agency and trust compiled.doc

8/14/2019 Agency and Trust Compiled.doc

1/23

AGENCY CASES

1. PHILPOTTS vs. PHIL. MNFG. CO 40 PHIL 491

FACTS:W.G. Philpotts (Petitioner) , a stockholder in Philippine Manufacturing Company sought tocompel respondents to permit plaintiff, a person or by some authorized agent or attorney toinspect and eamine the records of the business transacted by said company since !anuary", "#"$.%espondent corporation or any of its officials has refused to allo& the petitionerhimself to eamine anything relating to the affairs of the company, and the petitioner praysfor an order commanding respondents to place records of all business transactions of thecompany, during a specific period, at the disposal of the plaintiff or his duly authorized agentor attorney. Petitioner desires to eercise said right through agent or attorney. Petition isfiled originally in the 'upreme Court under authority of 'ection " of Code of CiilProcedure, &hich gies 'C concurrent *urisdiction &ith then Court of +irst nstance in cases&here any corporation or person unla&fully ecludes the plaintiff from use and en*oymentand some right he is entitled.

ISSUE:Whether the right &hich the la& concedes to a stockholder to inspect the records can beeercised by a proper agent or attorney of the stockholder as &ell as by stockholder inperson

HELD:

-es. %ight of inspection of records can be eercised by proper agent or attorney of thestockholder as &ell as by stockholder in person. he right of inspection / eamination intocorporate affairs gien to a stockholder in section " of the Corporation 0a& &hich states12he records of all business transactions of the corporation and the minutes of any meetingshall be open to the inspection of any director, member, or stockholder of the corporation atreasonable hour3 can be ee!c"se# e"$%e! b& %"'se() *! b& an& #+(& a+$%*!",e#!e-!esen$a$"ve *! a$$*!ne& "n )ac$ an# e"$%e! /"$% *! /"$%*+$ $%e a$$en#ance *) $%es$*c%*(#e!. his is in conformity &ith the general rule that &hat a man may do in personhe may do through another

. O!"en$ A"! Se!v"ces vs CA

FACTS:". 4n " !anuary "#55, 6merican 6irlines, nc. an air carrier offering passenger ancargo transportation in the Philippines, and 4rient 6ir 'erices and 7otel %epresentatentered into a General 'ales 6gency 6greement &hereby the former authorized the latact as its eclusie general sales agent &ithin the Philippines for the sale of air passetransportation.

8. 4n "" May "#$", alleging that 4rient 6ir had reneged on its obligations unde6greement by failing to promptly remit the net proceeds of sales for the months of !ato March "#$" in the amount of 9':8;,;


2/23

oerriding commission per month commencing from !anuary ", "#$" until suchreinstatement or said amounts in its Philippine peso eIuialent legally preailing at the timeof payment plus legal interest to commence from the filing of the counterclaim up to the timeof payment.F. ntermediate 6ppellate Court (no& Court of 6ppeals) in a decision promulgated on 85!anuary "#$F, affirmed the findings of the courta Iuoon their material points but &ith some modifications &ith respect to the monetary a&ardsgranted.

5. >oth appealed the decision of the C6

ISSUE:W4D 6merican 6ir can be ordered by the court to @reinstate defendant as itsgeneral sales agent for passenger transportation in the Philippines in accordance &ith saidG'6 6greement.

HELD.D4A>y affirming this ruling of the trial court, respondent appellate court, in effect, compels6merican 6ir to etend its personality to 4rient 6ir.A'uch &ould be iolatie of the principles and essence of agency, defined by la& as acontract &hereby @a person binds himself to render some serice or to do something inrepresentation or on behalf of another, 2ITH THE CONSENT O3 AUTHO3ITY OF THE

LATTE3.An an agentAprincipal relationship, the personality of the principal is etended through thefacility of the agent. n so doing, the agent, by legal fiction, becomes the principal,authorized to perform all acts &hich the latter &ould hae him do. 'uch a relationship canonly be effected &ith the consent of the principal, &hich must not, in any &ay, be compelledby la& or by any court.Ahe 6greement itself bet&een the parties states that @either party may terminate the6greement &ithout cause by giing the other =orromeo, administrator of the state of 'imeon %allos &as ordered todefendant the price of the L share of the land (P,=;=.;) plus attorneyBs fees>orrofiled a third party complaint against !osefina %allos, special administratri of the

of GerundiaNJismissed &ithout pre*udice to filing either a complaint against the regular administrathe state of Gerundia %allos or a claim in the ntestateAstate of Cerundia %allos, cothe same sub*ectAmatterOn a--ea( $* $%e CA:C+ ecision reersed, upheld the sale of ConcepcionBs share.M3: denied.

Iss+es:". W4D the sale &as alid although it &as eecuted after the death of the princConcepcion.8. W4D the sale fell &ithin the eception to the general rule that death etinguishe

authority of the agent.=. W4D petitioner must suffer the conseIuence for failing to annotate a notice of dea

the title een there &as a good faith on the part of respondent corporation.

