Heirs of Lorenzo Yap v. CA Digest

Heirs of Lorenzo Yap v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No.. 133047 August 17, 1999

Facts: 

1. Petitioners as heirs of Lorenzo Yap filed an action against Ramon Yap and co-respondent 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.

Related Digest on Trusts: See Saltiga v. Romeo for detailed discussion on implied and express trusts

Saltiga v. Romero Digest

Saltiga v. Romero

G.R. No. 109307 November 25, 1999

Ponente: Gonzaga-Reyes, J.:

Trusts

Facts:

1. The petitioners filed an action against Lutero Romero and DBP (bank) for the reconveyance of a parcel of land alleging that the said property was conveyed to Romero by their father by virtue of a trust.

2. In 1939, Eugenio (father)of petitioners obtained the rights and interest to the then public land from the Jaug spouses but since he had already applied for a homestead previously, he could no longer apply for this said land. As a result he caused the application to be under the name of his eldest son Eustaquio. When the father died, the said land was portioned to the children who subsequently possessed each share.

3. Romero alleged that he was subsequently forced to sign three affidavits which purportedly sold the shares to his other siblings. He repudiated the said affidavits which made his sisters file estafa charges against him.

Issue:Whether or not a trust was created between their father and Romero for the benefit of the heirs of the former

RULING: No, and even if there was it would be void for being contrary to law. Eugenio Romero was never the owner of the subject land because all he obtained from the Jaug spouses were the rights and interests to the land. He could not have owned it as his application for homestead patent was disapproved.

More importantly, there was no evidence of the supposed trust. A trust is a legal relationship between a person having an equitable ownership in property and another owning a legal title to such property. The equitable ownership of the former entitles him to perform certain duties and powers by the latter. Trust relations can therefore be express or implied. Express being those created by direct and positive acts of the parties, by a writing or a deed, or will or by words that evidence an intention to create a trust. Implied trusts refer to those that are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent or which are superinduced on the transaction by operation of law as a matter of equity, independently of the particular intention of the parties. Implied trust can either be resulting  or constructive trusts, both coming by operation of law. 

resulting trusts arise from the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest are presumed always to have been contemplated by the parties. While cosntructive trusts are created by construction of equity to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent enrichment.

Almayri v. Pabale Digest

Almayri v. Pabale

G.R. No. 151243 April 30, 2008

Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J.:

Facts:

1. Almayri petitions the court for the setting aside of the CA decision. 

2. Cesnando Fernando, representing S.M. Fernando Realty Corp filed an action for Specific Performance with Damages (Civil Case) against Nelly Nave who owns a parcel of land which the former alleged was the subject of a 'Kasunduan ng Pagbibilihan'. However, Nave allegedly reneged on their agreement when she refused to accept the partial payment of Fernando. The said lot was instead sold to the Pabale siblings.

3.  Subsequently, the civil proceedings were suspended by virtue of a guardianship proceedings. In June 1988, Nave was declared therein to be incompetent.

4. The lower court declared the nullity of the two sale agreements on the ground that Nave was found incompetent since 1980. The Pabale siblings intervened. The Court of Appeals granted the appeals of both Fernando and the Pabale siblings and upheld the validity of the Deed of Sale executed by Nelly Nave dated February 20,  1984. Hence this petition.

4. Petitioner alleged that since Nave was judicially determined to be an incompetent, all contracts that she subsequently entered into should be declared null and void.

Issue: Whether or not the declaration of incompetency constitutes res judicata 

RULING: No. There was no identity of parties and issues between the special proceeding on the guardianship of Nave and the civil case. The decision on the former on her incompetency should not therefore bar by conclusiveness of judgement the finding in the latter case (civil case) that Nave was competent and had capacity when she entered into the contract of sale over the subject lot in favor of the Pabale siblings.

Herein, the Court expounded on the difference between the two rules on res judicata, namely; 1) bar by previous judgment, and 2) conclusiveness of judgement. Bar by previous judgement means that the judgement in the first case will bar the second case due to the identity of parties, subject-matter, and cause of action. While a bar by virtue of conclusiveness of judgement bars the re-litigation in a second case of a fact or question already settled in a previous case. Hence, even of there is identity of parties, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgement can be conclusive only as to the those matters actually controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved

Nery v. Lorenzo Digest

Nery v. Lorenzo 44 SCRA 431

G.R. No. L-23376  April 27, 1972

Ponente: Fernando, J.:

Facts:

1. A parcel of land was sold to vendee spouses Nery by the widow of the deceased Leoncio Lorenzo. The vendor was Bienvenida (widow), guardian of the decedent's minor children. Two (2) of whom later assailed the validity of the said transaction. The latter contended that despite the order of the guardianship court authorizing the sale of the lot, they were not informed of the move. Further, they contended that the guardianship proceeding was conducted without notifying the two older siblings although they were already more than 14 years of age at that time.

2. The heirs of Silveria Ferrer who allegedly owned 1/4 of the property likewise intervened in the action. The lower court adjudged them the owners of the 1/4 portion and it likewise declared the sale to be null and void.

