IMPORTANT RATIO FOR AGENCY General Provisions Orient Air v.

CA In an agent-principal relationship, the personality of the principal is extended through the facility of the agent. Such a facility can only be effected with the consent of the principal, which must not, in any way, be compelled by law or by any court. Rallos v. Felix Go Chan Act done by the agent after the death of the principal is valud and effective only under (2) conditions: (a) Agent acted w/o knowledge of the death of the principal; and (b) 3rd person also contracted with the agent himself acted in good faith. Sale was void because Simeon Rallos knew that his principal was dead by the time he made the sale in favour of FGC & Realty. Air France v. CA Teresita was the agent of the Ganas and notice to her of the rejection of the request for extension of the validity of the tickets was notice to the Ganas, her principals. Santos v. Buenconsejo The SPA executed in favour of Santos did not transfer the share of Anatolio despite causing a subdivision plan; SPA could not have vested in him any property right in his own name. Albaladejo v. Phil. Refining Co. Contention that contract between petitioner and defendant created a relation of principal and agent between parties did not hold water, because principals must indemnify the agent for damages incurred in carrying out the agency. In making purchases for producers (defendants), plaintiff was buying upon its own account. Thomas v. Pineda The relations of an agent to his principal are fiduciary and it is an elementary and very old rule that in regard to property forming the subject matter of the agency, the agent is stopped from acquiring or asserting a title adverse to that of the principal. His position is analogous to that of a trustee and he cannot consistently, with the principles of good faith, be allowed to create in himself an interest in opposition to that of his principal or cestui que trust. A receiver, trustee, attorney, agent, or any other person, occupying fiduciary relations

respecting property or persons are utterly disabled for acquiring for his own benefit the property committed to his custody for management. Palma v. Cristobal Petitioner only held the property and secured its registration in his name in a fiduciary capacity, and it is elementary that the trustee cannot acquire by prescription the ownership of the property entrusted to him. It is logical that all benefits derived by the possession and acts of the agent, as such agent, should accrue to the benefit of his principal. Valera v. Velasco: Misunderstanding between petitioner and respondent and the filing of the suit by the respondent prove the breach of the juridical relation between them, for, although the agent has not expressly told his principal that he renounced the agency, yet neither dignity nor decorum permits the latter to continue representing a person who has adopted such an antagonistic attitude towards him. The fact that an agent institutes an action against his principal for the recovery of the balance in his favour resulting from the liquidation of the accounts between them arising from the agency, and renders a final account of his operations, is equivalent to an express renunciation of the agency, and terminates the juridical relation between them. Cui v. Cui The SC decided that a titulo de abogado means not mere possession of the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws, but membership in the bar after due admission thereto, qualifying one for the practice of law. Allied Free Workers Union v. Compania Maritima An agent can not represent two conflicting interests that are diametrically opposed. Far Eastern Export & Import v. Lim Teck Suan No commission or monetary consideration was paid or agreed to be paid by the buyers to the Export Company and the Universal Trading Co., proof that there was no agency or brokerage, and that the profit of the latter was undoubtedly the difference between the price listed to the buyers and the net or special price quoted to the sellers by the suppliers. Where a foreign company has an agent here selling its good and merchandise, that same agent could not very well act as an agent for local buyers, because the interests of his foreign principal and those of the buyer would be in direct conflict. He cannot serve two masters at the same time.

