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.