3. The spouses Nery appealed to the Court of Appeals which declared the deed of sale to the spouses (as to the 3/4 portion) by the guardian is valid, without prejudice to the children demanding from their mother their participation in the proceeds. Not being satisfied with the appellate court's decision, the spouses Nery, the children of the deceased and Bienvenida filed these petitions.

Issue: Whether or not the probate court could have validly authorize the sale of the property

RULING:

No, the juridictional infirmity is clear. The Court of Appeals failed to give due weight to the jurisdictional defect that the minors over 14 years age were not notified. The probate court is therefor correct in not have authorized the sale due to this clear jurisdictional infirmity. The rights of the young should never be ignored and it does not matter if their guardian is their mother, as even in some cases, the interest of the mother is opposed to that of the children.

Finally, when minors are involve, the state being the parens patriae has the duty to protect the rights of persons or individuals who because of age or incapacity are in an unfavorable position.

Paciente v. Dacuycuy Digest

Paciente v. Dacuycuy 114 SCRA 924

G.R. No. L-58319 June 29, 1982

Ponente: Guttierez, J.:

Facts:

1. Leonardo Homeres died, leaving to his widow Lilia, and two (2) minor children a lot. Subsequently, the lot was sold to Conchita Dumdum, who later on sold it to the petitioner. The petitioner then mortgaged the subject lot to the Citytrust bank as security for a loan. Thereafter, Lilia was declared guardian of the minors in the guardianship proceedings.

2. The guardianship court issued an order for the cancellation of the transfer certificate of title for the lot. It also ordered the petitioner to pay the minors the price of the lot alienated. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the guardianship court has jurisdiction to order the cancellation on the transfer certificate of title of the subject lot

RULING: Yes, in this case the title and ownership of the minors over the disputed property is clear and indisputable, as such, the court orders for the return or deliver of the property is valid. However, the order directing the payment or deposit of P10,000 is null and void as it was issued without a hearing to determine the value of the property and the time frame for fixing such valuation was unclear.

Parco v. CA Digest

Parco v. Court of Appeals 111 SCRA 262

G.R. No. L-33152 January 30,1982

Ponente: De Castro, J.:

Facts:

1. This case stems from a previous Special proceedings for the guardianship of incompetent Soriaya Rodriguez. The guardianship proceeding originally pertained to Branch 1, CFI of Quezon. Subsequently, it was transferred to Branch IV-Calauag, CFI of Quezon, where respondent judge Kayanan took cognizance of the case.

2. The private respondent, Francisco Rodriguez Jr. was the appointed guardian. Respondent judge approved the conveyance of three (3) parcels of land belonging to the ward to the petitioners, the spouses Parco. 

3. Almost two years after the guardianship court's approval of the 'sale', the private respondent filed an urgent petition for the examination of the subject conveyance of the lots to the petitioners, by virtue of the transfer of title to third parties.   He argued that the conveyance was actually a loan agreement with a right to recover while the spouses alleged that there was an absolute sale of the lands in dispute.  

Issue: Whether or not a guardianship court has jurisdiction to order the reconveyance of the properties to the ward

RULING: No, unlike in previous court decision, the facts of this case is not in all fours as there is a cloud over the titles of the properties in question. A reconveyance would  require the determination of the ownership or title of the subject three parcels of land, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the guardianship court, and thus must be threshed out in a separate and ordinary civil action.

In previous decisions, the court approved the reconveyance to the ward of properties embezzled, concealed or conveyed when there is not question as to the ward's title and ownership to the property. Herein, it is premature to say based only on the pleadings that the ward has clear and undisputable title to the properties.

Guy v. CA (Court of Appeals) Digest

Guy v. CA

502 SCRA 151

G.R. No. 163707 September 15, 2006

Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.:

Facts:

1. The special proceeding case concerns the settlement of the estate of Sima Wei (a.k.a. Rufina Guy Susim). Private-respondents Karen and Kamille alleged that they are the acknowledged  illegitimate children of Sima Wei who died intestate. The minors were represented by their mother Remedios Oanes who filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration before the RTC of Makati City.

2. Petitioner who is one of the children of the deceased with his surviving spouse, filed for the dismissal of the petition alleging that his father left no debts hence, his estate may be settled without the issuance of letters administration. The other heirs filed a joint motion to dismiss alleging that the certification of non-forum shopping should have been signed by Remedios and not by counsel.

3. Petitioners further alleged that the claim has been paid and waived by reason of a Release of Claim or waiver stating that in exchange for financial and educational assistance from the petitioner, Remedios and her minor children discharged the estate of the decedent from any and all liabilities.

