7/23/2019 Trust Cases 09162015

1/13

(Mindanao Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals, 113 SCRA 429 19!2".#

Seller bound himself to work for the titling at his own expense the portion of the land sold to buyer but

title issued in name of seller.

$a%ts&

In 1939,Franiso !ng "ansing, owner of an unregistered trat of land with an area of #9 hetares, sold

to $uan %ru& 'ap %huy a portion of said land (!)!* %I+', -ot 1/0% with an area of around 2

hetares. In the deed of sale, "!SI4 made the following ommitment5 6I hereby agree to work forthe titling of the entire area of land under my own expenses and the expenses for the titling of the

portion sold (by me shall be under the expenses of %78'. +en months later, %78' sold to the

4o:ernment -ot 1/0%. In 19/1, "!SI4 exeuted an af;da:it wherein he on;rmed the pre:ioussale to %78' larifying that the exat area of the lot sold is 01,1uare meters and ertifying that he

intended to ede and transfer the lot to %78' after the sur:ey of "!SI4?s land. +he af;da:it was

registered. Subse>uently, "!SI4 obtained original erti;ate of title for the #9hetare land. "y

@residential @rolamation, ertain parels of land forming part of the 4o:ernment?s pri:ate domainwere transferred to A! (Aindanao e:elopment !uthority, now Southern @hilippines e:elopment

!dministration, a go:ernment ageny, subBet to pri:ate rights, if any. -ot 1/0% was among the

parels of land transferred to A! in said prolamation. In 1909, A! ; led suit against "!SSI4for the reon:eyane of the title o:er -ot 1/0% after the latter ignored repeated demands to the

transfer of title to A!.

'ssue&

Chether "!SI4 a trustee in an express trust o:ering -ot 1/0%, and, therefore, the lot should be

adBudiated to A!D

(eld&

)o. +he stipulation in the deed of sale does not ategorially reate an obligation on the part of

"!SI4 to hold the property in trust for %78'. 7ene, there is no express trust. It is essential to the

reation of an express trust that the settlor presently and une>ui:oably make a disposition of propertyand make himself the trustee of the property for the bene;t of another. Chile "!SI4 had agreed

that he will work for the titling of 6the entire area of my land under my own expenses, it is not lear

therefrom whether said statement refers to the #9hetare parel of land or to that portion left to himafter the sale. ! failure on the part of the settlor de; nitely to desribe the subBet matter of the

supposed trust or the bene; iaries or obBet thereof is strong e:idene that he intended no trust. !nd

e:en assuming that an express trust was reated, "!SI4 had long repudiated it when he refused to

deli:er and on:ey the title to the property to A!, the alleged bene; iary to the trust. A! did nottake any ation until after the lapse of #3 years. (Aindanao e:elopment !uthority :s. %ourt of

!ppeals, supra.

7/23/2019 Trust Cases 09162015

2/13

A*uino, +., dissentin&

"!SI4 reated an express trust by exeuting later an af; da:it that he intended to transfer the

disputed lot to %78'. @resription in the ase of express trusts an be in:oked only from the time thetrust is repudiated. !nd a trustee who takes a torrens title in his name for the land held in trust annot

repudiate the trust by relying on the registration. +hat is one of the limitations upon the ; nality of a

deree of title. In any e:ent, the real plaintiff in this ase is the Eepubli of the @hilippines andpresription does not run against the State. +he maxim is nullum tempus o ourrit reg or nullum

tempus ourrit reipubliae (lapse of time does not bar the right of the rown or lapse of time does not

bar the ommonwealth. +he rule is now embodied in !rtile 11

7/23/2019 Trust Cases 09162015

3/13

-eronimo and 'sidro vs. )ava and A*uino, 1/0 hil. 140 1909".#

)endee a retro, though the title to the property was still in his name, reogni&ed the right to repurhase

of :endor a retro by allowing the latter to exerise ats of ownership o:er the property.

