Scribd
Upload
231 views2 pages

G.R. No. 117228 - Morales vs. Court of Appeals Facts

Celso owned two parcels of land where his family lived. Without Celso's knowledge, his nephew Rodolfo built a beauty shop on the property. Celso later sold the land to buyers. Rodolfo refused to vacate unless reimbursed. The trial court and CA ruled in favor of the buyers, finding that documentary evidence showed Celso owned the land. Rodolfo claimed the land was held in trust by Celso for their parents and siblings, but the SC disagreed, as there was no clear evidence of a trust. Celso's sister also confirmed he bought the land with his own funds.

Uploaded by

Christine Montefalcon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
231 views2 pages

G.R. No. 117228 - Morales vs. Court of Appeals Facts

Celso owned two parcels of land where his family lived. Without Celso's knowledge, his nephew Rodolfo built a beauty shop on the property. Celso later sold the land to buyers. Rodolfo refused to vacate unless reimbursed. The trial court and CA ruled in favor of the buyers, finding that documentary evidence showed Celso owned the land. Rodolfo claimed the land was held in trust by Celso for their parents and siblings, but the SC disagreed, as there was no clear evidence of a trust. Celso's sister also confirmed he bought the land with his own funds.

Uploaded by

Christine Montefalcon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Montefalcon, Christine B.

3D

G.R. No. 117228 – Morales vs. Court of Appeals

FACTS:

Celso Avelino owns 2 adjoining parcels of land on which he constructed a house where he let his
parents and sister lived while he worked as City Fiscal of Calbayog, then Immigration Officer and later
on, as Judge of CFI Cebu. While in Cebu, without the Celso’s knowledge, his nephew, Rodolfo Morales,
built a beauty shop on his property. When the former was offering to sell the property to prospective
buyer Spouses Ranulfo and Erlinda Ortiz, the latter did an ocular inspection and was able to talk with the
Rodolfo, who encouraged them to buy the property and assured them that he will vacate the premises if
notified by the seller to do so. The sale was consummated and the spouses paid the purchase price.
Unfortunately, despite due notice from the Celso, the Morales refused to vacate or demolish the beauty
shop unless he is reimbursed for Php 35,000. The Spouses also subsequently found out that the Morales
also then occupied the dilapidated residential building, which the former had sought to repair. The
Spouses then filed a case to recover the property against him, who was later substituted by his heirs.

According to the Priscila Morales, Rodolfo’s mother, who also intervened in the case, the
property was inherited by her together with their other siblings, except for Celso who was away for 30
years because of his job. Celso then, being the only son, was allowed by their father to acquire the
property with money coming from the father. She further alleged that the constructed house was built by
their parents and that the built beauty shop was with the knowledge and consent of the seller. She
intervened arguing that the sale was fraudulent for including her share and the beauty shop of her son.

The trial court ruled in favor of the Spouses and ordered the Morales to vacate and remove the
beauty shop. The court noted that the Celso’s siblings and their descendants had not disputed the former’s
ownership of the property nor the extrajudicial partition effected on the property, even though 2 of the
sister-intervenor’s children were lawyers. It further noted that the claim of ownership by the buyer
Spouses were based on documentary evidence – the Deed of Conveyance, tax declarations transferred to
the wife-buyer, etc. – as against the evidence presented by the Priscila and Rodolfo Morales which were
only testimonial. Furthermore, the other sisters did not join them and intervened in the case. The court
further ruled that their claim of implied trust is untenable since in order for implied trust to exist, there
must be evidence of an equitable obligation of the trustee to convey, which was absent in this case. CA
affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE/S:

WON Celso was a mere trustee for his parents and siblings

RULING:

No. As a rule, the burden of proving the existence of a trust is on the party asserting its existence.
Such proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the existence of the trust and its elements. While implied
trusts may be proved by oral evidence, the evidence must be trustworthy and received by the courts with
extreme caution and should not be made to rest on loose, equivocal or indefinite declarations.

A trust is the legal relationship between one person having an equitable ownership in 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. The
characteristics of trust are: (a) it is a relationship; (b) it is a relationship of fiduciary character; (c) it is a
relationship with respect to property, not involving merely personal duties; (d) it involves the existence of
equitable duties imposed upon the holder of the title to the property to deal with it for the benefit of
another; and (e) it arises as a result of a manifestation of intention to create the relationship. To give rise
to a resulting trust, sometimes referred to as a “purchase money resulting trust”, it is essential that there
be (1) an actual payment of money, property or services, or an equivalent, constituting valuable
consideration, (2) and such consideration must be furnished by the alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust.

The Court agreed with the lower court that the current situation falls within the exception under
the third sentence of Art. 1448 – that if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or
not, 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. Also fatal to the case of the Sister and the Nephew is the declaration of
their other sister, Concepcion, that their brother bought the property using his own funds. If indeed the
property was merely held in trust by Celso for his parents, Concepcion would have been entitled to a
proportionate part thereof as co-heir. However, by her Confirmation, Concepcion made a solemn
declaration against interest. Further, Celso’s sisters did not do anything to have their respective shares in
the property conveyed to them after the death of their father. Neither is there any evidence that during his
lifetime, their father demanded from Celso that the latter convey the land, which was mute and eloquent
proof of the father’s recognition that the Seller was to be the absolute owner of the property.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy