G.R. No. 117228 June 19, 1997

G.R. No. 117228 June 19, 1997 RODOLFO MORALES, represented by his heirs, and PRISCILA MORALES, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Former Seventeenth Division), RANULFO ORTIZ, JR., and ERLINDA ORTIZ, respondents.

 

FACTS:

 

The evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs discloses that the Plaintiffs are the absolute and exclusive owners of the premises in question having purchased the same from Celso Avelino. They later caused the transfer of its tax declaration in the name of the female plaintiff and paid the realty taxes thereon. Celso Avelino (Plaintiffs' predecessor in interest) purchased the land in question consisting of two adjoining parcels while he was still a bachelor and the City Fiscal of Calbayog City from Alejandra Mendiola and Celita Bartolome, through a "Escritura de Venta". After the purchase, he caused the transfer of the tax declarations of the two parcels in his name as well as consolidated into one the two tax declarations in his name. With the knowledge of the Intervenor and the defendant, Celso Avelino caused the survey of the premises in question, in his name, by the Bureau of Lands. He also built his residential house therein with Marcial Aragon (now dead) as his master carpenter who was even scolded by him for constructing the ceiling too low. When the two-storey residential house was finished, he took his parents, Rosendo Avelino and Juana Ricaforte, and his sister, Aurea, who took care of the couple, to live there until their deaths. He also declared this residential house in his tax declaration to the premises in question and paid the corresponding realty taxes, keeping intact the receipts which he comes to get or Aurea would go to Cebu to give it to him. After being the City Fiscal of Calbayog, Celso Avelino became an Immigration Officer and later as Judge of the Court of First Instance in Cebu with his sister, Aurea, taking care of the premises in question. While he was already in Cebu, the defendant, without the knowledge and consent of the former, constructed a small beauty shop in the premises in question. Inasmuch as the Plaintiffs are the purchasers of the other real properties of Celso Avelino, one of which is at Acedillo (now Sen. J.D. Avelino) street, after they were offered by Celso Avelino to buy the premises in question, they examined the premises in question and talked with the defendant about that fact, the latter encouraged them to purchase the premises in question rather than the property going to somebody else they do not know and that he will vacate the premises as soon as his uncle will notify him to do so. Thus, they paid the purchase price and Exh. "C" was executed in their favor. However, despite due notice from his uncle to vacate the premises in question, the defendant refused to vacate or demolish the beauty shop unless he is reimbursed P35,000.00 for it although it was valued at less than P5,000.00. So, the Plaintiffs demanded, orally and in writing to vacate the premises. The defendant refused. As the plaintiffs were about to undertake urgent repairs on the dilapidated residential building, the defendant had already occupied the same, taking in paying boarders and claiming already ownership of the premises in question, thus they filed this case. Plaintiffs, being the neighbors of Celso Avelino, of their own knowledge are certain that the premises in question is indeed owned by their predecessor-in-interest because the male plaintiff used to play in the premises when he was still in his teens while the female plaintiff resided with the late Judge Avelino. Besides, their inquiries and documentary evidence shown to them by Celso Avelino confirm this fact. Likewise, the defendant and Intervenor did not reside in the premises in question because they reside respectively in Brgy. Tarobucan and Brgy. Trinidad (Sabang), both of Calbayog City with their own residential houses there. Due to the damages they sustained as a result of the filing of this case, the plaintiffs are claiming P50,000.00 for mental anguish; monthly rental of the premises in question of P1,500.00 starting from March 1987; litigation expenses of P5,000.00 and P10,000.00 for Attorney's fees.

 

 

ISSUE: Whether or not the property acquired is a trust property?

 

RULING:

 

NO. 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 a trust are: It is a relationship; it is a relationship of fiduciary character; it is a relationship with respect to property, not one involving merely personal duties; 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 it arises as a result of a manifestation of intention to create the relationship. Trusts are either express or implied. Express trusts are created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties, while implied trusts come into being by operation of law, either through implication of an intention to create a trust as a matter of law or through the imposition of the trust irrespective of, and even contrary to, any such intention. In turn, implied trusts are either resulting or constructive trusts. Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest and are presumed always to have been contemplated by the parties. They arise from the nature or circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person thereby becomes invested with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of another. On the other hand, constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise contrary to intention against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.