Nielsen and Co v. Lepanto A corporation who merely acts as a purchasing agent and still requires the consent of its principal to purchase goods is not a partner but rather an agent. Shell Co v. Firemans Insurance Co Porfirio dela Fuente was actually an agent of shell because he was employed by the company, the company could remove him at its behest, the service station belonged to Shell and bore its trade name, the operator (de la Fuente) sold the products of the company, the equipment used by the operator belonged to Shell, the price of the products was fixed by shell, and the receipt signed by the operator merely indicated he was an agent of Shell. As the act of the agent or his employees acting within the scope of his authority is the act of the principal, the breach of the undertaking by the agent is one for which the principal is answerable. Sevilla v. CA Even though she bound herself as surety to the lease, a true employee cannot be made to part with his or her own money in pursuance of his employees business, or otherwise assume any liability thereof. The essence of a contract of agency is that the agent renders services in representation of in behalf of another, but Sevilla solicited airline fares for and in behalf of Tourist World Service, received 4% of the proceeds out of her own efforts, and pre-assumed her principals authority as owner of the business on 11/28/61. The agency compatible with the intent of the parties cannot be revoked at will as it is one coupled with an interest, the agency having been created for mutual interest of the agent and the principal. Lim v. People Petitioner wa held to be an agent, as petitioner was asked if she could be an agent of Ayrosos in selling tobacco, and that she admitted that pursuant to the agreement, she would be given something. It was not a contract of sale, as the facts revealed that appellant received the tobacco to be sold at P1.30/kilo, and the proceeds to be given to the complainant as soon as it was sold. San Diego v. Nombre While it may be admitted that the duties of a judicial administrator and an agent are in some respects identical, the provisions on agency should not apply to a judicial administrator. A judicial administrator is appointed by the court. He is a representative of the Court and the heirs of the creditors of the estate. A judicial administrator, before entering into his duties, is required to file a bond. These circumstances are not true in the case of agency, as the agent is only answerable to his principal. The protection which the law gives the principal, in limiting the powers and rights of an agent, stems from the fact that control by the principal

can only be through agreements, whereas acts of a judicial administrator are subject to specific provisions of law and orders of the appointing court. De la Pena v. Hidalgo As to renunciation of agency: Federico Hidalgo definitely renounced his agency and was duly terminated, according to Article 1732, as although the word renounced was not used in the letter, when the agent informs his principal that for reasons of health and by medical advice, that he is about to depart from the place where he is exercising his trust and where the property subject to administration is situated, abandons the property, and turns it over to a third party, without stating when he ma return to take charge of the administration, renders accounts of its revenues up to a certain date, and transmits to his principal a general statement, it is then reasonable and just to conclude that said agent expressly and definitely renounced his agency. As to implied agency: Antonio Hidalgo administered the property of Pena y Gomez by virtue of an implied agency vested in him by an owner who was not unaware of the fact, who knew that Hidalgo took charge of the administration. Implied agency is founded on the lack of contradiction of opposition, which constitutes simultaneous agreement on the part of the presumed principal to the execution of the contract, while in the management of anothers business, there is no simultaneous consent, either express or implied, but a fiction of presumption of consent because of the benefit received. Conde v. CA An implied agency must be held to have been created from their silence or lack of action, or their failure to repudiate the agency. Keeler v. Rodriguez Montelibano exceeded the limits of his authority, as plaintiff never authorized him to receive the money for his behalf. Defendant made payment at his own risk upon the representations of Montelibano. The fact that Montelibano told Rodriguez of his authority to collect means that there was some discussion as to Montelibanos authority. Rallos v. Yangco Defendant advertised that Collantes was his agent, and having given them a special invitation to deal with such agent, it was the duty of defendant to give due and timely notice to plaintiffs of the revocation of defendants power of attorney. Failing to do so, he is responsible to them for whatever goods may have been in good faith and without negligence sent to the agent, without knowledge, actual or constructive, of the termination of the agency.

Macke v. Camps One who clothes another apparent authority as his agent, and holds him out to the public as such, cannot be permitted to deny the authority of such person to act as his agent, to the prejudice of innocent 3rd persons dealing with such person in good faith and un the following preassumptions or deductions: (1) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration or act, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be permitted to falsify it, and unless the contrary appears, the authority of an agent must be presumed to include all the necessary and usual means of carrying his agency into effect. Danon v. Brimo The broker must be the efficient agent or the procuring cause of the sale. The means employed by him and his efforts must result in the sale. Alternatively, where no time for continuance of the contract is fixed by its terms, the other party is at liberty to terminate it at will. Infante v. Cunanan Although a principal may withdraw authority given to an agent at will, and despite the rule that When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all those terms, and therefore, there can be, between their parties and their successor-in-interest, no evidence of terms of the agreement other than the contents of the writing, the situation varies if one of the parties takes advantage of the benevolence of the other and acts in a manner that would promote his own selfish interest. Two exceptions when there is an ambiguity in writing: (a) When there is a mistake (b) When there is an ambiguity Manotok Bros v. CA General rule: A broker or agent is not entitled to any commission until he has successfully done the job given to him. Private respondents case however was within the exception. When there is a close, proximate, and casual connection between the agents effort and labor and the principals sale of his property, the agent is entitled to commission. Domingo v. Domingo With regard to general provisions: The duties and liabilities of a broker to his employer are essentially those which an agent owes to his principal.

