1448.
There is an implied trust when property is sold,
and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is
paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the trustee,
while the latter
is the beneficiary. However, if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of
the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being disputably presumed that there is a gift
in favor of the child.
Explanation:
(1) Purchase of Property Where Title is Not Given to Payer But to Another
(a) This is a resulting trust (because a trust is intended) because one who pays for something usually does so
for his own benefit. (Uy Aloc v. Cho Jan Jing, 19 Phil. 202)
(2) Rule if Document Expresses a Different Intent
There is no implied trust if the document expresses a different intention. (Armstrong v. Black, 46 Ariz. 507)
Armstrong v. Blalack
46 Ariz. 507
Facts:
Where husband (Joseph R. Blalack) expected to be reimbursed by wife for money paid by him out of his
separate property on purchase price of house conveyed to wife (Josephine Blalack) as her separate estate,
resulting trust was not created in favor of husband, and he was not owner of any part of house.
Issue: Whether or not there was a resulting trust between the husband and late wife.
Ruling: No.
Since the person who paid the purchase price or a part thereof, in this case the plaintiff, manifested an
intention that the transferee should be liable to repay the purchase price advanced by the former, no resulting
trust arose, and the court was, therefore, in error in adjudging him the owner of any portion of the property.
Whether or not he may file a claim against the estate of his deceased wife for the amount which, according to
his statement, he loaned her, is a matter need not determine in the present action.
Uy Aloc, et al. vs. Chi Jan Ling, et al.
G.R. No.L-5333 March 25, 1911
Facts:
A number of Chinese merchants raised a fund by voluntary subscription with which they purchased a valuable
tract of land and erected a large building to be used as a sort of club house for the mutual benefit of the
subscribers to the fund. The subscriber organized themselves into an irregular association, which had no
regular articles in the commercial registry or elsewhere. The association not having any existence as a legal
entity, it was agreed to have the title to the property placed in the name of one of the members, the
defendant, Cho Jan Ling, who on his part accepted the trust, and agreed to hold the property as the agent of
the members of the association. After the club building was completed with the funds of the members of the
association, Cho Jan Ling collected some P25,000 in rents for which he failed and refused to account, and upon
proceedings being instituted to compel him to do so, he set up title in himself to the club property as well as to
the rents accruing therefrom, falsely alleging that he had bought the real estate and constructed the building
with his own funds, and denying the claims of the members of the association that it was their funds which had
been used for that purpose.
Issue: Whether the property belongs to Cho Jan Ling.
Ruling: No. The Court ruled that the evidence clearly discloses not only that the funds with which the property
in question was purchased were furnished by the members of the association, but that Cho Jan Ling, in whose
name it was registered, received and holds the property as the agent and trustee of the association; that on at
least one occasion he admitted the beneficial ownership to be in the association; and that while the legal
registered title is in his name the beneficial ownership is in the association.
Jan 25, 2020
