[G.R. No. 127005. July 19, 1999] SPS. JOSE ROSARIO AND HERMINIA ROSARIO, petitioners, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, LOURDES VILLAHERMOSA, AIDA VILLAHERMOSA, RODULFO VILLAHERMOSA, NATIVIDAD V. CEBALLOS, AND JESUS VILLAHERMOSA, respondents. GONZAGA-REYES, J.: FACTS: Petitioner spouses Jose C. Rosario and Herminia Lariosa-Rosario filed an action for legal redemption with damages against Lourdes, Aida, Rodulfo, Natividad, and Jesus, all surnamed Villahermosa, respondents herein, alleging that Herminia is the registered owner of one-half undivided share of Lot No. 77-A, with Filomena Lariosa as the owner of the other onehalf share. According to petitioners, Filomena obtained a loan from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and had the said parcel of land mortgaged as guarantee for payment of such loan, with Herminia as a co-signer of the promissory note. Upon the death of Filomena, Herminia then settled the balance of Filomenas GSIS loan. Believing that she is the only heir of Filomena, Herminia began to possess the other half of the subject property until the respondents disturbed her peaceful possession by claiming the undivided one-half of the property on the basis of a deed of sale allegedly executed by Filomena in favor of their father, Emilio Villahermosa.Respondents insisted on taking possession of the property, despite offer from petitioners to redeem the one-half portion of Lot No. 77-A from them. In their defense, respondents allege that there exists an express or implied trust between petitioners and Filomena, and the latter with the respondents. They claim that the whole Lot No. 77 originally belong to respondents parents and that respondents parents agreed to a request that Filomena be allowed to occupy one-half of Lot No. 77 for a consideration, subject to the condition that the said lot would be held in trust by Filomena to be returned to the Villahermosas before her death. Emilio and respondents then allegedly executed a deed of sale over one-half of Lot No. 77 to enable Filomena to comply with the GSIS loan requirement, and accordingly, Lot No. 77 was subdivided into Lot No. 77-A belonging to Filomena, and Lot No. 77-B belonging to Rodulfo. Thereafter, Filomena allegedly executed a simulated Deed of Sale over an undivided one-half portion of Lot No. 77-A in favor of petitioner Herminia without any consideration and for the purpose of complying with GSIS requirements. Respondents contend that under such arrangement, the undivided share of petitioner spouses was merely held in trust, all for the benefit of principal borrower and trustor, Filomena. The trial court ruled in favor of petitioners. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not there is an implied trust that existed between Emilio Villahermosa and Filomena Lariosa over the subject property 2. Whether o not an implied trust also existed between Filomena Lariosa and petitioner Herminia Rosario for the benefit of the Villahermosas

HELD: 1. Yes. After a review of the evidence on record, the Court holds that a trust was indeed created between Filomena, Emilio Villahermosa and his children when Lot No. 77-A was transferred in the name of Filomena. Where a lot was taken by a person under an agreement to hold it for, or convey it to another or to the grantor, a resulting or implied trust arises in favor of the person for whose benefit the property was intended. When Emilio Villahermosa and his children, the respondents herein, conveyed Lot No. 77-A in favor of Filomena Lariosa in order to enable the latter build a house thereon with a GSIS loan, an implied if not express trust was created in favor of the original registered owners of the subject lot, Emilio Villahermosa, together with his children, in view of Filomenas declared intention to hold the lot for them and her promise to return it back to Emilio and private respondents; in fact, Filomena, before her death, returned the lot with its improvements by virtue of the Deed of Sale precisely pursuant to the trust agreed upon; it stated that the sale was in compliance with the vendors solemn promise to return or sell back to the vendee Lot No. 77-A. 2. Yes. The proven circumstances clearly demonstrated that the Deed of Sale in favor of Herminia was a mere accommodation arrangement, hence an absolutely simulated contract of sale. Since the sale was a simulated conveyance of real property, the vendee, Herminia, acquired no title thereto and she merely became a trustee of the one-half portion of the subject property for the benefit of its real owner Filomena who held the entire property in trust for the Villahermosas. [G.R. No. 112872. April 19, 2001] THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF ALEXANDER T. TY, represented by the Administratrix, SYLVIA S. TY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ILDEFONSO E. GASCON, and ALEJANDRO B. TY, respondents. [G.R. No. 114672. April 19, 2001] SYLVIA S. TY, in her capacity as Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Alexander T. Ty, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALEJANDRO B. TY, respondents. MELO, J.: FACTS: Petitioner Sylvia S. Ty was married to Alexander T. Ty, son of private respondent Alejandro B. ty, on January 11, 1981. Alexander died of leukemia on May 19, 1988 and was survived by his wife, petitioner Silvia, and only child, Krizia Katrina. In the settlement of his estate, petitioner was appointed administratrix of her late husbands intestate estate. On November 4, 1992, petitioner filed a motion for leave to sell or mortgage estate property in order to generate funds for the payment of deficiency estate taxes in the sum of P4,714,560.00.