An agent who takes a secret profit in the nature of a bonus, gratuity, or personal benefit from the vendee, without revealing the same to his principal, the vendor is guilty of a breach of his loyalty to the principal and forfeits his right to collect the commission from his principal, even if the principal does not suffer any injury by reason of such breach of fidelity, or that he obtained better results or that the agency is a gratuitous one, or that usage or custom allows it, because the rule is to prevent the possibility of any wrong, not to remedy or repair an actual damage. By taking such profit/bonus/gift/propina from the vendee, the agent thereby assumes a position wholly inconsistent with that being an agent for his principal, who has a right to treat him, insofar as his commission is concerned, as if no agency has existed. A lawyer is equally liable under NCC 1720 if he fails to deliver to his client all the money and property received by him for his client despite his attorneys lien. SIASAT v. IAC The principal cannot deprive his agent of the commission agreed upon by cancelling the agency, and therefor, dealing directly with the buyer. Additional: Several kinds of agents: Universal: are authorized to do all acts for his principal which can lawfully be delegated to an agent General: are authorized to do all acts pertaining to a business of a certain kind or at a particular place, or all acts pertaining to a business of a particular class or series Special: are authorized to do some particular act or to act upon some particular occasion. He acts usually in accordance with (1) specific instructions; or (2) under limitations necessarily implied from the nature of the act to be done. GERMANN & CO v. DONALDSON Kammerzell had the authority to institute a suit, because the suit was brought to collect a claim accruing in the ordinary course of the plaintiffs business. It is an act of strict ownership, and is necessarily a part of the mere administration of such business as described in the instrument in question, and only incidentally, if at all, involving a power to dispose of the property. PNB v. Sta Maria Maximos siblings, save for Valeriana, are not liable for payment of loans which were secured by their respective properties, as the authority granted by his siblings was merely to mortgage the property jointly owned by them. There was no authority to contract loans for their own behalf. The properties they allowed to be mortgaged would be subject to foreclosure and sale to respond for

obligations contracted by Macimo but it does not mean that they can be held personally liable for the payment of such obligations. Director of Public Works v. Sing Juco (no authority to bind into suretyship) Tan Ong Sze was liable upon the contract of suretyship as the suretyship contract was signed by Mariano de la Rama, who had no authority to do so, as can be gleaned on from the two documents exhibiting the powers of attorney. According to CC 1827, A guaranty shall not be presumed; it must be expressed and cannot be extended beyond its specified limits. By analogy, a power of attorney to execute a contract of guaranty should not be inferred from vague or general words, especially when such words have their origin and explanation in particular powers of a wholly different nature. Phil Sugar Estates v. Poizat (tried to bind his wife to a mortgage) It is a general rule in the law of agency that in order to bind the principal by a deed executed by an agent, the deed must upon its grace purport to be made, signed, and sealed in the name of the principal. If, on the contrary, though the agent describe the name, the words of the grant, covenant and the like, purport upon the face of the instrument to be his, and the seal purports to be his seal, the deed will bind the agent only and not the principal. Rural Bank of Bombon v. CA In order to bind the principal by a mortgage on real property executed by an agent, it must upon its face purport to be made, signed, and sealed in the name of the principal; OTHERWISE, it will bind the agent only. Not enough merely that the agent was in fact authorized to make the mortgage, if he has not acted in the name o the principal. Not sufficient that he describes himself as acting by virtue of a power of attorney in the mortgage, if the agent has acted in his own name and has set his own hand and seal upon the mortgage. Unless it is executed for and on behalf of his principal, and as the act and deed of the principal, it is not valid as to the principal. Commercial Bank and Trust v. Republic Armored Car (fraud by officers) The mismanagement of the business of a party by his agents does not relieve said party from the responsibility that he had contracted to third persons, especially in the case at bar where the written agreement contains no limitation to defendant-appellants liability. Lim Tiu v. Rementeria Defendants are not liable to pay plaintiffs the value of the merchandise, because they did not know that Domingo Tim Bun Liu was an agent for plaintiff. According to CC 1717, when an agent acts in his own name, the principal shall

