VICTORIA JULIO, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
EMILIANO DALANDAN and MARIA DALANDAN, defendants-appellees.
[G.R. No. L-19012 October 30, 1967]

FACTS:
1) Clemente Dalandan, deceased father of defendants Emiliano and Maria Dalandan, got
a loan and used the land owned by Victoriana Dalanadan, mother of the plaintiff
Victoria Julio, as security for the said obligation.
2) Clemente failed to pay the obligation which led to the foreclosure of the said land.
3) Clemente executed a Salaysay stating that because of the foreclosure, and as agreed
upon by Clemente and Victoriana, Clemente held himself liable to Victoria Julio for
the foreclosure of her said land, and promised her that he would replace her aforesaid
land which was foreclosedbwith another farm of more than four; (4) hectares.
4) The replacement land was in the possession of the defendants and the said salaysay
stated that they may not be forced to give up the harvest of the said replacement land.
It was also stipulated that the land which was exchanged for the farm with four
cavanes of seedlings may not be demanded immediately.
5) Victoria Julio agreed to the Salaysay.
6) Plaintiff is now seeking to have the possession of the replacement land from the
defendants.


ISSUE(S): Is the relationship produced by the Salaysay an express trust?
HELD: YES

RATIO:
The express trust imposed upon defendants by their predecessor appears in the document
itself. For, while it is true that said deed did not in definitive words institute defendants as
trustees, a duty is therein imposed upon them when the proper time comes to turn over
both the fruits and the possession of the property to Victoria Julio. Not that this view is
without statutory support. Article 1444 of the Civil Code states that: "No particular words are
required for the creation of an express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended."
In reality, the development of the trust as a method of disposition of property, so
jurisprudence teaches, "seems in large part due to its freedom from formal requirements."5
This principle perhaps accounts for the provisions in Article 1444 just quoted. For, "technical
or particular forms of words or phrases are not essential to the manifestation of intention to
create a trust or to the establishment thereof."6 Nor would the use of some such words as
"trust" or "trustee" essential to the constitution of a trust as we have held in Lorenzo vs.
Posadas, 64 Phil. 353, 368. Conversely, the mere fact that the word "trust" or "trustee" was
employed would not necessarily prove an intention to create a trust. What is important is
whether the trustor manifested an intention to create the kind of relationship which in law is
known as a trust. It is unimportant that the trustor should know that the relationship "which
he intends to create is called a trust, and whether or not he knows the precise characteristics
of the relationship which is called a trust."7 Here, that trust is effective as against defendants
and in favor of the beneficiary thereof, plaintiff Victoria Julio, who accepted it in the document
itself.





EMILIANO B. RAMOS, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
GREGORIA(wife of JOse) T. RAMOS, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
The spouses Martin Ramos and Candida Tanate died on October 4, 1906 and October 26,
1888, respectively.
They were survived by their three legitimate children named Jose, Agustin and Granada.
Martin Ramos was also survived by his seven natural children named Atanacia, Timoteo,
Modesto, Manuel, Emiliano, Maria and Federico.
On December 10, 1906 a special proceeding was instituted for the settlement of the
intestate estate of the said spouses.
A project of partition dated April 25, 1913 was submitted.
It was agreed in the project of partition that Jose Ramos would pay the cash adjudications
his siblings.
Granada Ramos and the natural children were assumed to have received their shares
from the administrator although according to the object of partition, Jose Ramos and
Agustin Ramos (not the administrator) were supposed to pay the cash adjudications
to each of them. No receipts were attached
Before the survey of these properties by the Cadastral Court, plaintiff Modesto Ramos
was informed by the Surveying Department that they were going to survey these
properties. Plaintiffs then went to see their elder brother Jose to inform him that there was
a card issued to them regarding the survey and gave him 'a free hand to do something as
an administrator'.
They therefore did not intervene in the said cadastral proceedings because they were
promised that they(defendants Jose and Agustin) would 'be the ones responsible to have it
registered in the names of the heirs.
"Plaintiffs did not know that intestate proceedings were instituted for the distribution of the
estate of their father.
"Plaintiffs only discovered later on that the property administered by their elder brother
Jose had a Torrens Title in the name of his widow, Gregoria, and daughter, Candida, when
plaintiff Modesto's children insisted and inquired from the Register of Deeds sometime in
1956 or 1957.
"Plaintiffs were thus constrained to bring the present suit before the Court seeking for the
reconveyance in their favor by defendants Gregoria and daughter Candida and husband
Jose Bayot of their corresponding participations in said parcels of land
The action is really directed against the heirs of Jose Ramos, namely, his wife Gregoria
and his daughter Candida in whose names the said eight lots are now registered. It is
predicated on the theory that plaintiffs' shares were held in trust by the defendants. No
deed of trust was alleged and proven.
The defendants denied the existence of a trust.