4. The lower court denied the joint motion to dismiss as well as the supplemental motion ruling that the mother is not the duly constituted guardian of the minors hence, she could not have validly signed the waiver.  It also rejected the petitioner's objections to the certificate of non-forum shopping. The Court of Appeals affirmed the orders of the lower court. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not a guardian can validly repudiate the inheritance the wards

RULING: No, repudiation amounts to alienation of property and parents and guardians must necessarily obtain judicial approval. repudiation of inheritance must pass the court's scrutiny in order to protect the best interest of the ward. Not having been authorized by the court, the release or waiver is therefore void. Moreover, the private-respondents could not have waived their supposed right as they have yet to prove their status as illegitimate children of the decedent. It would be inconsistent to rule that they have waived a right which, according to the petitioner, the latter do not have.

As to the jurisdiction of the court to determine the heirs

The court is not precluded to receive evidence to determine the filiation of the claimants even if the original petition is for the issuance of letters administration. Its jurisdiction extends to matters collateral and incidental to the settlement of the estate, with the determination of heirship included. As held in previous decision, two causes of action may be brought together in one complaint, one a claim for recognition, and the other to claim inheritance. (Briz v. Briz)

Moran Sison v. Teodoro Digest

Moran Sison vs. Teodoro

G.R. No. L-9271 March 29, 1957

Bautista Angelo, J.:

Facts:

1. The CFI of Manila which had jurisdiction over the estate of Margarita David, issued an order appointing appellantCarlos Moran Sison as judicial administrator without compensation after filing a bond. After entering into his duties as administrator, he filed an accounting of his administration which included items as an expense of administration the premiums he paid on his bond.

2. One of the heirs, herein appellee Narcisa Teodoro, objected to the approval of the items. The court approved the report but disallowed the items objected to on the ground that these cannot be considered as expenses of administration. Moran Sison filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not an executor or judicial administrator can validly charge the premiums on his bond as an expense of administration against the estate

NO.

The premiums paid by an executor or administrator serving without a compensation for his bond cannot be charged against the estate. Further Sec. 7 of Rule 86 of the Rules of Court  does not authorize the executor or administrator to charge to the estate the money spent for the bond. As held in the case of Sulit v. Santos (56 Phil 626), the position of an executor or administrator is one of trust. The law safeguards the estates of deceased persons by making as a requirement for qualification the ability to give a suitable bond. The execution of said bond is therefore a condition precedent to acceptance of the responsibilities of the trust.

Further, the giving of the bond is not a necessary expense in the care, management, and settlement of the estate within the meaning of Sec. 680 of the Civil Code of Procedure, since such are the requirements after the executor or administrator has already qualified for the office and has entered the performance of his duties.

Moore and Sons v Wagner Digest

Facts of the Case:

In the proceeding for settlement of the intestate estate of deceased Samuel Allen, his widow petitioner for provision of allowance for hreself and her daughter Avelina Allen amounting to P80.00. The Special Administrator appointed objected to the allowance requested on the ground that the estate is insolvent since the total claims presented against it amounts to P2,457.00 while the estate's balance only amounted to P870.97. 

The lower court approved the allowance citing Art. 1430 of the New Civil Code and Sec. 684 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the lower court's decision.

Issue: May a widow validly demand for support or allowance when the liabilities of the deceased's estate exceed its assets?

Ruling: No. Support cannot be granted if proved that there is no more property, private or conjugal, pertaining to the surviving spouses or heirs of the deceased since by virtue of Art. 1430 (NCC), support is only an advance payment on account of the respective share of each partner. In this case, it is indisputable that the deceased Samuel Allen's estate liabilities exceed the assets. Moreover, his widow admitted that she has not contributed to the property of marriage. As such, it is therefore unlawful to grant support when there is no property to be partitioned.

Sebial v. Sebial Digest

G.R. No. L-23419

Facts of the Case:

 Gelacio Sebial died in 1943, he had 3 children with this 1st wife Reoncia (Roberta's mother) and 6 other children with his 2nd wife Dolores, (Benjamina's mother). In 1960, BEjamina filed for the settlement of her father's estate and her appointment as administrator. Thisd petition was oppsed by Roberta on the ground that said estate had already been apportioned and that she should be the one appointed as administrator and not Benjamina. The Court appointed Benjamina and found that alleged partition was invalid and ineffective. So the letters of administration were issued and a notice to the creditors was issue don the same date. The oppositors motion for reconsideration was denied. For the possibility of an amicale settlement, the court ordered both sides to give a complete list of the porperties of te decedent with segregation for each marriage.

On Nov. 1961, the lower court approved the administrator's inventory (second one) or six months from the appointment. Roberta them moved for the motion reocnsideration alleging as ground that the court has no jusridiction to approve the inventory as it was files beyiind the 3-month period. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Did the court lose jurisdiction to approve the inventory which was made 6 months after the appointment?

Ruling. NO. Under section 1 of Rule 83 of the Rules of Court, the prescribed three-month period is not mandatory. Once a petition for the issuance of letters of administration is filed with the proper court and the publication of the notice of hearing is complied with, said court acquires jurisdiction over the estate and retains such until the probate proceedings is closed. Hence, even if the inventory was filed only after the three-month period, this delay will not deprive the probate court of its jurisdiction to approve it. However, under section 2 of Rule 82 of the Rules of Court, such unexplained delay can be a ground for an administrator's removal.