Cañezo vs Rojas

| 538 SCRA 242 | G.R. No. 148788 | November 23, 2007|

Doctrine:

A trust is a legal relationship between one person having an equitable ownership

of property and another person owning the legal title to such property, the
equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain
duties and the exercise of certain powers by the latter. Trusts are either express
or implied. Express trusts are those which are created by the direct and positive
acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words evincing an
intention to create a trust. Implied trusts are those which, without being
expressed, are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent
or, independently, of the particular intention of the parties, as being super-
induced on the transaction by operation of law basically by reason of equity. An
implied trust may either be a resulting trust or a constructive trust.

Elements; As a rule, the burden of proving the existence of a trust is on the party
asserting its existence, and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the
existence of the trust and its elements.—As a rule, however, the burden of
proving the existence of a trust is on the party asserting its existence, and such
proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the existence of the trust and its
elements. The presence of the following elements must be proved:

(1) a trustor or settlor who executes the instrument creating the trust;

(2) a trustee, who is the person expressly designated to carry out the trust;

(3) the trust res, consisting of duly identified and definite real properties; and

(4) the cestui que trust, or beneficiaries whose identity must be clear.
Accordingly, it was incumbent upon petitioner to prove the existence of the trust
relationship. And petitioner sadly failed to discharge that burden.

Facts

Soledad Cañezo filed a Complaint for the recovery of real property with the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Naval, Biliran, against her father’s second wife,
respondent Concepcion Rojas. The subject property is an unregistered land
situated at Higatangan, Naval, Biliran.

In her complaint, Soledad alleged that she bought the parcel of land in 1939
from Crisogono Limpiado, However, the transaction was not reduced into writing.
Thereafter, she immediately took possession of the property. When she and her
husband left for Mindanao in 1948, she entrusted the said land to her father,
Crispulo Rojas, who took possession of, and cultivated, the property.

In 1980, she found out that the respondent, her stepmother, was in possession of
the property and was cultivating the same. She also discovered that the tax
declaration over the property was already in the name of Crispulo Rojas.

On the contrary, Conception Rojas asserted that it was her husband, Crispulo
Rojas, who bought the property from Crisogono Limpiado, which accounts for the
tax declaration being in Crispulo’s name.
From then on, until his death in 1978, Crispulo possessed and cultivated the
property. Upon his death, the property was included in his estate, which was
administered by a special administrator, Bienvenido Ricafort. The petitioner, as
heir, even received her share in the produce of the estate.

MTC decided in favor of the petitioner which was reversed by the RTC that
makes the said property remains as the legitime of the defendant Concepcion
Rojas and her children on he the respondent asserts that the complaint is barred
by prescription, laches and estoppel.

However, upon reaching the Court of Appeals, the decision was reversed. CA
favored the contention of the Conception that the complaint is barred by
prescription, laches and estoppel. With this, CA reasoned that the petitioner’s
inaction for several years casts a serious doubt on her claim of ownership over
the parcel of land. It noted that 17 years lapsed since she discovered that
respondent was in adverse possession of the property before she instituted an
action to recover the same.

Aggrieved, petitioner insists that her right of action to recover the property
cannot be barred by prescription or laches even with the respondent’s
uninterrupted possession of the property for 49 years because there existed
between her and her father an express trust or a resulting trust.

Issue

Whether or not a trust, express or implied, was constituted between the

petitioner Cañezo and her father Crispulo.

Ruling

No. Supreme Court ruled that there was no trust, express or implied, between
Cañezo and Crispulo.

In the decision held by the SC, A definition of trust was stated. SC mentioned
that “A trust is a legal relationship between one person having an equitable
ownership of property and another person owning the legal title to such
property, the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance
of certain duties and the exercise of certain powers by the latter. Trusts are
either express or implied.Express trusts are those which are created by the
direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by
words evincing an intention to create a trust.Implied trusts are those which,
without being expressed, are deducible from the nature of the transaction as
matters of intent or, independently, of the particular intention of the parties, as
being super-induced on the transaction by operation of law basically by reason of
equity.An implied trust may either be a resulting trust or a constructive trust.

Thus, on the present case, assuming that such a relation existed, an express or
implied trust, it is already terminated upon Crispulo’s death in 1978.A trust
terminates upon the death of the trustee where the trust is personal to the
trustee in the sense that the trustor intended no other person to administer it.

If Crispulo was indeed appointed as trustee of the property, it cannot be said that
such appointment was intended to be conveyed to the respondent or any of
Crispulo’s other heirs. Hence, after Crispulo’s death, the respondent had no right
to retain possession of the property. At such point, a constructive trust would be
created over the property by operation of law.

Where one mistakenly retains property which rightfully belongs to another,

a constructive trust is the proper remedial device to correct the situation. As a
rule, however, the burden of proving the existence of a trust is on the party
asserting its existence, and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the
existence of the trust and its elements. The presence of the following elements
must be proved:

(1) a trustor or settlor who executes the instrument creating the trust;
(2) a trustee, who is the person expressly designated to carry out the
trust;
(3) the trust res, consisting of duly identified and definite real properties; and
(4)the cestui que trust, or beneficiaries whose identity must be clear.
Accordingly, it was incumbent upon Cañezo to prove the existence of the trust
relationship, but she failed to discharge that burden.The existence of express
trusts concerning real property may not be established by parol evidence. It
must be proven by some writing or deed. In this case, the only evidence to
support the claim that an express trust existed between the petitioner and her
father was the self-serving testimony of the petitioner. Bare allegations do not
constitute evidence adequate to support a conclusion. They are not equivalent to
proof under the Rules of Court.

Thus, in the end, Supreme Court held that although no particular words are
required for the creation of an express trust, a clear intention to create a trust
must be shown; and the proof of fiduciary relationship must be clear and
convincing. The creation of an express trust must be manifested with reasonable
certainty and cannot be inferred from loose and vague declarations or from
ambiguous circumstances susceptible of other interpretations.

In the case at bench, an intention to create a trust cannot be inferred from

Cañezo’s testimony and the attendant facts and circumstances. Neither can it be
deduced from the circumstances of the case that a resulting trust was created. A
resulting trust is a species of implied trust that is presumed always to have been
contemplated by the parties, the intention as to which can be found in the nature
of their transaction although not expressed in a deed or instrument of
conveyance. A resulting trust is based on the equitable doctrine that it is the
more valuable consideration than the legal title that determines the equitable
interest in property.