He(#:he essential elements of agency are1 (") there is consent, epress or implied of the pato establish the relationshipE (8) the ob*ect is the eecution of a *uridical act in relation

2


3/23

third personE (=) the agents acts as a representatie and not for himself, and (;) the agentacts &ithin the scope of his authority.

Paragraph " of 6rticle ";ut the eception to the general rule are proided in "#=< and "#=".

6%. "#=ut, if reocation &as due to death oprincipal1 etinguishment, by operation of la&, is instantaneous &ithout the neenotification to the parties concerned.

3


4/23

;. G.3. N*. 14781 Oc$*be! 19 011

U3AN AN; INC Petitioner,s.MAGDALENO M. PEank, the trial court recalled the %4 and issued abreakAopen order for the property. PeOa immediately contacted 'CBs president and told

him that he &ould be recalling the security guards he had posted to secure the property.he 'C President asked him to suspend the &ithdra&al of the posted guards, so that 'Ccould get in touch first &ith 9rban >ank. PeOa also called 9rban >ankBs President. hePresident allegedly assured him that the bank &as going to retain his serices, and that thehe should not gie up possession of the sub*ect land. hereafter, PeOa, in representation of9rban >ank, filed a separate complaint &ith the %CAMakati City, to en*oin the tenants fromentering property. he %CAMakati City issued a %4. While the 8 nd complaint &aspending, PeOa made efforts to settle the issue of possession &ith the subAtenants. he subAtenants eentually agreed to stay off the property for a total consideration of PhP".M.PeOa adanced the payment for the full and final settlement of their claims against 9rban>ank. PeOa formally informed 9rban >ank that it could already take possession of theproperty. here &as ho&eer no mention of the compensation due and o&ed to him for theserices he had rendered. he bank subseIuently took actual possession of the propertyand installed its o&n guards at the premises. PeOa filed a complaint &ith %C demandingfrom 9rban >ank the payment of the "ankBs President. 9rban >ank argued that it &as 'C, theoriginal o&ners of the property, that had engaged the serices of PeOa in securing thepremisesE and, conseIuently, they could not be held liable for the epenses PeOa hadincurred. he %C ruled in faor of PeOa because if found there has a contract of agency

created. 4n appeal, it reersed %CsB decision and ordered 9rban >ank to pay reasonable compensation for his serice. PeOa appealed on certiorari.

ISSUE:W/D Pena is entitled to payment for the serices he rendered as agent of 9rban >ankW/D there eist a contract of agency.

HELD:-es.

3ATIO:PeOa should be paid for serices rendered under the agency relationship that ebet&een him and 9rban >ank based on the ciil la& principle against un*ust enrichmand not on the basis of the purported oral contract. n a contract of agency, agentsthemseles to render some serice or to do something in representation or on behalf oprincipal, &ith the consent or authority of the latter. he essential elements of agencthe follo&ing1 (a) the relationship is established by the partiesB consent, epress or im(b) the ob*ect is the eecution of a *uridical act in relation to a third personE (c) agents arepresentaties and not for themselesE and (d) agents act &ithin the scope of authority.Whether or not an agency has been created is determined by the fact that orepresenting and acting for another. he la& makes no presumption of agencyE proieistence, nature and etent is incumbent upon the person alleging it.he Court concludes that 9rban >ank constituted 6tty. PeOa as its agent to se

possession of the property. his conclusion, ho&eer, is not determinatie of the basthe amount of payment that must be made to him by the bank. he contet in &hicagency &as created lays the basis for the amount of compensation 6tty. PeOa is entitle6gency is presumed to be for compensation. here is no eidence that 9rban >ank agto pay PeOa a specific amount or percentage of amount for his serices, so the applies the principle against un*ust enrichment and on the basis of !uantum m0a&yering is not a businessE it is a profession in &hich duty to public serice, not monethe primary consideration. he principle of !uantum meruit applies if la&yersemployed &ithout a price agreed upon for their serices, in &hich case they &ouentitled to receie &hat they merit for their serices, or as much as they hae earned.

4


5/23

. DOMINION INSU3ANCE =. CADOCT3INE: >N* nee# $* /!"$e?When a special po&er of attorney is reIuired for the agent to do a certain act, the agent, inthe performance of such act, must comply &ith the specifications embodied in the specialpo&er of attorney giing him authority to do such. +or eample, here, a special po&er of

attorney &as needed for Guearra to settle the claims of ominionBs clients. 6nd for thispurpose, there &as a memorandum. 7o&eer, the memorandum stated that Guearra &asto settle the claims using the money in a reoling fund. Guearra did not comply &ith this,so the epenses Guearra incurred in the settlement of the claims of the insured may not bereimbursed from ominion, at least under the la& of agency.