have no action against the persons with whom the agent has contracted, nor the said persons against the principal. PNB v. Paz Agudelo Paz is subsidiarily liable for the payment of the loans obtained by Mauro from PNB for the security of which he constituted on the mortgage on the real estate belonging to respondent, because although the SPA did not authorize Mauro to constitute a mortgage on the real estate of the principal to secure his personal obligation, and although PNB was duty-bound to ascertain the extent of the agents authority before dealing with him, an affidavit dated 1/15/26 stated that Paz gave her consent to the lien on a certain parcel of land. A mortgage on real property of the principal not made and signed in the name of the principal is not valid as to the principal. Sy Juco and Viardo v. Sy Juco (son bought stuff for himself using his parents money) The agents apparent representation yields to the principals true representation and the contract must be considered entered into between the principal and the third person. If the obligation belongs to the former, to him alone must also belong the rights arising from the contract. NFA v. IAC (commission agent misappropriated payment for his principal) An undisclosed principal cannot maintain an action upon a contract made by his agent unless such principal was disclosed in such contract. Contract involved a thing (ship) belonging to the principal, hence the agent is bound to the principal, although he does not assume the character of such agent and appears acting in his own name. Corollarily, if the principal can be obliged to perform his duties under the contract, then it can also demand the enforcement of its rights arising from such contract. Awad v. Filma Mercantile Code of Commerce 246: When the agent transacts business in his own name, it shall not be necessary for him to state who is the principal and he shall be directly liable, as if the business were for his own account, to the persons with whom he transacts the same, said persons not having any right of action against the principle, not the latter against the former, the liabilities of the principal and of the agent to each other always being reserved. Jimenez v. Rabot Although a power of attorney to convey real property ought to appear in a public instrument, just as any other instrument intended to transmit or convey interest in such property ought to appear in a public instrument, a power of

attorney to convey such property, even though in the form of a private document, will operate with effect, inasmuch as a private document is competent to create, transmit, modify, or extinguish a right in real property. General Rule: The description must be sufficiently definite to identify the land either from the recitals of the contract or deed from the external facts referred to in the document, thereby enabling one to determine the identity of the land and if the description is (1) uncertain on its face or (2) is shown to be applicable with equal plausibility to more than one tract, it is insufficient. HOWEVER, the SC saw no reason why the performance of an act within the scope of his authority should not bind the plaintiff to the same extent as if she had given the agent the authority to sell any or all and she had conveyed only one parcel. Katigbak v. Tai Hing The power is general and authorizes Po Ejap to sell any kidn of realty belonging to the principal. The use of the subjective pertenezcan (might belong) and not the indicative pertenecan (belong) means that Po Tecsi meant not only the property he had at the time of the execution of the power, but also such as he might afterwards have during the time it was in force. While it is true that a power of attorney not recorded in the registry of deeds is ineffective in order that an agent or attorney-in-fact may validly perform acts in the name of his principal, and that any act performed by the agent by virtue of said power with respect to the land is ineffective against a third person who, in good faith, may have acquired a right thereto, it does, however, bind the principal to acknowledge the acts performed by his attorney-in-fact regarding said property. B. Obligations of the Agent PNB v. Manila Surety and Fidelity Co. The CA held PNB negligent not in collecting from the principal debtor but for its neglect in collecting the sums due to the debtor due from the Bureau of Public Works, contrary to its duty as holder of an exclusive and irrevocable power of attorney to make such collections, since an agent is required to act with the care of a good father of a family (art. 1889) and becomes liable for damages which the principal may suffer through his non-performance (1884). Its powers were expressly irrevocable, meaning the BPW could very well refuse to make payments to the principal debtor itself, and a fortiori reject and demands by the surety. Ramos v. Caoibes Caoibes was not entitled to half the amount of the check on the strength of the power of attorney executed in his favour, as it was only a power of attorney, and