Issue: W/N there is an express trust between the parties with respect to the disputed
properties?
Held:None
"No express trusts concerning an immovable or any interest therein may be proven by oral
evidence.
An implied trust may be proven by oral evidence" (Ibid, Arts. 1443 and 1457).
"No particular words are required for the creation of an express trust, it being sufficient
that a trust is clearly intended" (dalandan case)
"Express trusts are those which are created by the direct and positive acts of the parties,
by some writing or deed, or will, or by words either expressly or impliedly evincing an
intention to create a trust" (89 C.J.S. 722).
The plaintiffs did not prove any express trust in this case. The expediente of the intestate
proceeding, Civil Case No. 217, particularly the project of partition, the decision and
the manifestation as to the receipt of shares (Exh. 3, 4 and 6)negatives the existence
of an express trust.
Those public documents prove that the estate of Martin Ramos was settled in that
proceeding and that adjudications were made to his seven natural children.
A trust must be proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. It cannot
rest on vague and uncertain evidence or on loose, equivocal or indefinite
declarations
As already noted, an express trust cannot be proven by parol evidence
Neither have the plaintiffs specified the kind of implied trust contemplated in their action.












Pasino vs Monterroyo

The Antecedent Facts

This case originated from an action for recovery of possession and damages, filed by
Rogelio, George, Lolita, Rosalinda and Josephine, all surnamed Pasio, petitioners) against
Dr. Teofilo Eduardo F. Monterroyo (Dr. Monterroyo)

The prop is a lot at Panul-iran, Abuno, Iligan City, was part of a 24-hectare land
occupied, cultivated and cleared by Laureano Pasio (Laureano) in 1933.

The 24-hectare land formed part of the public domain which was later declared alienable and
disposable.

On 18 February 1935, Laureano filed a homestead application over the entire 24-hectare land
under Homestead Application

On 11 September 1941, the Director of Lands issued an Order[7] approving Laureanos
homestead application and stating that Homestead Entry No. 154651 was recorded in his
name for the land applied for by him.


Laureano died on 24 March 1950. On 15 April 1952, the Director of Lands issued an
Order for the issuance of a homestead patent in favor of Laureano, married to Graciana
Herbito[9] (Graciana). Laureanos heirs did not receive the order and consequently, the
land was not registered under Laureanos name or under that of his heirs.
In 1953, the property was covered by Tax Declaration No. 11102[10] in the name of Laureano
with Graciana[11] as administrator.

Between 1949 and 1954, a Cadastral Survey was conducted in Iligan City. The surveyor
found that a small creek divided the 24-hectare parcel of land into two portions, identified as
Lot No. 2138 and Lot No. 2139.

Petitioners claimed that Laureanos heirs, headed by his son Jose, continuously
possessed and cultivated both lots.

Petitioners alleged that their possession of Lot No. 2139 was interrupted on 3 January 1993
when respondents forcibly took possession of the property.

Respondents alleged that they had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession of Lot No. 2139, by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest, since 10
July 1949.

They alleged that on 10 July 1949, Rufo Larumbe (Larumbe) sold Lot No. 2139 to Petra Teves
(Petra). On 20 February 1985, Vicente executed a pacto de retro sale over the land in favor
of Arturo Teves (Arturo).

In 1992, Arturo sold Lot No. 2139 in favor of respondents father, Dr. Monterroyo, by virtue
of an oral contract. On 5 January 1995, Arturo executed a Deed of Confirmation of Absolute
Sale of Unregistered Land in favor of Dr. Monterroyos heirs.

Respondents alleged that Jose was not the owner of Lot No. 2139.



Issue: Whether or not the petitioners may reconvey Lot 2139?

Held: No. Respondents true owner.