FACTS:%odolfo Guearra instituted a ciil case for the recoery of a sum of money againstominion nsurance. 7e sought to recoer P"F,;5=.#


6/23

. G.3. N*. 1944 Ban+a!& 10 011LOADMASTE3S CUSTOMS SE3=ICES INC.Petitioner,s.GLODEL 3O;E3AGE CO3PO3ATION an# 36 INSU3ANCECO3PO3ATION%espondents.THE FACTS1

%K> nsurance issued insurance policy in faor of Columbia for the shipment of "=8bundles of electric copper cathodes against all risks. he cargoes &ere shipped and arriedin Manila. Columbia engaged the serices of Glodel for the release and &ithdra&al of thecargoes from the pier and the subseIuent deliery to its &arehouses/plants. Glodel, in turn,engaged the serices of 0oadmasters for the use of its deliery trucks to transport thecargoes to ColumbiaBs &arehouses/plants.he goods &ere loaded on board t&ele ("8) trucks o&ned by 0oadmasters. 'i (F)truckloads &ere to be deliered to >alagtas, >ulacan, &hile the other si (F) truckloads &eredestined for 0a&ang >ato, Qalenzuela City. he cargoes in si truckloads for 0a&ang >ato&ere duly deliered in ColumbiaBs &arehouses there. 4f the si (F) trucks en route to>alagtas, >ulacan, ho&eer, only fie () reached the destination. 4ne (") truck, failed todelier its cargo.>ecause of this incident, Columbia filed &ith %K> nsurance a claim for insuranceindemnity. 6fter the reIuisite inestigation and ad*ustment, %K> nsurance paid Columbia

the amount of insurance indemnity.%K> nsurance, thereafter, filed a complaint for damages against both 0oadmasters andGlodel before the Manila "#$. t sought reimbursement of the amount it had paid toColumbia for the loss of the sub*ect cargo.he %C rendered a decision in faor of %K> nsurance and dismissed 0oadmasterscounterclaim. >oth %K> nsurance and Glodel appealed the %C decision to the C6. heC6 rendered that 0oadmasters is like&ise held liable to appellant Glodel for the insuranceindemnity appellant Glodel has been held liable to appellant %K> nsurance Corporationconsidering that appellee is an agent of appellant Glodel. 7ence, 0oadmasters filed petitionfor reie& on certiorari to the 'C.

ISSUES: 2ON L*a#'as$e!s be (e@a((& c*ns"#e!e# as an A@en$ *) !es-*n#en$ G(*#e(

He(#1Do. 6rticle "$F$ of the Ciil Code proides1 @>y the contract of agency a person binds

himself to render some serice or to do something in representation or on behalf of another,&ith the consent or authority of the latter.@ he elements of a contract of agency are1 (")consent, epress or implied, of the parties to establish the relationshipE (8) the ob*ect is the

eecution of a *uridical act in relation to a third personE (=) the agent acts representatie and not for himselfE (;) the agent acts &ithin the scope of his authority.0oadmasters neer represented Glodel. Deither &as it eer authorized to make representation. t is a settled rule that the basis for agency is representation, that isagent acts for and on behalf of the principal on matters &ithin the scope of his authoritsaid acts hae the same legal effect as if they &ere personally eecuted by the principathe part of the principal, there must be an actual intention to appoint or an intention natinferable from his &ords or actions, &hile on the part of the agent, there must bintention to accept the appointment and act on it. 'uch mutual intent is not obtaining icase.

6


7/23

. G.3. N*. 144807 B+ne 8 00E#+a!#* =. L"n$*n+a B!. an# An$*n"* ;. L"$*n+a vs. E$e!n"$ C*!-*!a$"*n >EC?E$e!*+$!e'e! S.A. C*!-*!a$"*n >ESAC? an# Fa! Eas$ an 6 T!+s$ C*'-an& >FETC?

FACTS1 he ternit Corporation (C) is a corporation duly organized and registered underPhilippine la&s engaged in the manufacture of roofing materials and pipe products. tsmanufacturing operations &ere conducted on eight parcels of land coered by Cs underthe name of +>C, as trustee. #oth had their offices in >elgium.n "#$F, the management of '6C gre& concerned about the political situation in thePhilippines and &anted to stop its operations in the country. he Committee for 6sia of'6C instructed C >oard of irectors Member Michael 6dams, to dispose of the eightparcels of land. 6dams engaged the serices of realtor/broker 0auro G. MarIuez so that theproperties could be offered for sale to prospectie buyers.

MarIuez thereafter offered the parcels of land and the improements thereon to duardo >.0iton*ua, !r. of the 0iton*ua K Company, nc. n a 0etter, MarIuez declared that he &asauthorized to sell the properties for P85,


8/23

8. G.3. N*. 1497 B+ne 00BOCELYN . DOLES vs. MA. AU3A TINA ANGELES

FACTS1 %espondent 6ngeles filed &ith the %C a complaint for 'pecific Performance &ith

amages against Petitioner oles. %espondent alleged that petitioner &as indebted to theformer in the concept of a personal loan. >y irtue of a @eed of 6bsolute 'ale@,= petitioner,as seller, ceded to respondent, as buyer, a parcel of land, as &ell as the improementsthereon, at a subdiision pro*ect kno&n as Camella o&nhomes 'orrente in >acoor, Caite,in order to satisfy her personal loan &ith respondentE that despite repeated demand,petitioner refused to cooperate &ith respondent to eecute the necessary documents andother formalities reIuired by the D7M+C to effect the transfer of the title oer the property.

