YAP VS.

CA, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (JUNE 6, 2001)

Facts: The right against excessive bail, and the liberty of abode and travel, are being
invoked to set aside two resolutions of the Court of Appeals which fixed bail at
P5,500,000.00 and imposed conditions on change of residence and travel abroad. For
misappropriating amounts equivalent to P5,500,000.00, petitioner was convicted of
estafa and was sentenced to four years and two months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, in addition to one (1) year for
each additional P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00 but in no case shall it exceed
twenty (20) years. He filed a notice of appeal, and moved to be allowed provisional
liberty under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the proceedings.
Issue: Was the condition imposed by the CA on accuseds bail bond violative the liberty
of abode and right to travel?
Held: Imposing bail in an excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail.
Under the circumstances of this case, we find that appropriate conditions have been
imposed in the bail bond to ensure against the risk of flight, particularly, the combination
of the hold-departure order and the requirement that petitioner inform the court of any
change of residence and of his whereabouts. Although an increase in the amount of bail
while the case is on appeal may be meritorious, we find that the setting of the amount at
P5,500,000.00 is unreasonable, excessive, and constitutes an effective denial of
petitioners right to bail.
Facts:
1. Petitioners as heirs of Lorenzo Yap filed an action against Ramon Yap and corespondent for the reconveyance of land, with buildings and improvement on it. They
alleged that the said property was held in trust by Ramon and that it was their father
Lorenzo who purchased the said land and constructed the apartment building on it.
However, alleging that since at that time, Lorenzo was still a Chinese citizen, hence
prohibited from owning land, he caused it to be registered in the name of respondent
Ramon.
2. The said property was sold by Ramon to his co-respondent which caused the
petitioners to file this action.
3. The lower court ruled in favor of the respondents or the ownership of Ramon. This
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence this petition.
Issue: Whether or not a trust was constituted between Lorenzo and Ramon
RULING: No, and even it there was an implied trust, it could not have been valid as it
was in contravention of applicable laws. There is a basic distinction between implied

and express trusts. Express trusts cannot be proved by parole evidence. Even then, in
order to establish the existence of an implied trust in real property by parole evidence,
the prove should be as fully convincing as the facts as if the acts giving rise to the trust
obligation are proven by an authentic document. The petitioners' evidence was
insufficient to prove clearly that a trust was constituted between their father and Ramon.