Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

G.R. NO. 159666 PEDRANO VS PEDRANO Facts: Lot No. 6416 was previously owned by Dr.

Isidro Hynson who sold it on March 15, 1965 to Romana Monteal Pedrano, for PhP 315.02. Romana was married to Benedicto Pedrano who passed away on August 19, 1967. Fourteen years later, petitioner Eulogio M. Pedrano, a son of Romana, alleged that he had bought the land himself for PhP 30,000 from Romana, payable on or before December 31, 1982 as shown in the Deed of Sale dated December 22, 1981. Since Lot No. 6416 and another lot, Lot No. 6409, were yet untitled, these became subject of Cadastral Case No. N-4, LRC Cad. Rec. No. N-64, for titling. Alleging that petitioner had not paid the PhP 30,000 consideration for Lot No. 6416 until the December 31, 1982 deadline, as stipulated in the December 22, 1981 Deed of Sale, respondents filed a case asking for the annulment of the December 22, 1981 Deed of Sale, and the recovery of the possession and ownership of Lot No. 6416, with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order and damages. According to respondents, Romana informed petitioner that the former was canceling the sale and petitioner should have Dr. Hynsons name in the title replaced with her name. Respondents added that despite the cancellation of the deed of sale, Romana allowed petitioner to occupy the house on Lot No. 6416. Further, respondents averred they were unaware that petitioner instituted a cadastral case to have the land titled to himself. They discovered his machinations only in 1994. Thus, respondents instituted the instant case to have the December 22, 1981 Deed of Sale voided for want of consideration and for fraud. The Trial Court ruled that prescription of the cause of action to annul the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale has already set in, the complaint in the above-entitled case is ordered dismissed. The RTC said that it could no longer annul the sale reasoning that Article 1144[6] of the Civil Code provided for 10 years within which to bring action from the time the right of action accrues upon a written contract. Hence, it concluded that since the deed of sale was executed on December 22, 1981, and the instant action was filed only on September 5, 1996, after more than 14 years, prescription had set in. The CA reversed the ruling of RTC and stated that Art. 1144 of the Civil Code was erroneously applied by the RTC. The CA explained that the instant case involves an implied trust, and that Art. 1456 of the Civil Code was the applicable law. Issue: W/O prescription had set in. Held: An action for the reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust, as we have already explained in this case, prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title of the property; however, where no OCT has yet been issued despite an order from the court to title the lots, the date from whence the prescriptive period could be reckoned is unknown and it could not be determined if indeed the period had already lapsed or not. Thus, we agree with the CA that prescription has not yet set in.

ESTATE OF EDWARD MILLER GRIMM vs. ESTATE OF CHARLES PARSONS Facts: Grimm and Parsons are 2 0f the 3 original partners of G P and company. Both of them own shares on MGCC. Later on Grimm desires to assign his playing rights to Yoshida and to make it possible Grimm needs to transfer some of his shares to Parsons and make

Yoshida an assignee of the company. But after the transfer but before they were able to inform the MGCC about the company the MGCC board accommodated Yoshida even not being an assignee, by then Parson wrote a letter to MGCC that the name of the shares to be retained in his name but he recognizes Grimm as the real owner, but on the other hand Grimm also emphasizes that he is still the original owner. But on the demise of Grimm the Partnership was continued by the Parsons and the other partner and adding up the sons of Parsons. And time came when Parsons also died. The issues arise when the Estate of Grimm is claiming back the shares and transfer it to their name. But the Estate of Parsons claimed that it was theirs and it was entrusted to the G P and company as beneficiary of Parson, where by this time the Grimm is not already a part owner as part of dissolution of the old Partnership. The CA also decided in favor of the Parsons because the estate Grimm failed to present evidence to prove that Grimm really bought the property in question. Issue: Who is the real owner? Ruling: Trust is the legal relationship between one having an equitable ownership in property and another person owning the legal title to such property, the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain powers by the latter. Trust relations between parties may be express, as when the trust is created by the intention of the trustor. An express trust is created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed or by words evidencing an intention to create a trust; the use of the word trust is not required or essential to its constitution, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended. Implied trust comes into existence by operation of law, either through implication of an intention to create a trust as a matter of law or through the imposition of the trust irrespective of, and even contrary to any such intention. Judging from their documented acts immediately before and subsequent to the actual transfer on September 7, 1964 of MC No. 590, Parsons, as transferee, and Grimm, as transferor, indubitably contemplated a trust arrangement. And lest it be overlooked, Parsons had previously acknowledged Grimm to be the owner of MC No. 1088, after his earlier repeated declarations that the transfer of the replaced MC No. 580 was temporary. Parsons was thus in contextually in estoppel to deny, thru the Letter of Trust aforementioned, hypothetically assuming its authenticity, Grimms ownership of the replacement certificate.