7o&eer, petitioner denied that she borro&ed money from respondent, and aerred thatshe referred her friends to respondent &hom she kne& to be engaged in the business oflending money in echange for personal checks through her capitalist 6rsenio Pua. 'healleged that her friends, namely, Renaida %omulo, heresa Moratin, !ulia nocencio,Qirginia !acob, and lizabeth omelden, borro&ed money from respondent and issuedpersonal checks in payment of the loanE that the checks bounced for insufficiency of fundsEthat despite her efforts to assist respondent to collect from the borro&ers, she could nolonger locate themE that, because of this, respondent became furious and threatenedpetitioner that if the accounts &ere not settled, a criminal case &ill be filed against her.

he trial court dismissed the case at bar on the ground that the deed of sale bet&een theparties has no consideration or insufficiency of eidence. he C6 reersed the CBsdecision and concluded that petitioner is the real borro&er, &hile the respondent, the reallender, therefore there eisted no contract of agency.

ISSUE1 Whether or not there eist a contract of agency bet&een Petitioner oles and thealleged debtors, therefore, Petitioner is not a party to the loan.

HELD1 -'. 9nder 6rticle "$F$ of the Ciil Code, the basis of agency is representation.he Iuestion of &hether an agency has been created is ordinarily a Iuestion &hich may beestablished in the same &ay as any other fact, either by direct or circumstantial eidence.

he Iuestion is ultimately one of intention. 6gency may een be implied from the &ords andconduct of the parties and the circumstances of the particular case. hough the fact oretent of authority of the agents may not, as a general rule, be established from thedeclarations of the agents alone, if one professes to act as agent for another, she may be

estopped to deny her agency both as against the asserted principal and the third peinterested in the transaction in &hich he or she is engaged.

n this case, petitioner kne& that the financier of respondent is PuaE and respondent kthat the borro&ers are friends of petitioner. %espondent is estopped to deny that she heacted as agent of a certain 6rsenio Pua, her disclosed principal. 'he is also estoppdeny that petitioner acted as agent for the alleged debtors, the friends &hom she (petitireferred.he C6 is incorrect &hen it considered the fact that the @supposed frienpetitionerN, the actual borro&ers, did not present themseles to respondentN@ as eidthat negates the agency relationshipit is sufficient that petitioner disclosed to respo

that the former &as acting in behalf of her principals, her friends &hom she referrrespondent.

+or an agency to arise, it is not necessary that the principal personally encounter theperson &ith &hom the agent interacts. he la& in fact contemplates, and to a great deimpersonal dealings &here the principal need not personally kno& or meet the third pe&ith &hom her agent transacts1 precisely, the purpose of agency is to etend the persoof the principal through the facility of the agent. n the case at bar, both petitionerrespondent hae undeniably disclosed to each other that they are representing somelse, and so both of them are estopped to deny the same. t is eident from the recordpetitioner merely refers actual borro&ers and then collects and disburses the amounthe loan upon &hich she receied a commissionE and that respondent transacts on behher @principal financier@, a certain 6rsenio Pua. f their respectie principals do not acand personally kno& each other, such ignorance does not affect their *uridical standinagents, especially since the ery purpose of agency is to etend the personality oprincipal through the facility of the agent.

8


9/23

9. G.3. N*. 17119. N*ve'be! 004MANILA MEMO3IAL PA3; CEMETE3Y INC. vs. PED3O L. LINSANGAN

FACTS1 +lorencia >aluyot is authorized by the Manila Memorial Park nc. (MMP) to sell

burial lots to those interested in purchasing. 7erein respondent 6tty. 0insangan &asapproached by +lorencia &ith an offer to sell to the former a lot that she alleges to haealready been preiously sold but the o&ner thereof has cancelled and thus, 6tty. 0insanganshall only continue the payment thereof amounting to P#,


10/23

HELD1Do, 0uz is not liable to the >ordadors.3ATIO17 >6'' +4% 6GDC- ' %P%'D64D. he basis for agency is representation.7ere, there is no sho&ing that 0uz consented to the acts of eganos or authorized him toact on her behalf, much less &ith respect to the particular transactions inoled. he>ordadors? attempt to foist liability on 0uz through the supposed agency relation &itheganos is groundless and illAadised.6 P%'4D 60DG W7 6D 6GD ' P9 9P4D DS9%- 6D M9' 'C4Q%9P4D 7' P%0 7 6974%- 4+ 7 6GD.

>esides, it &as grossly and inecusably negligent of the >ordadors to entrust to eganos,not once or t&ice but on at least F occasions as eidenced by F receipts, seeral pieces of*e&elry of substantial alue &ithout reIuiring a &ritten authorization from his allegedprincipal. 6 person dealing &ith an agent is put upon inIuiry and must discoer upon hisperil the authority of the agent.