Caoibes, as agent, had the obligation to deliver the amount collected by virtue of said power to his principal, Concepcion, or after he death, to the administratrix of the estate. Under CC 1711, the contract of agency is presumed to be gratuitous, unless the agent is a professional agent. There is no proof that Caoibes was an agent; alternatively, under CC 1732, an agency is terminated, among other causes, by the death of the principal or the agent. Hermanos v. Hermanos: Tl;dr Domingo v. Domingo, supra Art. 1891: Every agent is bound to render an account of his transactions and to deliver to the principal whatever he may have received by virtue of the agency, even though it may not be owing to the principal An agent who takes a secret profit in the nature of a bonus, gratuity, or personal benefit from the vendee, without revealing the same to his principal, the vendor is guilty of a breach of his loyalty to the principal and forfeits his right to collect the commission from his principal, even if the principal does not suffer any injury by reason of such breach of fidelity, or that he obtained better results or that the agency is a gratuitous one, or that usage or custom allows it, because the rule is to prevent the possibility of any wrong, not to remedy or repair an actual damage. By taking such profit/bonus/gift/propina from the vendee, the agent thereby assumes a position wholly inconsistent with that being an agent for his principal, who has a right to treat him, insofar as his commission is concerned, as if no agency has existed. US v. Reyes Reyes was guilty of estafa, because even if he were to receive 20%, he had no right to deduct such amount from the sum collected. Right to collect the 10% or 20% was not upon his choosing, and Reyes was an agent bound to pay all he had received by virtue of the agency. Monna v. Garcia Bosque The principal, Monna, was not bound by the agreement entered into by Figueras and Bosque because although the partial substitution of agency conferred to Figuerras all the powers conferred by the original power of attorney, the sole purpose of the agreement was to authorize Figueras Hermanos to collect the balance due to plaintiff. Nothing indicated to the effect that Figueras hermanos can discharge any of the debtors or to novate a contract. DBP v. CA

The liability of an agent (DBP) who exceeds the scope of his authority depends upon whether the third party is aware of the limits of the agents powers. No showing that Dans knew of DBPs limited authority. Agent is liable for damages if the third person dealing with an agent is unaware of the limits of the authority conferred by the principal on the agent and the third person is deceived by the non-disclosure of the agent. Philippine Products Company v. Primateria The agents of Primateria are NOT liable personally because Primateria was NOT duly proven to be a foreign corporation or a societe anonyme. Plaintiff also cannot recover from BOTH Primateria and its agents because there was no proof that Primaterias agents exceeded the limits of their authority, because Primateria never raised or denied its liability on the round of excess authority, and that 1897 does not hold that in cases of excess authority that BOTH the principal and agent are liable to the other contracting party. Albert v. University Publishing Co. Aruego should be held a party to the case because he was an agent for a nonexistent entity, and as was held in Salvatiera v. Garlitos, A person acting or purporting to act on behalf of a corporation which has no valid existence assumes such privileges and obligations and becomes liable for contracts entered into or for other acts performed as such agent. Eugenio v. CA As far as third persons are concerned, an act is deemed to have been performed within the scope of the agents authority, if such is within the terms of the power allowing, as written, even if the agent has in fact exceeded the limits of his authority according to an understanding between the principal and his agent. Green Valley Poultry v. IAC Green Valley is liable for the sums Squibb seeks to recover, whether or not it is an agency to sell or a contract of sale, because, if the contract is an agency to sell, it is liable because it sold on credit without authority from its principal. CC 1905 states that The commission agent cannot, without the express or implied consent of the principal, sell on credit. Should he do so, the principal may demand from him payment in cash, but the commission agent shall be entitled to any interest or benefit which may result from such sale. Metropolitan Bank and Trust v. CA Metrobanks assertion that it was acting only as a collecting agent for Golden Savings and that it has a right to charge back to the depositors account any amount previously credited, whether or not such item is returned, does not hold