Principle of Constructive Trust Applies

Under the principle of constructive trust, registration of property by one person in his
name, whether by mistake or fraud, the real owner being another person, impresses upon the
title so acquired the character of a constructive trust for the real owner, which would justify
an action for reconveyance.[29]

In the action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible but
what is sought instead is the transfer of the property wrongfully or erroneously registered in
anothers name to its rightful owner or to one with a better right.[30]

If the registration of the land is fraudulent, the person in whose name the land is registered
holds it as a mere trustee, and the real owner is entitled to file an action for reconveyance of
the property.[31]

In the case before us, respondents were able to establish that they have a better right to
Lot No. 2139 since they had long been in possession of the property in the concept of owners,
by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest. Hence, despite the irrevocability of
the Torrens titles issued in their names and even if they are already the registered owners
under the Torrens system, petitioners may still be compelled under the law to reconvey the
property to respondents.[32]


















CArantes vs CA
Mateo Carantes was the original owner of Lot No. 44 situated at Loakan, Baguio City, as
evidenced by Original Certificate of Title No. 3 issued in his name on September 22, 1910
by virtue of Free Patent No. 5 granted to him on the same date.
In 1913 Mateo died. He was survived by his widow Ogasia and six children, namely, Bilad,
Lauro, Crispino, Maximino, Apung and Sianang, all surnamed Carantes.


On October 23, 1939 a deed denominated "Assignment of Right to Inheritance" was
executed by four of Mateo Carantes children, namely, Bilad, Sianang, Lauro and Crispino,
and the heirs of Apung Carantes assigning to Maximino Carantes their rights to inheritance
in Lot No. 44.
The stated monetary consideration for the assignment was P1.00. However, the document
contains a recital to the effect that the said lots, "by agreement of all the direct heirs and
heirs by representation of the deceased Mateo Carantes as expressed and conveyed
verbally. by him during his lifetime, rightly and exclusively belong to the particular heir,
Maximino Carantes, now and in the past in the exclusive, continuous, peaceful and
notorious possession of the same for more than ten years."
On the same date Maximino Carantes sold to the Government Lots Nos. 44-B and 44-C
and divided the proceeds of the sale among himself and the other heirs of Mateo.
On March 16, 1940 Maximino Carantes registered the deed of "Assignment of Right to
Inheritance." Accordingly, T.C.T. No. 2533 in the names of the heirs was cancelled, and in
lieu thereof Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2540 was issued on the same date in the name
of Maximino Carantes.
AOn September 4, 1958 the present complaint was filed by three children of the late
Mateo Carantes, In their complaint the plaintiffs alleged inter alia that they and/or their
predecessors-in-interest executed the deed of "Assignment of Right to Inheritance" on
October 23, 1939, only because they were made to believe by the defendant Maximino
Carantes that the said instrument embodied the understanding among the parties that it
merely authorized the defendant Maximino to convey portions of Lot No. 44 to the
Government in their behalf to minimize expenses and facilitate the transaction;
The plaintiffs prayed that the deed of "Assignment of Right to Inheritance" be declared null
and void;
In an Order dated September 30, 1958, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss on the
grounds that there are allegations of co-ownership and trust in the complaint, and,
therefore, prescription did not lie.
However CA reversed lower courts decision and held that:
a constructive trust was created in favor of the private respondents, and, holding that an
action for reconveyance based on constructive trust is imprescriptible, recognized the right
of the private respondents to file an action for reconveyance regardless of the lapse of
time, citing Gayandato vs. Treasurer of the Philippine Islands, et al.
12
Issue : wn there is an existing trust between the parties? None
Held : None


It was also held by the respondent court that the petitioner was merely holding the property
in trust for the benefit of his co-heirs as administrator, hence, there was a continuing and
subsisting trust, and pursuant to section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the provisions
of the said Code on prescription (Secs. 40-41) do not apply. It is our view, however, that
there was no continuing and subsisting trust.


From March 16, 1940, when the petitioner registered the deed of assignment and had the
Certificate of title in the names of the heirs cancelled and a new certificate of title issued in
his own name, he began to hold the property in open and clear repudiation of any trust.
15
It will be noted that on the same date, the petitioner also executed a formal deed of sale
over portions of Lot No. 44 in favor of the Government. In 1948 he mortgaged Lot No. 44-
D with the Philippine National Bank as his exclusive property. The petitioner's exercise of
such rights of dominion is anathema to the concept of a continuing and subsisting trust.
The circumstances, found by the respondent court, that the name of Mateo Carantes still
appeared in the tax declaration as owner of the land and the name of the petitioner as
administrator, that the real estate taxes, were shared by the other heirs with the petitioner,
and that some of the heirs are living in houses erected by them on the land, wane in legal
significance in the face of the petitioner's aforesaid uncontroverted acts of strict dominion.
In connection with the payment of real estate taxes, it is to be noted that the respondent
court also found that all the receipts were issued in the name of the petitioner. The
circumstances mentioned above do not make out a case of a continuing and subsisting
trust.