11. 3e@"na D",*n e$ a( v. CA an# Ove!(an# E-!ess L"nes Inc. 0 SC3A 88

FACTS14erland press 0ines, nc. entered into a Contract of 0ease &ith 4ption to >uy &ithpetitioners inoling a ",5.$< sIuare meter parcel of land situated at corner Mac6rthur7igh&ay and 'outh273 'treet, iliman, Suezon City. he term of the lease &as for " yearcommencing from May "F, "#5; up to May ", "#5. uring this period, 4erland press0ines &as granted an option to purchase for the amount of P=,


11/23

T3UST CASES

1. M*!a(es vs. CA >199?

D*c$!"ne1". 6 trust is the legal relationship bet&een one person haing an eIuitable o&nership inproperty and another person o&ning the legal title to such property, the eIuitable o&nershipof the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the eercise of certainpo&ers by the latter. he characteristics of a trust are1

a. t is a relationshipEb. t is a relationship of fiduciary characterEc. t is a relationship &ith respect to property, not one inoling merely personal dutiesEd. t inoles the eistence of eIuitable duties imposed upon the holder of the title to the

property to deal &ith it for the benefit of anotherE ande. t arises as a result of a manifestation of intention to create the relationship.

8. 6rt. ";;$. here is an implied trust &hen property is sold, and the legal estate is granted

to one party but the price is paid by another for the purpose of haing the beneficial interestof the property. he former is the trustee, &hile the latter is the beneficiary. 7o&eer, if theperson to &hom the title is coneyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of the one payingthe price of the sale, no trust is implied by la&, it being disputably presumed that there is agift in faor of the child.

Fac$s1Cast of Characters1Celso 6elino T 4&ner of the premises in IuestionPriscilla Morales T 'ister of Celso 6elino, claims o&nership of the land %odolfo Morales T'on of Priscilla, built beauty shop on premises in Iuestion %anulfo and rlinda 4rtiz TPurchased premises in Iuestion from Celso 6elino 6urea 6elino T 'ister of Celso,caretaker of the premises in Iuestion%osendo 6elino and !uana %icaforte T Parents of Celso, 6urea and Priscilla

%anulfo and rlinda 4rtiz claim that they are the absolute and eclusie o&ners of thepremises in Iuestion (="$ sI.m. land located at corner 9mbria 't. and %osales >ld. >rgy.Central, Calbayog City) through their purchase of the said property from Celso 6elino andstated the follo&ing1

he property &as purchased by Celso 6elino (the 4rtiz?s predecessor in interest) &he&as still a bachelor and a city fiscal of Calbayog city from 6le*andra Mendiola and C>artolome through an @scritura de Qenta.@ 6fter the purchase, he caused the transfthe title as &ell as the ta declarations in his name. 7e faithfully paid the taes and kereceipts thereof. 7e also caused a surey of the premises in Iuestion &ith the >ure0ands and built a residential house thereon. 7e took his parents %osendo 6elino!uana %icaforte and his sister 6urea to lie in his property until their death. Celso 6then became an mmigration 4fficer and later a !udge of the Court of +irst nstance in Cso he left his property under the care of his sister, 6urea. Without his kno&ledgenephe& %odolfo Morales (a son of his other sister, Priscilla) constructed a beauty sho

the premises in Iuestion. Celso thereafter sold the property to %anulfo and rlinda (Celso?s neighbors), they paid the purchase price and a deed of absolute saleeecuted. %odolfo Morales, ho&eer, refused to acate the premises unless hreimbursed P=,


12/23

latter is the beneficiary. 7o&eer, if the person to &hom title is coneyed is a child,legitimate or illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by la&, itbeing disputable presumed that there is gift in faor of a child.he last sentence of 6rticle ";;$ gies one of the recognized eceptions to theestablishment of an implied resulting trust. (he other t&o &ould be1 &hen actual contraryintention is proed and &hen purchase is made in iolation of an eisting statute and ineasion of its epress proision.)6s a rule the burden of proing the eistence of trust is on the party asserting its eistence,and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily sho& the eistence of trust. While impliedtrusts may be proed by oral eidence, eidence must be trust&orthy and receied by the

courts &th etreme caution. 4n this basis alone, %odolfo and Priscilla Morales? claim mustfail. %odolfo and Priscilla relied merely on testimonial eidences &hich are selfAsering.Proof of %anulfo and rlinda 4rtiz?s la&ful acIuisition of the property through Celso6elinoBs o&nership on the other hand &as supported by documentary eidences such asthe deed of absolute sale and ta declarations. en testimonies of Celso?s other sistersproe that they beliee that he is the true o&ner of the property. he fact that the othersiblings did not interene in this case to protect their right and that upon the death of theirparents no etraA*udicial partition occurred further strengthens Celso?s o&nership.Moreoer, assuming that their claim that Celso &as a mere trustee is true, it still falls underthe eemption under the last sentence of 6rticle ";;$ &hich states that if the person to&hom the title coneyed is a child, there is a presumption that it is a gift in faor of the child.8. D4. 6rticle ;;$ (his is on builders in good faith, look it up nalang if you &ant) onlyapplies &hen a builder thinks he o&ns the land or beliees himself to hae a claim of title.+rom the eidences adduced, %odolfo Morales kne& from the beginning that he &as not theo&ner of the land. %odolfo is not entitled to reimbursement.

