8/12/2019 159490502-Ramos-vs-Ramos

1/1

RAMOS VS. RAMOS Case DigestRAMOS VS. RAMOS

61 SCRA 284

FACTS: Spouses Martin Ramos and Candida Tanate died on October 4, 1906 and October 26, 1880, respectivel! T"e#ere survived b t"eir $ c"ildren! Moreover, Martin #as survived b "is % natural c"ildren! &n 'ecember 1906, a speciaproceedin( )or t"e settlement o) t"e intestate estate o) said spouses #as conducted! Ra)ael Ramos, a brot"er o) Martinadministered t"e estate )or more t"an 6 ears! *ventuall, a partition pro+ect #as submitted #"ic" #as si(ned b t"e $le(itimate c"ildren and 2 o) t"e % natural c"ildren! certain Timoteo -aco si(ned in representation o) t"e ot"er . natura

c"ildren #"o #ere minors! T"e partition #as s#orn to be)ore a +ustice o) peace!

T"e con+u(al "ereditar estate #as appraised at /%4,984!9$, consistin( o) 18 parcels o) land, some "ead o) cattle and t"eadvances to t"e le(itimate c"ildren! t"ereo) represented t"e estate o) Martin! 1$ t"ereo) #as t"e )ree portion or/12,49%!98! T"e s"ares o) t"e % natural c"ildren #ere to be taen )rom t"at 1$ )ree portion! &ndeed, t"e partition #asmade in accordance #it" t"e Old Civil code! T"erea)ter, 3ud(e Ric"ard Campbell approved t"e partition pro+ect! T"e courtdeclared t"at t"e proceedin( #ill be considered closed and t"e record s"ould be arc"ived as soon as proo) #as submittedt"at eac" "e$ir "ad received t"e portion ad+udicated to "im!

On ebruar $, 1914, 3ud(e 5epumoceno ased t"e administrator to submit a report s"o#in( t"at t"e s"ares o) t"e "eirs"ad been delivered to t"em as reuired b t"e previous decision! 5evert"eless, t"e mani)estation #as not in striccon)ormit #it" t"e terms o) t"e +ud(e7s order and #it" t"e partition pro+ect itsel)! 8 lots o) t"e imamalan Cadastre #erere(istered in eual s"ares in t"e names o) re(oria :#ido# o) 3ose Ramos; and "er dau("ter, #"en in )act t"eadministrator #as supposed to pa t"e cas" ad+udications to eac" o) t"em as ens"rined in t"e partition pro+ect! /lainti))s

#ere t"en constrained to brin( t"e suit be)ore t"e court seein( )or t"e reconveance in t"eir )avor t"eir correspondin(participations in said parcels o) land in accordance #it" rticle 840 o) t"e old Civil Code! 5ote t"at 16 o) t"e sub+ect lotsrepresents t"e 1$ )ree portion o) martin7s s"ares #"ic" #ill eventuall redound to t"e s"ares o) "is % le(allacno#led(ed natural c"ildren! T"e petitioners7 action #as predicated on t"e t"eor t"at t"eir s"ares #ere merel "eld intrust b de)endants! 5onet"eless, no 'eed o) Trust #as alle(ed and proven! *S, t"ere #as ine?cusable dela t"ereb main( t"e plainti))s7 action unuestionabl barred b prescriptionand lac"es and also b res +udicata! &ne?tricabl inter#oven #it" t"e uestions o) prescription and res +udicata is t"euestion on t"e e?istence o) a trust! &t is note#ort" t"at t"e main t"rust o) plainti))s7 action is t"e alle(ed "oldin( o) t"eir

s"ares in trust b de)endants! *manatin( )rom suc", t"e Supreme Court elucidated on t"e nature o) trusts and t"eavailabilit o) prescription and lac"es to bar t"e action )or reconveance o) propert alle(edl "eld in trust! &t is said t"attrust is t"e ri("t, en)orceable solel in euit to t"e bene)icial en+oment o) propert, t"e le(al title to #"ic" is vested inanot"er! &t ma eit"er be e?press or implied! T"e latter ids )urt"er subdivided into resultin( and constructive trusts

pplin( it no# to t"e case at bar, t"e plainti))s did not prove an e?press trust! 5eit"er did t"e speci) t"e ind o) impliedtrust contemplated in t"eir action! T"ere)ore, its en)orcement mabe barred b lac"es and prescription #"et"er t"econtemplate a resultin( or a constructive trust!