Private respondent Alejandro Ty then filed two complaints for the recovery of the abovementioned property, praying for the declaration of nullity of the deed of absolute sale of the shares of stock executed by private respondent in favor of the deceased Alexander, praying for the recovery of the pieces of property that were placed in the name of deceased Alexander, they were acquired through private-respondents money, without any cause or consideration from deceased Alexander. The motions to dismiss were denied. Petitioner then filed petitions for certiorari in the Courts of Appeals, which were also dismissed for lack of merit. Thus, the present petitions now before the Court. ISSUE: Whether or not an express trust was created by private respondent when he transferred the property to his son HELD: Yes. Private respondent contends that the pieces of property were transferred in the name of the deceased Alexander for the purpose of taking care of the property for him and his siblings. Such transfer having been effected without cause of consideration, a resulting trust was created. [G.R. No. 126437. March 6, 2002] JOSUE ARLEGUI, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES GIL AND BEATRIZ GENGUYON, respondents. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: FACTS: Residential Apartment Unit no. 15 was leased for more than 20 years by Serafia Real Estate, Inc. to spouses Gil and Beatriz Genguyon. In 1984, Alberto Barretto (one of the owners of Serafia) informed the tenants of the apartment bldg. that Serafia and its assets had already been assigned and transferred to A.B. Barretto.The tenants formed an organization called Barretto Apartment Tenant Association to represent them in negotiations with A.B. Barretto Enterprises for the purchase of the apartment units. Josue Arlegui was selected vice president and Mateo Tan Lu as auditor of the association. Genguyons were later surprised to learn that the unit they were leasing had been sold to MateoTan Lu. Genguyons continued to occupy the premises and paid rentals. They were then informed that Mateo Tan sold the apartment to Josue Arlegui.Arlegui demanded Genguyons to vacate the premises. ISSUE: Whether or not a constructive trust existed between petitioner and spouses Genguyon HELD: Yes. Constructive trusts do not only arise out of fraud or duress, but also by abuse of confidence, in order to satisfy the demands of justice There is ample documentary and testimonial evidence to establish the existence of a fiduciary relationship between them, and that petitioners subsequent acts betrayed the trust and confidence reposed on him. Petitioner points out that his lawyer wrote a letter informing the Genguyons that he had already bought the property and telling them to vacate the premises. This cannot be taken as evidence of good faith. Moreover, it is rather too late for petitioner to argue that the Genguyons could and should have

negotiated directly with the Barrettos after he had already accepted the responsibility and authority to negotiate in their behalf. And specifically applicable to the case at bar is the doctrine that A constructive trust is substantially an appropriate remedy against unjust enrichment. It is raised by equity in respect of property, which has been acquired by fraud, or where, although acquired originally without fraud, it is against equity that it should be retained by the person holding it. [G.R. No. 152766. June 20, 2003] LILIA SANCHEZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. VICTORINO S. ALVARO as Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 120, Caloocan City, and VIRGINIA TERIA, respondents. BELLOSILLO, J.: FACTS: Petitioner Lilia Sanchez constructed a house on a lot owned by her parents-in-law. The lot was registered with the following co-owners: Eliseo Sanchez married to Celia Sanchez, Marilyn Sanchez married to Nicanor Montalban, Lilia Sanchez, widow, Nenita Sanchez, single, Susana Sanchez married to Fernando Ramos, and