. PENALE3 =S. 3AMOS

G.%. Do. "5$F;. !anuary =


13/23

=. =DA. DE ESCONDE vs. CA G.3. N*. 107 Feb!+a!& 1 199

FACTS1Petitioners Constancia, >en*amin and lenita, and priate respondent Pedro, are thechildren of the late ulogio sconde and petitioner Catalina >uan. ulogio sconde &asone of the children and heirs of 6ndres sconde. 6ndres is the brother of stanislaosconde, the original o&ner of the disputed lot &ho died &ithout issue. 'uried by his onlybrother, 6ndres, stanislao left an estate consisting of four parcels of land in 'amal,>ataan. ulogio died in 6pril, "#;; suried by petitioners and priate respondent. 6t thattime, 0azara and Ciriaca, ulogio?s sisters, had already died &ithout haing partitioned theestate of the late stanislao sconde. 'ometime later, the heirs of 0azara, Ciriaca andulogio eecuted a deed of etra*udicial partition. 'ince the children of ulogio, &ith theeception of Constancia, &ere then all minors, they &ere represented by their mother and*udicial guardian, petitioner Catalina >uan da. de sconde &ho renounced and &aied herusufructuary rights oer the parcels of land in faor of her children in the same deed.

'ubseIuently, >en*amin discoered that 0ot Do. "5elieing that the lot &as coAo&ned by all the children ofulogio sconde, >en*amin demanded his share of the lot from priate respondent.7o&eer, priate respondent asserted eclusie o&nership thereof pursuant to the deed ofetra*udicial partition. he lo&er court ruled that the action had been barred by bothprescription and laches.

ISSUE1he applicability of the laches doctrine to implied trust is the issue in this petition.

DECISION1Petitioner Catalina >uan da. de sconde, as mother and legal guardian of her children,appears to hae faored her elder son, priate respondent, in allo&ing that he be gien 0otDo. "5


14/23

6%. ";". When land passes by succession to any person and he causes the legal title tobe put in the name of another, a trust is established by implication of la& for the benefit ofthe true o&ner.

r. %osarioBs eecution of the eed of 6bsolute Suitclaim on ecember 8$, "#F;,containing his epress admission that he only borro&ed 0ot Do. =FA6 from the orbelasiblings, eentually transformed the nature of the trust to an epress one. he epress trustcontinued despite r. %osario stating in his eed of 6bsolute Suitclaim that he &as alreadyreturning 0ot Do. =FA6 to the orbela siblings as 0ot Do. =FA6 remained registered in r.%osarioBs name. 7e kept possession of said property, together &ith the improements

thereon.

o apply the "


15/23

7. PN vs A,na!49 SC3A 14 >011?

FACTS1n "#$, %'C4 ceased operation due to business reerses. n plaintiffsB desire torehabilitate %'C4, they contributed a total amount of P8"8,58


16/23

ISSUE1Whether or not there eists a trust or fiduciary relationshipU

HELD1When the claim to the lots in the cadastral case &as &ithdra&n by the respondents relyingupon the assurance and promise made in open court by... the predecessorAinAinterest of thepetitioners, a trust or fiduciary relation bet&een them arose, or resulted therefrom, or &ascreated thereby. he trustee cannot inoke the statute of limitations to bar the action anddefeat the right of the cestui Iue trustent.3he reason &hy Pacheco is coered under the 6rt. ";F, rather than under 6rt. ";=(2When property is coneyed to a person in reliance to his declared intention to hold it for, ortransfer is to another or the grantor3) is because the action for reconeyance &as being filedagainst the successorsAinAinterest of the person &ho gae such a declaration, andconseIuently, the property held in trust passed to the heirs by &ay of mistake, and rightfullycoered under 6rt. ";F.

. 3AMOS =S. 3AMOS1 SC3A 84

FACTS1'pouses Martin %amos and Candida anate died on 4ctober ;, "#


17/23

8. A(ean#!* T& vs. S&(v"a T&77 SC3A 0

Fac$s1 6leander y, son of 6le*andro y and husband of 'ylia y, dies of cancer at theage of =;. 'ylia files petition for the settlement of 6leanderBs intestate estate. 'he alsoasks court to sell or mortgage properties in order to pay the estate ta amounting toP;,5";,FPA') ainestment manager thru an nestment Management 6greement, &ith the end in iemaking the income and principal of the +und sufficient to meet the liabilities of >P uthe Gratuity Plan. Pursuant to the inestment scheme, >PA' paid to the inemembers a total of P"",F8F,;";.8 representing the net earnings of the inestments foyears "##" and "##8. he payments &ere disallo&ed by the 6uditor under 4bseration Memorandum Do. #=A8 dated March ", "##=, on the ground thadistribution of income of the Gratuity Plan +und (GP+) to future retirees of >P is irreand constituted the use of public funds for priate purposes &hich is specifically proscunder 'ection ; of P.. ";;. he 6uditor reasoned that 2the +und is still o&ned b>ank, the >oard of rustees is a mere administrator of the +und in the same &ay tharust 'erices epartment &here the fund &as inested &as a mere inestor and necan the employees, &ho hae still an inchoate interest iNn the +und be considere

rightful o&ner of the +und. . Chairman 6ntonio alleged that the epress trust created fobenefit of Iualified >P employees under the rust 6greement (26greement3) date+ebruary "#$< gae the +und a separate legal personality.