VDA DE CABRERA VS CA Facts: On January 16, 1950, a Deed of Sale was executed by Daniel Teokemian and Albertana Teokemian in favor of Andres Orais over a parcel of unregistered land situated at Abejod, Cateel, Davao Oriental with an area described as 7.3720 hectares. The property was owned in common by Daniel and Albertana and their sister Felicidad Teokemian, having inherited the same from their late father, Domingo Teokemian. However, the Deed of Sale was not signed by Felicidad, although her name was printed therein as one of the vendors. On January 26, 1950, the parcel of land was surveyed in the name of Virgilia Orais, daughter of the vendee Andres Orais. On July 27, 1972, Albertana Teokemian executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying to Elano Cabrera, husband of Felicidad Cabrera, ONE HALF PORTION OF LOT NO. 2239, Cad287, eastern portion, containing an area of FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TEN (55,510) SQUARE METERS, more or less, which portion supposedly corresponded to the one-third share in Lot 2239 of Felicidad Teokemian who was not a party to the Deed of

Sale earlier executed by her brother and sister in favor of Andres Orais, Virgilia Orais predecessor-in-interest. In 1974 and 1978, Virgilia Orais brothers, Rodolfo and Jimmy Orais went to Cateel, Davao Oriental and confronted the Cabreras of the latters alleged encroachment and illegal occupation of their sisters land, but no concrete action on the matter was pursued by Virgilia Orais until February 11, 1988 when she filed Civil Case No. 379 against Felicidad Cabrera, now a widow, and her daughter Marykane Cabrera for Quieting of Title to Real Property, Damages with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. Issue: W/N vda de Cabrera have right for reconveyance of the subject property arising from an implied trust. Held: The right of the defendants for reconveyance of the subject property arising from an implied trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code is material to the instant case, such remedy has not yet lapsed, as erroneously submitted by the plaintiffs, and, is thus, a bar to the plaintiffs action. However, this rule applies only when the plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property, since if a person claiming to be the owner thereof is in actual possession of the property, as the defendant is in the instant case, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe. The defendant Felicidad Teokemian, and thereafter, the Cabreras, were in actual possession of the property since it was left to Felicidad Teokemian by her father in 1941, which possession had not been interrupted, despite the sale of the two-third portion thereof to the plaintiff in 1950, and the latters procurement of a Certificate of Title over the subject property in 1957. Until the institution of the present action in 1988, plaintiffs, likewise, have not displayed any unequivocal act of repudiation, which could be considered as an assertion of adverse interest from the defendants, which satisfies the above-quoted requisites. Thus, it cannot be argued that the right of reconveyance on the part of the defendants, and its use as defense in the present suit, has been lost by prescription.

TIGNO V CA Facts: Sometime in January, 1980, Bienvenido Sison, Remedios Sison and their heirs appointed Dominador Cruz as agent to sell three (3) parcels of land adjoining each other located at Padilla St., Lingayen, Pangasinan. Rodolfo Tigno learned that the above described properties were for sale. Accordingly, he approached Cruz and told the latter to offer these parcels of land to his brother, Eduardo Tigno, herein appellant. Pursuant thereto, Cruz and Rodolfo Tigno went to appellant's Makati office to convince the latter to buy the properties earlier described. Appellant agreed to buy them and it was agreed that each parcel of land would cost Ten Thousand Pesos. The appropriate deeds of sale were prepared by Atty. Manuel and signed by Bienvenido Sison and his heirs. In all these deeds of sale, Rodolfo Tigno was named as "vendee" pursuant to the verbal instruction of herein appellant so that his brother Rodolfo Tigno, who was then jobless, could have a source of income as a caretaker of the fishponds; that plaintiff and Rodolfo agreed that the latter would secure a loan from the Philippine National Bank at Lingayen using said lands as collateral; that considering the busy schedule of plaintiff, then as executive vice-president of an American firm based in Makati, Metro Manila, it was made to appear in the deeds of sale that Rodolfo M. Tigno was the

