Petrona Gamboa et al vs.

Modesta Gamboa et al
GR No. L-29556

Dec. 22, 1928

Facts: Modesta and Feliciana Gamboa bought parcels of land from their parents. They sold
this land to Javier but subject to pacto de retro. For several times, the sisters paid the price by
instalment basis, however, since they lack funds, they mortgaged the same property to Javier.
Their brother Regino paid the remaining balance of P1, 100 to Javier and subrogated the
latter as creditor. Afterwards, Modesta managed to pay Regino the said amount and the land
title was subsequently given to her and Feliciana of which they partitioned it pro rata.
After more than ten years, herein plaintiff, siblings and relatives of Modesta, institute an
action against Modesta to divide the properties among themselves and to account for the
profits the land have produced for its past proceedings. Modesta protested the claim asserting
that, except Lot 6247, she is the sole owner of the other parcels of land which she possessed
for more than 10years. The Lot 6427 however is co-owned by her and the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs contend that Modesta is merely possessing the properties as a trustee and therefore
she is not the owner thereof.

Issue: Whether or not Modesta is a trustee or the owner of the parcels of land.

Ruling: Modesta is the owner of the land except Lot 6247. The proof shows that ever since
the property in question was conveyed by Javier to the Gamboa sisters in 1910, the same has
been continuously in the possession of Modesta, except for the two years 1912 and 1913
when, by some arrangement or other, one of her brothers had charge as manager. During this
period, Modesta exercised all the rights of ownership, accounting of course to Feliciana for
the latters share of the produce during the term of the ownership.
The sale of the property by Javier to the two sisters in 1910 was an unconditional transfer of
title to them, inasmuch as Javier had been an undisputed owner of the property fully eleven
years. Of course, if it had really been agreed that the sisters were purchasing the property in a
trust character, that agreement might have been enforced, but the nature of the title held by
the sisters and the inconclusive character of the proof of trusteeship refute this theory. The
court has attributed little importance to the form in which the property was assessed for
taxation, in view of the explanation which Modesta gives of the obstructions which she
encountered in straightening the matter out.