G.R. No. 146853
February 13, 2006
FACTS
Respondents,
together with their mother, Dominga, filed a complaint for annulment of
document with damages against petitioner. The complaint alleges that:
respondents are the owners of a parcel of land located in Ilocos Sur and the
house built thereon; respondents acquired the subject property through their
earnings while working abroad; the subject property was declared for taxation
purposes in Dominga’s name as administrator thereof; petitioner caused the
execution of a Deed of Donation over
said property by taking advantage of Dominga’s blindness, old age and physical
infirmity; the said Deed of Donation is null and void because: (a) Dominga had
no right to donate the same since she is not its owner, (b) Dominga did not
give her consent and was misled to the execution of such document, (c) granting
Dominga had authority to donate, the donation is void because the property
donated is the only property declared in her name and therefore she could not
have reserved for herself in full ownership sufficient property to support
herself; petitioner is in possession of the subject property, depriving
respondents of its ownership and enjoyment of its fruits.
ISSUE
Whether or not implied trust arise dove
the subject property
RULING
In holding that an implied
trust exists between respondents and Dominga in relation to the subject
property and therefore Dominga had no right to donate the same to petitioner,
the CA merely clarified the RTC’s findings.
Article 1448 of the Civil Code on implied trust
provides:
Art. 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.
The trust created under the
first sentence of Article 1448 is sometimes referred to as a purchase money resulting trust, the elements of which are: (a) an
actual payment of money, property or services, or an equivalent, constituting
valuable consideration; and (b) such consideration must be furnished by the alleged
beneficiary of a resulting trust. Respondents
have shown that the two elements are present in the instant case. Dominga was
merely a trustee of the respondents in relation to the subject property.
Therefore, Dominga could not have validly donated the subject property to
petitioner, as expressly provided in Article 736 of the Civil Code, thus:
Art. 736. Guardians and
trustees cannot donate the property entrusted to them.
Truly, nobody can dispose of
that which does not belong to him.
Comments
Post a Comment