PENALBER V. RAMOS ET AL., G. R. No.

178645, writing or deed, or will or by words either expressly or

January 30, 2009 impliedly evincing an intention to create a trust. No
particular words are required for the creation of an
FACTS: express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly
intended. However, in accordance with Article 1443
Petitioner Lina Pealber, for many years, of the Civil Code, when an express trust concerns an
owned and operated a hardware store prior to 1984 in immovable property or any interest therein, the same
a building she owned along Bonifacio St., may not be proved by parol or oral evidence.
Tugueguerao, Cagayan (Bonifacio Property).
However, the lot on which the building is erected is Though the SC held that Article 1443 takes
owned by Maria Mendoza (Mendoza), from whom the nature of a statue of frauds, spouses Ramos did
petitioner rented the same. On March 22, 1982, indeed fail to interpose their objections regarding the
petitioner allowed Spouses Ramos, the wife being her admissibility of the testimonies when the same were
daughter, to take over the management of the offered to prove the alleged verbal trust agreement
business with the verbal agreement that that the between and petitioner. Consequently, the
accumulated earnings of the store would be used to testimonies were admissible in evidence.
purchase the lot which Mendoza was selling that time. Nevertheless, while admissibility of evidence is an
Petitioner further alleged that based on the same affair of logic and law, determined as it is by
agreement, the Ramos spouses having the better relevance and competence, the weight to be given to
credit standing, they would be made to appear as such evidence, once admitted, still depends on
vendees so that the title to be issued in their names judicial intervention. The court holds that the same
could be used to secure a loan with which to build a carried little weight in proving the alleged verbal trust
bigger building and expand the hardware business. agreement between petitioner and respondent
Consequently respondent spouses Ramos allegedly spouses.
entered in to a contract of sale with Mendoza over the
Bonifacio property as a result of which a Transfer
Certtificate Title over said lot was issued in their
names.

In 1984, spouses Ramos returned the

management of the business to petitioner. She later
found out that the Bonifacio Property was already fully
paid. Petitioner demanded from the spouses the
reconveyance of the title of the property, however the
latter refused. Petitioner asserted that respondent
spouses Ramos were mere trustees, thus, they were
under moral and legal obligation to reconvey title over
the said property. She then filed a petition with the
RTC of Cagayan with the prayer that she be declared
the owner of the Bonifacio property. Respondents
countered that they acquired the questioned property
after redeeming it from DBP to avoid foreclosure of
the mortgage debt of the petitioner. Allegedly, after
said incident, petitioner executed a Deed of Donation
of the questioned property on their favor.

The trial court held that petitioner is the

owner of the Bonifacio property and ordered the
respondents to reconvey the same to her. On appeal
to the Court of Appeals, said decision was reversed
and the lower court’s decision was assailed on the
ground that the alleged express trust created between
the parties involving the questioned property could not
be proven by parol evidence. Thus, petitioner
elevated her case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not an express trust was

created by the parties over the Bonifacio
property?

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court held that

petitioner’s allegations as to the existence of an
express trust agreement with respondent spouses
Ramos, supported by her own testimonies and her
son, do not hold water.

Express trusts are those which are created

by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some
GO VS. ESTATE OF THE LATE FELISA TAMIO DE RTC concluded that petitioners were purchasers
BUENAVENTURA in good faith.
● The CA modified the RTC’s decision and ordered the
Docket: G.R. No. 211972 reconveyance of the sale. However, it affirmed the
ruling that an implied trust was constituted between
Date: July 22, 2015 Felisa, during her lifetime, and Bella, Delfin, Sr., and
Felimon, Sr. when the former sold the subject property
Ponente: Perlas-Bernabe, J. to the latter. Felisa had not intended to relinquish her
ownership over the subject property in their favor, as
evidenced not only by the said letter but also by her
contemporaneous and subsequent acts of ownership.
FACTS