water. Metrobank is not a mere collecting agent. According to CC 1909, The agent is responsible not only for fraud, but also for negligence, which shall be judged with more of less rigor by the courts, according to whether the agency was or was not for a compensation. Metrobank was negligent in assuring GS it was safe to allow Gomez to withdraw proceeds of the treasury warrants. C. Obligations of the Principal Prudential Bank v. CA Bank liable for quasi-delict when it was sued for breach of contract, as NCC 1910 and NCC 1911 apply. Also, A banks is liable for wrongful acts of its offices done in the interests of the bank or in the course of dealings of the officers in their representative capacity but not for acts outside the scope of their authority. Cuison v. CA The one who clothes another with apparent authority as his agent and holds himself out to the public as such cannot be permitted to deny the authority of such person to act as his agent, to the prejudice of innocent third parties dealing with such person in good faith and in the honest belief that he is what he appears to be. Cuison held out Tiu as the manager of his Bindondo store. D. Mode of Extinguishment of Agency Rallos v. Felix Go Chan Sale as to Concepcions share was invalid as Simeon Rallos knew of his principals death when he contracted the sale. His agency was extinguished upon the death of his principal (1919). Diolosa v. CA Although 1920 allows the principal to revoke the agency at will, he could not do so without damages. Their agency agreement stipulated that the agency terminates ...until all the subject property as subdivided is fully disposed of. The fact that they needed to reserve some lots for the use of the family cannot prevail over the clear terms of the agreement. PNB v. IAC PNB was stopped from foreclosing the mortgage on Alfredos lot to pay Sepas 71-72 crop because it informed Alfredo that it would not do so. While CC 1358 requires that the revocation of Alfredos SPA to mortgage his property should appear in a public instrument, nevertheless, a revocation embodied in a private writing is valid and binding between the parties. PNB acted in bad faith.

Dy Buncio v. Ong Guan Co The making and accepting of a new power of attorney, whether it enlarges or decreases the power of the agent under a prior power of attorney, must be held to supplant and revoke the latter where the two are inconsistent. If the new appointment with limited powers not revoke the GPA, the execution of the second power of attorney would be a mere futile gesture. Infante v. Cunanan, supra Although the Civil Code recognizes her right to revoke the agency, and that defendants agreed to cancel the authority, they did so upon the assurance that they would be given the commission if the property would be sold to their own buyer. Coleongco v. Claparols (greedy Chinese men tried to oust honest businessman) Coupled with an interest or not, a power of attorney may be revoked for a just cause, such as when the agent betrays the interest of his principal. The irrevocability of the power of attorney may not be used to shield the perpetration of acts in bad faith, breach of confidence, or betrayal of trust by the agent, for that would amount to holding that a power coupled with an interest authorizes the agent to commit frauds against the principal. Herrera v. Luy Kim Guan Sales made by Luy Kim Guan were valid, despite the death of his principal, because it was proven that LKG was unaware of his principals death in 1936. Buason & Reyes v. Panuyas Buason did not have a better claim than Panuyas over the parcel of land because they did not register the sale of the parcel of land, and the power of attorney executed by the true owners of the land was annotated/inscribed at the back of the same original certificate of title. Panuyas and his wife only knew of the power of attorney, but not the cloud pertaining to the sale made by the heirs of Dayao. IMPORTANT RATIO for TRUSTS Salao v. Salao Documentary evidence must be presented in order to prove an express trust over an allegedly co-owned fishpond. This is in accordance with ART 1443 which states that "No express trust concerning an immovable or any interest therein may be proved by parol evidence."

De Leon v. Molo-Peckson It is not necessary that the beneficiary had knowledge of, or consented to, the trust at the time of its creation. If the trust imposes no onerous condition, acceptance by the beneficiary shall be presumed (ART. 1446). An acknowledgment by a person that the property whose title he holds is being held by him for the use of another is a declaration of an express trust. Government v. Abadilla It is not necessary that the cesti que trust or beneficiary be specifically named or be existing at the time of the creation of trust for the same to be valid. (Example: A man can be a trustee to his future children [not specifically named and not exsiting] even if at the time of the creation of the trust he is still childless.) The Statute of Limitation or prescription does not run between the trustee and the beneficiary as long as the trust relations subsist i.e. no repudiation of trust by the trustee. It may run, however, between the trust and third persons. Cristobal v. Gomez If the purpose of the original trust has been accomplished, the trust is extinguished and the trustee must return to the trustor or beneficiary the property held in trust. Prescription is not effective in favor of a trustee in possession of a property under a continuing and subsisting trust. This is because the possession is not adverse. Araneta v. Perez The prohibition on attorneys who happen to be executors or administrators not to charge against the estate fees for legal services rendered DOES NOT APPLY to trustees. The duties of the former are fixed by law while those of the latter by intention of the trustor or of the parties. Hence, an attorney trustee may charge fees against the trust estate for legal services he rendered. Mindanao Development Authority v. CA The 'deed of sale' which states that "I hereby agree to work for the titling of the entire area of my land under under my own expenses and the expenses for the titling of the portion sold by me shall be under the expenses of the said Juan Cruz Yap Chuy" does not create an express trust. It merely states that the obligation to pay the expenses for the registration of land shall be made by one of the parties. Declaration of trust must be clear and unequivocal.

Roa Jr. v. Court of Appeals A constructive trust, which is a remedy against unjust enrichment, is created if a person acquires property by committing a breach of confidence of another. If a person succeeds in titling a land in his name by virtue of promises (e.g. replacement with another parcel of land or payment of a certain amount) made to the current possessor, such person becomes a mere trustee of the land in case he fails to fulfill his promises. The land, although acquired without fraud, cannot be retained by the person now holding it. Perez v. Araneta Beneficiaries of a trust constituted (only) on the income and profits of the trust estate are not entitled to the profits realized in the sale of trust properties for the same are part of the capital and hence do not constitute income or profits. B. Express Trusts Cuaycong v. Cuaycong A trustor who expressly stated that he is establishing a trust over a land in favor of his brothers and sisters created an express trust and not an implied trust. In such case, parol evidence is inadmissible to prove the existence of the (express) trust. ART. 1443. Sinaon v. Sorongon Though an implied trust may be proved by parol evidence (ART. 1457), it cannot be established against the recitals of a Torrens title upon vague and conslusive proof. An action for reconveyance of realty based on an implied trust prescribes in ten years. The prescriptive period is reckoned from the issuance of title which operates as a constructive notice. C. Implied Trusts O'Laco v. Co Cho Chit If the issuance of title in someone's name is not adverse because of the existence of a trust relations i.e. title was registered in another's name because the true owners were Chinese nationals who cannot own land, prescription begins to run only when a clear act of repudiation of the trust is committed by the trustee (in this case by sale of the land held in trust). A resulting trust is repudiated when: 1. The trustee has performed clear and unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust 2. The acts of repudiation must have been made known to the cesitu que turst

3. The evidence thereof is clear and convincing Special Services Corporation v. Centro La Paz A judgment creditor cannot levy on properties merely being held in trust by the judgment debtor. An express trust can be proven by preponderance of documentary evidence such as deed of donation, deed of acknowledgment, and written petition for tax exemption. Chiao Liong Tan v. CA An implied trust is created when the price of a property is paid by one party but is registered in another's name. ART. 1448 Homena v. Casa The doctrine of implied trust cannot be invoked based on an illegal contract. A contract of sale establishing a trust over a land which must not be sold within the five year prohibitory period (but the land was sold nonetheless, transfer of title to happen after five years) under the Homestead Patent Law is void ab initio. Hence, no implied trust was created. Heirs of Candelaria v. Romero An implied trust is created if one party made the necessary payments for the purchase of land yet the title was registered in the name of another in the understanding that transfer of title will be made at a later time. The heirs of the former may demand reconveyance of said land from the heirs of the latter. PNB v. CA A payment by mistake creates either a solutio indebiti under ART. 2154 or a constructive trust under ART. 1145. The former prescribes in six years, the latter in ten years. The mistaken payor may opt to avail of an action to enforce either of the two. An action for recovery of the amount paid by mistake filed seven years later by a banking institution is however barred by laches, which deals with the effects of unreasonable delay. The bank must bear the cost of its own negligence.