$a%ts&

+he trial ourt delared in a deision that +S )AA and 5'$ $6'SA A78') had the right toredeem four (/ lots with a house of strong materials, and ordered AA)A R)'M and

(8S:A)D ')C)C' 'S'DRto make the resale of the property in fa:or of+S )AA and 5'$

$6'SA A78') . !fter the deision had beome ;nal and exeutory, AA)A R)'M and(8S:A)D ')C)C' 'S'DRsuggested that the tenants of the house pay his rentals to S instead of

to him. ot only this but when the tenants left the house, +S )AA and 5'$ $6'SA A78')took

possession of, and exerised ats of, ownership o:er the house and AA)A R)'M and

(8S:A)D ')C)C' 'S'DR all along showed onformity thereto.

'ssue&

Chether there was an express trustD

(eld&

;es.+he ats of AA)A R)'M and (8S:A)D ')C)C' 'S'DRshould be onstrued as

a reognition of the fat that the property, though still in his name, is to be held in trust for+S )AA

and 5'$ $6'SA A78'), to be on:eyed to the latter upon payment of the repurhase prie. Suhtrust is an express one, not subBet to presription.

7/23/2019 Trust Cases 09162015

4/13

-+ulio vs. Dalandan, 21 SCRA 043 19

7/23/2019 Trust Cases 09162015

5/13

-da. de Mapa vs. Court of Appeals, 104 SCRA 294 19!=".#

7usband designated as sole heir with obligation to deli:er properties to ertain persons referred to as

6bene;iaries.

$a%ts&

In her will,%onepion Aapa de 7idrosollo, testatrix, designated her husband, -udo:io 7idrosollo, asuni:ersal and sole heir with the obligation to deli:er the properties in >uestion to ertain persons who

were referred to as 6bene;iaries. +he word 6trust does not appear in the will.

'ssue&

Chether %onepion Aapa de 7idrosollo effeti:ely reate a trust in fa:or of the parties o:er the

properties ad:erted to in the willD

(eld&

'es. +he designations, oupled with the other pro:isions for oownership and Boint administration of

the properties and other onditions imposed by %onepion Aapa de 7idrosollo, learly demonstrated

the intent of %onepion Aapa de 7idrosollo that the legal title to the properties should :est in-udo:io 7idrosollo and the bene; ial or e>uitable interest thereto should repose in said persons.

7/23/2019 Trust Cases 09162015

6/13

-Suna vs. De u>man, 9/ SCRA

7/23/2019 Trust Cases 09162015

7/13

-illarta vs. Cuyno, 1= SCRA 1// 19

7/23/2019 Trust Cases 09162015

8/13

-Calero vs. Carrion, 1/= hil. 049 19

7/23/2019 Trust Cases 09162015

9/13

-8y Alo% vs. Cho +an 6in, 19 hil. 2/2 1911"#

+itle to property purhased with funds furnished by members of an assoiation without legal

personality was plaed in the name of one of them.

$a%ts&

! number of %hinese merhants raised a fund by :oluntary subsription with whih they purhased a

:aluable trat of land and ereted a large building to be used as a sort of lub house for the mutual

bene;t of the subsribers to the fund. +he subsribers organi&ed themsel:es into an irregularassoiation, whih had no regular artiles of assoiation and was not registered in any ommerial

registry or elsewhere. +he assoiation not ha:ing any existene as a legal entity, it was agreed to ha:e

the title to the property plaed in the name of %7* $! -I4, one of the members of the assoiation.

'ssue&

Chether %7* $! -I4 the right to set up title in himself to the lub property as well as to the rentsaruing therefromD

(eld&

)o. +he e:idene learly disloses not only that the funds with whih the property in >uestion was

purhased were furnished by the members of the assoiation but that %7* $! -I4, in whose name

it was registered, reei:ed and holds the property as the agent and trustee of the assoiation. In thisase, the legal title of %7* $! -I4 is not >uestioned and the other members of the assoiation do

not seek suh anellation but they maintain that %7* $! -I4 holds it under an obligation, both

express and implied, to deal with it exlusi:ely for the bene;t of the members of the assoiation andsubBet to their will.