● The late Felisa bought a parcel of land with an ISSUE and HELD 1.W/N there was an implied trust between
area of 533 sq. m. from Carmen Zaragosa. She Felisa and Bella, Delfin, Sr. and Felimon, Sr.?
then constructed a 3-storey building called
D’Lourds Building where she resided until her ● Trust is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of
property, the legal title to which is vested in
death. She purportedly sold said land to one of
another. It is a fiduciary relationship that obliges
her daughters, Bella Guerrero, her husband
the trustee to deal with the property for the benefit
Felimon Buenaventura, Sr., and Felisa’s of the beneficiary. Trust relations between parties
common law husband Delfin, Sr. The title was may either be express or implied. An express trust
said to have been irretrievably destroyed. As is created by the intention of the trustor or of the
such, Bella caused its reconstitution and was parties, while an implied trust comes into being by
issued a replacement title. operation of law.
● Resurrecion, the other daughter of Felisa, ● Express trusts are created by direct and positive
acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or will,
began to occupy the second floor of the building
or by words either expressly or impliedly evincing
until her death. It was found that when Felisa
an intention to create a trust. It is possible to
died, she allegedly bequeathed the property to create a trust without using the word "trust" or
Resurrecion and her granddaughters Rhea and "trustee." Conversely, the mere fact that these
Regina Bihis. Bella was thereafter appointed words are used does not necessarily indicate an
administratrix of Felisa’s Estate with which she intention to create a trust.
included the property mentioned. As a result, ● The lower courts found that there was an implied
the adverse claim of the Bihis Family was trust established as evidenced by a letter written
and signed by Felisa. The SC, however, ruled that
cancelled.
there was an express trust as Felisa’s words
● The heirs of Felimon, Sr. executed a purported
unequivocally and absolutely declared her
Exrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Felimon intention of transferring the title over the subject
Buenaventura, Sr. and caused its annotation on property to Bella, Delfin, Sr., and Felimon, Sr. in
the title of the property. Hence, a new TCT was order to merely accommodate them in securing a
issued in the names of the said Heirs, Bella, loan from the GSIS. She also stated that she was
Delfin, Jr., and Lester. The property was sold to retaining her ownership over the property and
herein petitioners on the same day for Php wished that her heirs share equally therein.
● Hence, while in the beginning, an implied trust was
4,500,000. The sale was not known to the Bihis
merely created between Felisa, as trustor, and
Family. Petitioners then filed ejectment cases Bella, Delfin, Sr., and Felimon, Sr., as both
against the property’s occupants. trustees and beneficiaries, the execution of the
● The probate court revoked Bella’s appointment letter settled, once and for all, the nature of the
as administratrix and granted such to the trust established between them as an express
Resurreccion. Hence, the Bihis Family, one, their true intention irrefutably extant thereon.
representing Felisa’s estate, filed an action for ● Bella contends that there was no express trust as
reconveyance with the RTC. her signature was only placed to appease her
mother. She mentioned that she could afford to
● The RTC ruled that there was an implied trust
sign such as they were the owners of the property
between Bella and Felimon, Sr by operation of anyway.
law. The RTC concluded that it was the intention ● The Court holds that "[m]ere issuance of the
of the late Felisa to merely entrust to Bella and certificate of title in the name of any person does
Felimon, Sr. the subject property for the sole not foreclose the possibility that the real property
purpose of using the same as collateral to may be under co-ownership with persons not
secure a loan with the GSIS. As such, while it is named in the certificate or that the registrant may
only be a trustee or that other parties may have
true that a title was issued in the names of Bella,
acquired interest subsequent to the issuance of
Delfin, Sr., and Felimon, Sr. by virtue of the sale
the certificate of title," as in this case. Registration
of the subject property to them, it was clear that does not vest title; it is merely the evidence of
Felisa never intended to relinquish her such title.
ownership over the subject property. The land,
however, can no longer be reconveyed as the