17


18/23

ISSUE1 Whether the income of the +und is income of >PU

HELD1 he C46 alleges that >P is the actual o&ner of the +und and its income, on thefollo&ing grounds1 (") >P made the contributions to the +undE (8) the trustees of the +undare merely administratorsE and (=) >P employees only hae an inchoate right to the +und.he >P counters that the +und is the sub*ect of a trust, and that the 6greementtransferred legal title oer the +und to the trustees. he income of the +und does not accrueto >P. hus, such income should not be recorded in >PBs books of account. 6 trust is a2fiduciary relationship &ith respect to property &hich inoles the eistence of eIuitableduties imposed upon the holder of the title to the property to deal &ith it for the benefit of

another.3 6 trust is either epress or implied. press trusts are those &hich the direct andpositie acts of the parties create, by some &riting or deed, or &ill, or by &ords eincing anintention to create a trust. n the present case, the >P >oard of GoernorsB (no& >oard ofirectors) %esolution Do. 5#; and the 6greement eecuted by former >P Chairman%afael 'ison and the trustees of the Plan created an epress trust, specifically, anemployeesB trust. 6n employeesB trust is a trust maintained by an employer to proideretirement, pension or other benefits to its employees. t is a separate taable entityestablished for the eclusie benefit of the employees. n a trust, one person has aneIuitable o&nership in the property &hile another person o&ns the legal title to suchproperty, the eIuitable o&nership of the former entitling him to the performance of certainduties and the eercise of certain po&ers by the latter.

10. LOPE =S. COU3T OF APPEALS >G.3. N*. 1784?

FACTS1 he instant petition stemmed from an action for reconeyance instituted bypetitioner %ichard >. 0opez in his capacity as trustee of the estate of the late !uliana 0opezManzano (!uliana) to recoer from respondents seeral large tracts of lands allegedlybelonging to the trust estate of !uliana. he decedent, !uliana, &as married to !ose 0opezManzano (!ose). heir union did not bear any children. !uliana &as the o&ner of seeralproperties, among them, the properties sub*ect of this dispute. he disputed propertiestotaling more than ",atangas. hey &ere the eclusie paraphernal properties of !uliana together &ith a parcelof land situated in Mindoro kno&n as 6bra de log and a fractional interest in a residentialland on 6ntorcha 't., >alayan, >atangas. , !uliana eecuted a notarial &ill,;N &hereby sheepressed that she &ished to constitute a trust fund for her paraphernal properties,denominated as +ideicomiso de !uliana 0opez Manzano (+ideicomiso), to be administeredby her husband. f her husband &ere to die or renounce the obligation, her nephe&, nriIue0opez, &as to become administrator and eecutor of the +ideicomiso. !uliana initiated theprobate of her &ill fie () days after its eecution, but she died on "8 6ugust "#F$, beforethe petition for probate could be heard. he petition &as pursued instead in 'pecialProceedings ('.P.) Do. 5


19/23

6%. ";F. f property is acIuired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, byforce of la&, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from &homthe property comes.

he registration of the disputed properties in the name of !ose &as actually pursuant to acourt order. he apparent mistake in the ad*udication of the disputed properties to !osecreated a mere implied trust of the constructie ariety in faor of the beneficiaries of the+ideicomiso.

11. PA3INGIT =S ABIT

Fac$s:uring their lifetime, spouses !ulian and 6urelia Paringit leased a lot on from erocel%ealty, nc. hey built their home raised their children. hen 6urelia died on Doember F,"#58. +or haing occupied the lot for years, erocel %ealty offered to sell it to !ulian but hedid not hae enough money at that time to meet the payment deadline. !ulian sought thehelp of his children so he can buy the property but only his son +elipe and &ife !osefa hadthe financial resources he needed at that time. o bring about the purchase, !ulianeecuted a deed of assignment of leasehold right in faor of +elipe and his &ife that &ouldenable them to acIuire the lot. he latter bought the same from erocel %ealty forP,


20/23

1. MODESTO LEO=E3AS vs.CASIME3O =ALDE G.3. N*. 19987

Fac$s1!une ", 8enigna 0lamas. he sale &as duly annotated atthe back of 4C Do. 8;F#. When >enigna died in "#;;, she &illed her threeAfourths (V)share eIually to her sisters 6le*andra 0lamas and !osefa 0lamas. hus, 6le*andra and!osefa each o&ned oneAhalf (L) of >enignaBs threeAfourths (V) share. 6le*andraBs heirs soldtheir predecessorBs oneAhalf (L) share (roughly eIuialent to "enigna already died in "#;;. he respondent added that neither could'ta. Maria hae sold to the parties her threeAfourths (V) share in "#F# because she had

already sold her share to >enigna in "#=8.88 he petitioner asked for the dismissal of thecomplaint and for a declaration that he is the la&ful o&ner of the parcels of land coered byhis titles. he %C dismissed the complaint. 4n appeal, the C6 reersed the %C by rulingagainst the authenticity of the >enigna eed and the 6ffidait. 6s the totality of the eidence

presented sufficiently sustains the respondentBsN claim that the titles issued topetitionerN &ere based on forged and spurious documents, it behooes this Court to these certificates of title. 7ence, this petition for reie.