7/23/2019 Trust Cases 09162015

10/13

-Mar%opper Minin Corp. vs. ar%ia, 143 SCRA 1=! 19!

7/23/2019 Trust Cases 09162015

11/13

MA)?A)'66A S. CA 1!3 SCRA 2/= Ma%h 10, 199/

"uyer of mortgaged property, with full knowledge of the mortgage, demands reon:eyane from the

sellerLmortgagor who was able to buy said property from the mortgagee after the property was legallyforelosed and ownership duly onsolidated in the name of the mortgagee, and to sell again to another.

$a%ts&

In 1903, spouses %eledonio and olores Aan&anilla sold on installment an undi:ided onehalf portion

of their residential house and lot. !t the time of the sale, the said property was mortgaged to the4o:ernment Ser:ie Insurane System (4SIS, whih fat was known to the :endees, spouses

Aagdaleno and $ustina %ampo. +he %ampo spouses took possession of the premises upon payment of

the first installment. Some payments were made to petitioners while some were made diretly to 4SIS.

*n Aay 1=, 1902, the 4SIS filed its appliation to forelose the mortgage on the property for failure of

the Aan&anilla spouses to pay their monthly amorti&ations.

*n *tober 11, 1902, the property was sold at publi aution where 4SIS was the highest bidder.

+wo months before the expiration of the period to redeem or on !ugust 31, 1900, the Aan&anilla

spouses exeuted a eed of !bsolute Sale of the undi:ided one half portion of their property in fa:or ofthe %ampo spouses.

8pon the expiration of the period to redeem without the Aan&anilla spouses exerising their right ofredemption, title to the property was onsolidated in fa:or of the 4SIS and a new title issued in its

name.

In $anuary 1909, the Aan&anilla spouses made representations and sueeded in reMa>uiring the

property form the 4SIS. 8pon full payment of the purhase prie, an !bsolute eed of Sale wasexeuted by 4SIS in fa:or of the Aan&anilla spouses.

*n Aay 1/, 19=3, the Aan&anilla spouses mortgaged the property to the "inan Eural "ank. *nSeptember =, 19=3, petitioner Ines %arpio purhased the property from the Aan&anilla spouses and

agreed to assume the mortgage in fa:or of "inan Eural "ankK o:ember 1#, 19=3, pri:ate respondent

$ustina %ampo registered her ad:erse laim o:er the lotK *tober 3, 19==, petitioner %arpio filed aneBetment ase against pri:ate respondent $ustina %ampo.

*n $uly 31, 19=9, pri:ate respondent $ustina %ampo (already a widow filed a omplaint for >uieting oftitle against the Aan&anilla spouses and Ines %arpio praying among others, for the issuane to her of a

ertifiate of title o:er the undi:ided onehalf portion of the property.

+he trial ourt rendered its deision in fa:or of %ampo. +he deision was appealed by petitioners to the%ourt of !ppealsK howe:er it only affirmed the deision of the trial ourt. @etitioners? Aotion for

reonsideration was denied.

'ssue5

Chether or not petitioners are under any legal duty to reon:ey the undi:ided one half portion of the

property to pri:ate respondent $ustina %ampo.

7/23/2019 Trust Cases 09162015

12/13

(eld&

o, there may be a moral duty on the part of petitioners to on:ey the onehalf portion of the propertypre:iously sold to pri:ate respondent. 7owe:er, they are under no legal obligation to do so. 7ene, the

ation to >uiet title filed by pri:ate respondent must fail.

(1 @etitioners did not at in bad faith. 6+here is no suf; ient basis for the trial ourt to onlude

that herein petitioners ated in bad faith in their dealings with the %ampo spouses. +he latter had full

knowledge of the existing mortgage of the whole property in fa:or of 4SIS prior to the sale of the onehalf portion to them. +here is also no showing that as one of the onsiderations of the sale, herein

petitioners undertook to release the property from the mortgage at all osts. Cith this ondition of the

property at the time of the sale, pri:ate respondents were forewarned of the onse>uenes of theirtransation with the petitioners.??

