Chunky Monkeys CM Digest

Case Name: Paringit v Bajit

Docket: G.R. No. 181844
Date: September 29, 2010
Ponente: Abad, J.

Paringit spouses have 5 kids, Felipe and Marciana

Spouses leased a property from Terocel, Terocel sold it to the dad
Dad asked kids for help but only Felipe had cash. So Dad assigned rights to Felipe
Dad executed an affidavit na it’s for the benefit of all his children and divided equally
But they should reimburse Felipe
They all signed the affidavit
Felipe sent demand letters after dad died pero ayaw eh

Felipe bought it as an implied trust. At the time Terocel offered the property, the leasehold
rights were joint. They should have all agreed but only dad agreed to the sale. Walang
element of common consent

FACTS
 Julian and Aurelia Paringit are married and they have 5 children, including
petitioner Felipe and respondent Marciana.
 The couple leased a property from Terocel Realty. After several years of leasing,
Terocel decided to sell the property and offered it to Julian.
 Julian sought the help of his children so he can buy the property but only his son
Felipe and wife had the financial resources at that time. Julian then
assigned his leasehold right in favor of Felipe and his wife.
 Felipe and Josefa purchased the property from Terocel for P55,500. Title was turned
over to them.
 Due to issues regarding the ownership of the lot, Julian executed an affidavit
claiming that it was bought for the benefit of all his children and it must be
divided equally among them at 15 sqm each; but each of them should
reimburse their brother Felipe and his wife, Josefa, the proportional amount
advanced by them.
 The siblings Marciana, Rosario and Adolio (Marciana, et al) signed their concurrence
to the affidavit. Josefa, signed the affidavit for Felipe who was in Saudi Arabia. Only
Florencio did not sign.
 Although the lot was registered under the name of Felipe and his wife, they moved
into a different house on the same street where the subject property is situated,
while the 3 other siblings occupied the house.
 After Julian died, Felipe sent demand letters for rentals to his siblings who
were occupying the lot. Marciana, et al refused.
 Felipe succeeded in securing an ejectment against his siblings and thereafter moved
into the house with his wife.
 Marciana and the other siblings filed the present action for annulment of title and
reconveyance of the property.

Balbanero, Bruzon, Go, Olazo, Ong, Santos, Sarmiento, Umandap, Yrreverre

Chunky Monkeys CM Digest

ISSUE and HELD

1. W/N Felipe and his wife purchased the subject lot under an implied trust for the
benefit of all the children of Julian? YES
 Article 1450 presupposes a situation where a person, using his own funds (Felipe),
buys property on behalf of another who in the meantime may not have the funds to
purchase it (Julian). Title to the property is for the time being placed in the name of
the person who pays for it (Felipe), until he is reimbursed by the person for whom
the land is for (other siblings).
 Although no express agreement covered Felipe and his wife's purchase of the lot for
the siblings and their father, it came about by operation of law and is protected by it.
The nature of the transaction established the implied trust.
o At the time Tercol offered to sell the property, Julian and his children
co-owned the leasehold right. All the co-owners should have agreed
to any sale of the leasehold right.
o However, only Julian agreed to the sale. If the intention was really for Felipe
to solely own the property, the conformity of the co-owners should have been
secured.
o For over 10 years, Felipe respected the right of the siblings to reside on the
property. This is incompatible with their claim that they bought the house and
lot for themselves back in 1984
 Anent to the contention of the petitioner that the defendant’s action to recover is
barred by prescription, SC held that in an implied trust, the beneficiary’s cause of
action arises when the trustee repudiates the trust, not when the trust was created
as Felipe and his wife would have it.
 The spouses of course registered the lot in their names in January 1987 but they
could not be said to have repudiated the implied trust by that registration.
 Even assuming that Felipe and his wife’s registration of the lot in their names in
January 1987 constituted a hostile act or a violation of the implied trust, Marciana, et
al had 10 years or until January of 1997 within which to bring their action. Here, they
filed such action in July 1996 well within the period allowed them.

Balbanero, Bruzon, Go, Olazo, Ong, Santos, Sarmiento, Umandap, Yrreverre