vendee so that the latter could, as he actually did, secure a loan from the PNB without need of plaintiff's signature and personal presence, the loan proceeds to be used as seed capital for the fishponds; that there being trust and confidence as brothers between plaintiff and defendant. Cruz, the agent in the sale, signed in these three (3) deeds of sale as a witness. On May 16, 1989, appellant learned that Rodolfo Tigno is "negotiating" a portion of his land to the Casipits. Appellant then sent a letter to the Casipits advising them to desist from the intended sale, not knowing that the sale was already consummated as early as April 29, 1989. On May 24, 1989, the plaintiff filed a case for "Reconveyance, Annulment of Document, Recovery of Possession and Damages" against Rodolfo M. Tigno and defendant spouses Edualino Casipit and Avelina Estrada. Issue: Whether the evidence on record proves the existence of an implied trust between Rodolfo Tigno and Eduardo Tigno. Held: An implied trust arises where a person purchases land with his own money and takes conveyance thereof in the name of another. In such a case, the property is held on resulting trust in favor of the one furnishing the consideration for the transfer. From the foregoing, it is clear that the name of Rodolfo Tigno appeared in the deeds of sale not for the purpose of transferring ownership to him but only to enable him to hold the property in trust for his brother, Eduardo. Declaring the Deed of Sale executed by Rodolfo M. Tigno in favor of spouses Edualino Casipit and Avelina Estrada as null and void and of no effect.

DUQUE VS DOMINGO Facts: The complaint alleged that plaintiff, Julia Duque, is a niece of Juana Duque who died in 1928. Juana Duque, through her other nephew, Faustino Duque, whom she had employed as her agent, purchased from the government Lot 1083 of the Malinta Estate at Polo, Bulacan. Faustino Duque, the agent, caused the document of purchase, to be issued by the government in his name with the consent of his principal, Juana Duque. On June 22, 1915, Faustino Duque transferred his Sale Certificate No. 1138 with the permission of Juana Duque to his brother, Mariano Duque, who later received in 1931 Transfer Certificate No. 7501 for Lot 1083 from the government; it was alleged that since then, Juana Duque had been in the exclusive possession of Lot 1083 as owner paying the installments stipulated in the contract to the government through Faustino Duque and Mariano Duque or reimbursing their advances therefor; that in 1927, Juana Duque verbally donated and delivered Lot 1083 to plaintiff Julia Duque, her niece; that from then on up to the present, the plaintiff Julia Duque has been the exclusive and the beneficial owner thereof. However, when Mariano Duque, the title holder, died and in 1957, his children, Emilio Duque, Potenciana Duque, Amadeo Duque and Arsenic Duque registered Lot 1083 in their names in the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan. Then the plaintiff, Julia Duque, requested the defendants to reconvey to her the title of Lot 1083 but they refused to comply with her request. Issue: W/N there was implied trust between Juana Duque and either Faustino Duque or Mariano Duque? Held: No implied trust between Juana Duque and either Faustino Duque or Mariano Duque

has been established by sufficient evidence. The alleged possession by the private respondents of the land in question did not divest the petitioners, as registered owners, of their rights to Lot 1083. Adverse possession under claim of ownership for the period fixed by law is ineffective against a Torrens title. There is no adequate showing that Mariano Duque consented in 1927 to a verbal partition made by Juana Duque wherein she gave the property in question, Lot 1083, to Julia Duque. On the contrary, in 1931, after full payment of the purchase price, Mariano Duque obtained in his name Transfer Certificate of Title for Lot 1083 from the government. The alleged oral donation by Juana Duque in favor of Julia Duque did not transfer any right over Lot 1083 to the donee. Both under the Spanish Civil Code and the Civil Code of the Philippines, a donation of an immovable, to be valid must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy. At any rate, granting, that such an implied or constructive trust existed, the right of action upon the same has prescribed. From 1931 when Transfer Certificate of Title covering the land in question was issued to Mariano Duque until 1966 when the present case was commenced a period of 35 years had passed.