpable ne3li3ence# in$uces another to belie(e certain facts to e7ist an$ the latter

ri3htfull% relies an$ acts on such belief# so as to be preu$ice$ if the former is permitte$

to $en% the e7istence of those facts*9-


14/106

SO ORDERED*

+*R* No* =/==; )anuar% 4,# ,==5

PHILIPPINE NTIONL BN# petitioner#(s*CO2RT OG PPELS ND B*P* MT ND CO*# INC*# respon$ents*

Rolan$ * Nie$o for petitioner*

Benamin C* Santos La8 Office for respon$ent*

ROMERO# )*0

Rarel% is this Court confronte$ 8ith a case callin3 for the $elineation in broa$ stroFes ofthe $istinctions bet8een such closel% allie$ concepts as the uasi'contract calle$ solutio

in$ebiti un$er the (enerable Spanish Ci(il Co$e an$ the species of implie$ trust$enominate$ constructi(e trusts# commonl% re3ar$e$ as of n3lo'merican ori3in*Such a case is the one presente$ to us no8 8hich has hi3hli3hte$ more of the affinit% an$less of the $issimilarit% bet8een the t8o concepts as to lea$ the le3al scholar into theerror of interchan3in3 the t8o* Presente$ belo8 are the factual circumstances that brou3htinto u7taposition the t8in institutions of the Ci(il La8 uasi'contract an$ the n3lo'merican trust*


15/106

Pri(ate Respon$ent B*P* Mata Co* Inc* @MataA# is a pri(ate corporation en3a3e$ inpro(i$in3 3oo$s an$ ser(ices to shippin3 companies* Since ,=


16/106

In affirmin3 the lo8er court# the appellate court a$$e$ in its opinion that un$er rticle4,;- on solutio in$ebiti# the person 8ho maFes the pa%ment is the one 8ho commits themistaFe (is'a'(is the recipient 8ho is una8are of such a mistaFe* 5 Conseuentl%#

recipient is $ut% boun$ to return the amount pai$ b% mistaFe* But the appellate courtconclu$e$ that petitionerQs $eman$ for the return of 2S,-#666 cannot prosper becauseits cause of action ha$ alrea$% prescribe$ un$er rticle ,,-;# para3raph 4 of the Ci(ilCo$e 8hich states0

The follo8in3 actions must be commence$ 8ithin si7 %ears0

777 777 777

@4A 2pon a uasi'contract*

This is because petitionerQs complaint 8as file$ onl% on Gebruar% -# ,=.4# almostse(en %ears after March ,,# ,=/; 8hen petitioner mistaFenl% ma$e pa%ment topri(ate respon$ent*

Hence# the instant petition for certiorari procee$in3 seeFin3 to annul the $ecision of theappellate court on the basis that MataQs obli3ation to return 2S,-#666 is 3o(erne$# in thealternati(e# b% either rticle ,-;< on constructi(e trust or rticle 4,;- of the Ci(il Co$eon uasi'contract* -

rticle ,-;< of the Ci(il Co$e pro(i$es0

If propert% is acuire$ throu3h mistaFe or frau$# the person obtainin3 it is# b%force of la8# consi$ere$ a trustee of an implie$ trust for the benefit of the personfrom 8hom the propert% comes*

On the other han$# rticle 4,;- states0

If somethin3 is recei(e$ 8hen there is no ri3ht to $eman$ it# an$ it 8as un$ul%$eli(ere$ throu3h mistaFe# the obli3ation to return it arises*

Petitioner naturall% opts for an interpretation un$er constructi(e trust as its action file$ onGebruar% -# ,=.4 can still prosper# as it is 8ell 8ithin the prescripti(e perio$ of ten @,6A%ears as pro(i$e$ b% rticle ,,--# para3raph 4 of the Ci(il Co$e* ;

If it is to be construe$ as a case of pa%ment b% mistaFe or solutio in$ebiti# then theprescripti(e perio$ for uasi'contracts of si7 %ears applies# as pro(i$e$ b% rticle ,,-;*


17/106

s pointe$ out b% the appellate court# petitionerQs cause of action thereun$er shall ha(eprescribe$# ha(in3 been brou3ht almost se(en %ears after the cause of action accrue$*Ho8e(er# e(en assumin3 that the instant case constitutes a constructi(e trust an$prescription has not set in# the present action has alrea$% been barre$ b% laches*

To recall# trusts are either e7press or implie$* &hile e7press trusts are create$ b% theintention of the trustor or of the parties# implie$ trusts come into bein3 b% operation ofla8* < Implie$ trusts are those 8hich# 8ithout bein3 e7presse$# are $e$ucible from thenature of the transaction as matters of intent or 8hich are superin$uce$ on the transactionb% operation of la8 as matters of euit%# in$epen$entl% of the particular intention of theparties* /

In turn# implie$ trusts are sub$i(i$e$ into resultin3 an$ constructi(e trusts* . resultin3trust is a trust raise$ b% implication of la8 an$ presume$ al8a%s to ha(e been

contemplate$ b% the parties# the intention of 8hich is foun$ in the nature of thetransaction# but not e7presse$ in the $ee$ or instrument of con(e%ance* = E7amples ofresultin3 trusts are foun$ in rticles ,--. to ,-;; of the Ci(il Co$e* ,6 On the otherhan$# a constructi(e trust is one not create$ b% 8or$s either e7pressl% or implie$l%# but b%construction of euit% in or$er to satisf% the $eman$s of ustice* n e7ample of aconstructi(e trust is rticle ,-;< uote$ abo(e* ,,

$eeper anal%sis of rticle ,-;< re(eals that it is not a trust in the technical sense ,4 forin a t%pical trust# confi$ence is repose$ in one person 8ho is name$ a trustee for the

benefit of another 8ho is calle$ the cestui ue trust# respectin3 propert% 8hich is hel$ b%the trustee for the benefit of the cestui ue trust* ,5 constructi(e trust# unliFe an e7presstrust# $oes not emanate from# or 3enerate a fi$uciar% relation* &hile in an e7press trust# abeneficiar% an$ a trustee are linFe$ b% confi$ential or fi$uciar% relations# in aconstructi(e trust# there is neither a promise nor an% fi$uciar% relation to speaF of an$ theso'calle$ trustee neither accepts an% trust nor inten$s hol$in3 the propert% for thebeneficiar%* ,-

In the case at bar# Mata# in recei(in3 the 2S,-#666 in its account throu3h IB# ha$ no

intent of hol$in3 the same for a suppose$ beneficiar% or cestui ue trust# namel% PNB*But un$er rticle ,-;


18/106

Ori3inall%# un$er the Spanish Ci(il Co$e# there 8ere onl% t8o Fin$s of uasi contracts0ne3otiorum 3estio an$ solutio in$ebiti* But the Co$e Commission# min$ful of the positionof the eminent Spanish urist# Manresa# that the number of uasi contracts ma% bein$efinite# a$$e$ Section 5 entitle$ Other uasi'Contracts* ,;

Moreo(er# e(en as rticle 4,-4 of the Ci(il Co$e $efines a uasi'contract# the succee$in3article pro(i$es that0 The pro(isions for uasi'contracts in this Chapter $o not e7clu$eother uasi'contracts 8hich ma% come 8ithin the pur(ie8 of the prece$in3 article* ,

Compilation of Trust Cases

Documents

Transcript of Compilation of Trust Cases