Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Salao v. Salao70SCRA65Facts:
The plaintiffs, all relatives of the defendants, instituted action for a piece of
land in Bataan, alleging it came from common funds and that there was an oral
partition made earlier. They alleged that the defendants, who became
administrators of property in Malabon inherited from their grandparents, used
common funds to buy property elsewhere.
Issue:
1. Who is the trustor and who is the trustee? 2. Was trust created?
Held:
1. person who establishes a trust is called the trustor! one in whom
confidence is reposed as regards property for the benefit of another person is
"nown as the trustee! and the person for whose benefit the trust has been created
is referred to as the beneficiary# $ rt. 1%%&, 'ivil 'ode(.There is a fiduciary
relation between the trustee and the
cestui que trust
as regards certain property, real, personal, money or choses in action.2. The
court ruled that it was not proven that a trust had been created. )o documentary
evidence was presented to prove an e*press trust, and rt. 1%%+ says parol
evidence cannot be used to prove an e*press trust concerning realty.
Art. 1443. No express trusts co cer ! " a !##ova$le or a % ! terest t&ere! #a% $e
proved $% parol ev!de ce.
)either can the evidence prove an implied trust. While an implied trust may be
proven by oral evidence, it must be trustworthy. )either was it proven that there
was fraud or mista"e, enough to create a constructive trust.
'() *IN+S )F 'R,S'
Express-
'reated by the parties, or by the intention of the trustor. *press trusts do not
prescribe unless repudiated.
Implied
- 'reated by operation of law. The rule on implied trusts regarding prescription is
confusing. n general, resulting trusts do not prescribe, but constructive trusts
do
ISSUE:
Whether the reinstatement of Casteel over the subject land constitute a
dissolution of the partnership between him and Deluao
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that the arrangement under the so-called
"contract of service" continued until the decision both dated Sept. 15,
1950 were issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
in DANR Cases 353 and 353-B.
The approval was an event which made it unlawful for the members to
carry it on in partnership. Moreover, subsequent events likewise reveal
the intent of both parties to terminate the partnership because each
refused to share the fishpond with the other.