SOLEDAD CAEZO, et al., Petitioners, G.R. No.

148788
vs. November 23, 2007
CONCEPCION ROJAS, Respondent.

Facts:
Petitioner (canezo) filed complaint for recovery of real property against
respondent Rojas. Petitioner then filed complaint for recovery of real property against
Rojas (2nd wife of her dad) plus damages- subject property is a 4k sqm unregistered
land in Biliran. Petitioner alleges she bought the land from Limpiado and the transaction
was not reduced in writing. She then immediately took possession of said property. She
allegedly ENTRUSTED the property to his father when she and her husband left for
Mindanao in 1984 and said father took possession of land and cultivated it. In 1980, she
found out that RESPONDENT (2nd wife) was in possession/cultivating the same as well
as tax declarations in Crispulo Rojas’s name (father). Respondent claims that it was the
father who bought the property the reason why tax declaration was in his name and was
in possession until death and property was included in ESTATE which petitioner
RECEIVED her share in the estate. Respondent claims that father bought the property
in 1948 and that is why the tax declarations was in father’s name. Father possessed
and cultivated the land until his death. On his death in 1978, property was part of
ESTATE. Respondent claims that petitioner ought to have impleaded all of the heirs as
defendants. Further claims that petitioner has abandoned her right over the property
since she just filed her complaint in 1997
MTC claims that there was no proof that father bought the property; RTC 1st
reversed MTC stating that prescription took place and acquisitive prescription has
already set. RTC then reveres its original decision stating that no prescription took place
since petitioner ENTRUSTED the property to her father, and that 10-year prescription
starts from the day the trustee REPUDIATES the trust. RTC found no evidence showing
such. CA ruled in favor of the respondent- father is owner, petitioner’s inaction for 17
years since discovery of possession of 2nd wife tax declaration was in father’s name,
father was in adverse possession, and property was included in estate. CA stated that
even assuming Implied trust, petitioners right of action to recover is barred by
prescription - 49 YEARS having lapsed. Petitioner contends that there was EXPRESS
TRUST hence prescription will not set in.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Trust existed.

HELD:
NO, neither express nor implied resulting TRUST existed in this case. The
Intention to create trust CANNOT be inferred from petitioner’s testimony and on the
facts and circumstance Petitioner only TESTIFIED that father agreed to give her
proceeds of the production of the land. SC states that had it been had it been her
intention to create trust, she should not have made an issue of the tax declarations.
Trustee would necessarily have legal title hence right to transfer the tax declarations in
his name as this was more beneficial to the beneficiary. In light of the disquisitions, we
hold that there was no express trust or resulting trust established between the petitioner
and her father. Thus, in the absence of a trust relation, we can only conclude that
Crispulos uninterrupted possession of the subject property for 49 years, coupled with
the performance of acts of ownership, such as payment of real estate taxes, ripened
into ownership. Assuming trust existed it was terminated upon DEATH of father.
 A TRUST TERMINATES UPON DEATH of the trustee where the trust is
PERSONAL to the trustee in the sense that the trustor INTENDED NO OTHER person
to administer. If father was appointed as trustee of the property, such appointment
cannot be intended to be conveyed to the respondent or heirs. After death, the
respondent had no right to retain possession of the property. At such point, a
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST would be created over the property by operation of law –
Where one mistakenly retains property which rightfully belongs to another, a
constructive trust is the proper remedial device to correct the situation. GR: Trustee
cannot acquire by prescription ownership over property entrusted to him UNLESS he
repudiates the TRUST. Applicable to EXPRESS and RESULTING IMPLIED TRUST
and NOT to constructive trust. In constructive trust the relation of trustee and cestui que
trust does not in fact exist, and the holding of a constructive trust is for the trustee
himself, and therefore, at all times adverse.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals, dated September 7, 2000, and Resolution dated May 9, 2001, are
AFFIRMED.