G.R. No. 161298
January 31, 2006
FACTS
Sabas Limbaring
subdivided his Lot 2325-D into two lots denominated as Lot Nos. 2325-D-1
and 2325-D-2. He then executed in favor of Jennifer Limbaring
a Deed of Sale for Lot 2325-D-2 for P60,000; and, in favor of Sarah Jane Limbaring, another Deed
for Lot 2325-D-1 for P14,440. Accordingly, TCT No. 5268 was cancelled and TCT Nos.
T-21921 and T-21920 were issued in the names of Jennifer and Sarah Jane,
respectively. Sensing some irregularities in the transaction, Percita
Oco, the daughter of Sabas Limbaring, left Puerto Princesa City and went to
Ozamis City.7 She then filed a case
of perjury and falsification of documents against respondent, her uncle who was
the father of Jennifer and Sarah Jane. During the pre-litigation
conference the parties agreed that the two parcels of land should be
reconveyed to Percita, who was to pay respondent all the expenses that had been
and would be incurred to transfer the titles to her name. Pursuant to
their agreement, respondent facilitated the transfer of the titles to her from
the names of his daughters. On April 6, 1999, respondent filed against
Spouses Anthony and Percita Oco a Complaint for the rescission of the sales
contracts, with recovery of possession and ownership of the two parcels of land. Among others, he claimed 1) that he
was the actual buyer of the lots, but the vendees whose names appeared on the
Deeds were his daughters; 2) that he initially refused to reconvey the
properties because he had paid for them with his hard-earned money, which was
partly used by Sabas Limbaring for medical expenses; 3) that Percita had
prepared the two Deeds of Sale, which his daughters signed despite receiving no
consideration as stated in the Deeds; 4) that because she refused to pay the P25,000,
the Limbaring clan held a meeting on October 26, 1996, during which it was
agreed that P1,000 per month would be given to respondent from the rentals
of Sabas Limbaring’s house; and 5) that the agreement was not implemented,
because Percita had failed to cooperate.
ISSUE
Whether respondent, who
was the plaintiff in the trial court, was a real party in interest in the suit
to rescind the Deeds of Reconveyance
RULING
To show
material interest, respondent argues that a trust was created when he purchased
the properties from Sabas Limbaring in favor of his daughters. As trustor, he
allegedly stands to be benefited or injured by any decision in the case.
Respondent has presented only bare
assertions that a trust was created. Noting the need to prove the existence of
a trust, this Court has held thus:
"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. 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. Trustworthy
evidence is required because oral evidence can easily be fabricated."
Under the last sentence
of Article 1448, respondent’s alleged acts -- paying the price of the subject
properties and, in the titles, naming his children as owners -- raise the
presumption that a gift was effected in their favor. Respondent failed to rebut
this presumption. Absent any clear proof that a trust was created, he cannot be
deemed a real party in interest.That he should be deemed a trustor on
the basis merely of having paid the purchase price is plainly contradicted by
the presumption based on Article 1448 of the Civil Code "that there is a
gift in favor of the child," not a trust in favor of the parent.
Comments
Post a Comment