(# @etitioners did not deliberately allow the mortgage to be forelosed. 6+here is also no basis to

onlude that petitioners deliberately allowed the loan to lapse and the mortgage to be forelosed. ospei; at or series of ats were presented and pro:en from whih it ould be safely onluded that

the failure of petitioners to pay off their loan was deliberate. +hey explained that their ; nanial

ondition pre:ented them from dutifully omplying with their obligations to the 4SIS. In a display oftheir good faith and fair dealing after the property was forelosed, the petitioners, reali&ing the

imminent loss of the said property, e:en granted the pri:ate respondent the right to redeem it from the

4SIS. +his right was granted in the eed of !bsolute Sale exeuted by petitioners in fa:or of the%ampo spouses. Aoreo:er, it was also stipulated that pri:ate respondent reogni&ed the superior lien of

4SIS on the property and agreed to be bound by the terms and onditions of the mortgage. +hese

stipulations were all ontained in the eed. In :iew of the failure of either the Aan&anilla spouses or

the %ampo spouses to redeem the property from 4SIS, title to the property was onsolidated in thename of 4SIS. +he new title anelled the old title in the name of the Aan&anilla spouses. 4SIS at this

point had a lean title free from any lien in fa:or of any person inluding that of the %ampo spouses.??

(3 !tion to >uiet title must fail. 6If it were true that petitioners deliberately allowed the loan to

lapse and the mortgage to be forelosed, we do not see how these irumstanes an be utili&ed by

them to their ad:antage. +here was no guarantee that petitioners would be able to redeem the propertyin the e:ent the mortgage thereon was forelosed as in fat they failed to redeem beause they had no

money. *n the other hand, had they opted to e:entually exerise their right of redemption after

forelosure, they would be under a legal duty to on:ey onehalf portion thereof sold to the %ampospouses beause by then, title to the property would still be in their name. ither way, petitioners were

bound to lose either the entire property in ase of failure to redeem or the onehalf portion thereof sold

to pri:ate respondent in the ase of redemption. Further, should petitioners let the period of redemption

lapse without exerising the right of redemption, as what happened in this ase, there was no guaranteethat the same ould be rea>uired by them from 4SIS nor would 4SIS be under any legal duty to resell

the property to them. +here may be a moral duty on the part of petitioners to on:ey the onehalf

portion of the property pre:iously sold to pri:ate respondents. 7owe:er, they are under no legalobligation to do so. 7ene, the ation to >uiet title ; led by pri:ate respondent must fail.??

(/ +here was no mistake or fraud on the part of petitioners. 6!rtile 1/20 has no appliation in thease at bar. +here was no mistake nor fraud on the part of petitioners when the subBet property was

rea>uired from the 4SIS. +he fat that they pre:iously sold onehalf portion thereof has no more

signi; ane in this rea>uisition. @ri:ate respondent?s right o:er the onehalf portion was obliterated

7/23/2019 Trust Cases 09162015

13/13

when absolute ownership and title passed on to the 4SIS after the forelosure

sale. +he property as held by 4SIS had a lean title. +he property that was passed on to petitioners

retained that >uality of title.??

(2 Seond buyer ated in good faith. 6!s regards the rights of pri:ate respondent Ines %arpio, she is

a buyer in good faith and for :alue. +here was no showing that at the time of the sale to her of the

subBet property, she knew of any lien on the property exept the mortgage in fa:or of the "iNan Eural"ank. o other lien was annotated on the erti; ate of title. She is also not re>uired by law to go

beyond what appears on the fae of the title. Chen there is nothing on the erti; ate of title to indiate

any loud or :ie in the ownership of the property or any enumbranes thereon, the purhaser is notre>uired to explore further than what the +orrens +itle upon its fae indiates in >uest for any hidden

defet or inhoate right thereof.