Iss+es1Whether the C6 erred in ordering the reconeyance of the parcel of land coered bpetitionerBs titles.

He(#:We partially grant the petition. 6n action for reconeyance is a legal and eIuitable regranted to the rightful lando&ner, &hose land &as &rongfully or erroneously registerthe name of another, to compel the registered o&ner to transfer or reconey the land tohe plaintiff in this action must allege and proe his o&nership of the land in dispute andefendantBs erroneous, fraudulent or &rongful registration of the property. he petitioargument confuses registration of title &ith o&nership. While the petitionerBs o&nershipthe land coered by C Do. "#$"8 is undisputed, his o&nership only gae him the rigapply for the proper transfer of title to the property in his name. 4biously, the petitieen as a rightful o&ner, must comply &ith the statutory proisions on the transfregistered title to lands. 'ection = of Presidential ecree Do. "8# proides thasubseIuent registration of title procured by the presentation of a forged deed or oinstrument is null and oid. hus, the subseIuent issuance of C Do. "#$"8 gapetitioner no better right than the tainted registration &hich &as the basis for the issuanthe same title. he Court simply cannot allo& the petitionerBs attempt to get around

proper procedure for registering the transfer of title in his name by using spudocuments. %econeyance is the remedy of the rightful o&ner only While the C6 corrnullified the petitionerBs certificates of title, the C6 erred in ordering the reconeyance oentire sub*ect property in the respondentBs faor. he respondent himself admitted tha=,


21/23

1. G.3. N*. 179494 B+(& 1 0083OGELIO GEO3GE LOLITA 3OSALINDA an# BOSEPHINE a(( s+!na'e# PASI coering the lands, respectiely.A 7ere comes the respondent alleging eclusie and notorious possession of 0ot >. 7econtended that the 4C issued in faor of petitioners oer the sub*ect lot &as null and oid.

ISSUES:

". Who is the rightful o&ner of the sub*ect landU8. What is the effect if the homestead patent granted in accordance &ith la& (not so in thiscase) is registeredU

HELD:". Monterroyo.+irst, 0M> has no *urisdiction to issue free patent titles.'econdly, the sub*ect land has been conerted into priate land thru operation of the la& byirtue of prescription, thus n irector of 0ands . 6C, the Court ruled126lienable public land held by a possessor, continuously or through his predecessorsAinAinterest, openly, continuously and eclusiely for the prescribed statutory period (=< yearsunder he Public 0and 6ct, as amended) is conerted to priate property by the mere lapseor completion of the period, ipso *ure.3he respondent to that effect has presented proof.

8. 4nce a homestead patent granted in accordance &ith la& is registered, the certificate oftitle issued by irtue of the patent has the force and effect of a orrens title issued under theland registration la&. n this case, the issuance of a homestead patent in "#8 in faor of

0aureano &as not registered. 'ection "


22/23

14. Es$a$e *) Ma!@a!"$a Cabanc+n@an v. Ma!"(*+ La"@*

G3. N*. 170 A+@+s$ 17 011

Fac$s1". Margarita Cabacungan (Margarita) o&ned three parcels of unregistered land in

Paringao and in >accuit, >auang, 0a 9nion.8. 'ometime in "#F$, MargaritaBs son, %oberto 0aigo, !r. (%oberto), applied for a

nonimmigrant isa to the 9nited 'tates, and to support his application, he allegedlyasked Margarita to transfer the ta declarations of the properties in his name.

=. +or said purpose, Margarita, unkno&n to her other children, eecuted an 6ffidait ofransfer of %eal Property &hereby the sub*ect properties &ere transferred by donationto%oberto.

;. Dot long after, %obertoBs isa &as issued and he &as able to trael to the 9.'. as atourist and returned in due time. n "#5#, he adopted respondents Pedro 0aigo (Pedro)and Marilou 0aigo (Marilou), and then he married respondent stella >alagot.

. n !uly "##


23/23

eistence. Parole eidence that is reIuired to establish the eistence of an implied trustnecessarily has to be trust&orthy and it cannot rest on loose, eIuiocal or indefinitedeclarations. hus, contrary to the Court of 6ppealsB finding that there &as no eidenceon record sho&ing that an implied trust relation arose bet&een Margarita and %oberto,&e find that petitioner before the trial court, had actually adduced eidence to proe theintention of Margarita to transfer to %oberto only the legal title to the properties inIuestion, &ith attendant epectation that %oberto &ould return the same to her onaccomplishment of that specific purpose for &hich the transaction &as entered into. heeidence of course is not documentary, but rather testimonial.

23

agency and trust compiled.doc

Documents