Felipe Sanchez. On 20 February 1995, the lot was registered in the name of private respondent Virginia Teria by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale supposed to have been executed on 23 June 1995 by all six (6) co-owners in her favor. Petitioner claimed that she did not affix her signature on the document and subsequently refused to vacate the lot, thus prompting private respondent Virginia Teria to file an action for recovery of possession of the aforesaid lot. The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondent. ISSUE: Whether or not there is trust in a co-ownership HELD: Yes. In co-ownership, the relationship of such co-owner to the other co-owners is fiduciary in character and attribute. Whether established by law or by agreement of the coowners, the property or thing held pro-indiviso is impressed with a fiducial nature so that each co-owner becomes a trustee for the benefit of his co-owners and he may not do any act prejudicial to the interest of his co-owners. Thus, the legal effect of an agreement to preserve the properties in co-ownership is to create an express trust among the heirs as co-owners of the properties. Co-ownership is a form of trust and every co-owner is a trustee for the others. G.R. No. 110115 October 8, 1997 RODOLFO TIGNO AND SPOUSES EDUALINO and EVELYN CASIPIT, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND EDUARDO TIGNO, respondents. PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS: Bienvenido Sison, Remedios Sison, and heirs of Isaac Sison appointed Dominador Cruz as agent to sell three parcels of land belonging to them. Upon learning that the said properties were for sale, petitioner Rodolfo Tigno told Cruz to offer these parcels of land to his brother, private respondent Eduardo Tigno. Eventually, Eduardo was convinced by Rodolfo to buy the properties. Bienvenido, Remedios, and heirs of Isaac, Manuel and Adelaida, then went to Atty. Modesto Manuel for the preparation of the appropriate deeds of sale. However, for failure of the Sisons to bring the necessary documents, no deed of sale was prepared on that day. Despite such fact, they requested Eduardo to pay a fifty percent downpayment for the properties, to which the latter acceded. After giving the downpayment, Eduardo instructed Cruz and Atty. Manuel to place the name of Rodolfo as vendee in the deeds of sale to be subsequently prepared to enable the latter to mortgage the said properties. Eduardo then settled the remaining balance with the Sisons after the deeds of sale were duly prepared. Thereafter, Rodolfo, without the knowledge and consent of his brother, sold to spouses Edualino and Evelyn Casipit a portion of land previously owned by Bienvenido. At the time of the sale, the Casipits were aware that the portion of the land they bought was owned by Eduardo, not Rodolfo. Upon learning that the sale was already consummated, Eduardo asked the Casipits and his brother to annul the sale, but his request was not heeded. As such, private respondent filed a complaint against his brother and spouses Casipit. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts decision. ISSUE: Whether or not there was an implied trust created between petitioner Rodolfo Tigno and private respondent Eduardo Tigno HELD: Yes. Based from the credible and straightforward testimony of two witnesses, Cruz and Atty. Manuel, 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. Aside from the "trust and confidence" reposed in him by his brother, petitioner Rodolfo was named as vendee in the deeds of sale to facilitate the loan and mortgage the brothers were applying for to rehabilitate the fishponds. From the foregoing, it is ineludible that Article 1448 of the Civil Code finds application in this case. Although the deeds of sale were in the name of petitioner Rodolfo, the purchase price was paid by private respondent who was the real owner of the property. Petitioner Rodolfo is the trustee, and private respondent is the beneficiary.