Salao v. Salao Documentary evidence must be presented in order to prove an express trust over an allegedly co-owned fishpond.

This is in accordance with ART 1443 which states that "No express trust concerning an immovable or any interest therein may be proved by parol evidence."

De Leon v. Molo-Peckson It is not necessary that the beneficiary had knowledge of, or consented to, the trust at the time of its creation. If the trust imposes no onerous condition, acceptance by the beneficiary shall be presumed (ART. 1446). An acknowledgment by a person that the property whose title he holds is being held by him for the use of another is a declaration of an express trust.

Government v. Abadilla It is not necessary that the cesti que trust or beneficiary be specifically named or be existing at the time of the creation of trust for the same to be valid. (Example: A man can be a trustee to his future children [not specifically named and not exsiting] even if at the time of the creation of the trust he is still childless.) The Statute of Limitation or prescription does not run between the trustee and the beneficiary as long as the trust relations subsist i.e. no repudiation of trust by the trustee. It may run, however, between the trust and third persons.

Cristobal v. Gomez If the purpose of the original trust has been accomplished, the trust is extinguished and the trustee must return to the trustor or beneficiary the property held in trust. Prescription is not effective in favor of a trustee in possession of a property under a continuing and subsisting trust. This is because the possession is not adverse.

Araneta v. Perez The prohibition on attorneys who happen to be executors or administrators not to charge against the estate fees for legal services rendered DOES NOT APPLY to trustees. The duties of the former are fixed

by law while those of the latter by intention of the trustor or of the parties. Hence, an attorney trustee may charge fees against the trust estate for legal services he rendered.

Mindanao Development Authority v. CA The 'deed of sale' which states that "I hereby agree to work for the titling of the entire area of my land under under my own expenses and the expenses for the titling of the portion sold by me shall be under the expenses of the said Juan Cruz Yap Chuy" does not create an express trust. It merely states that the obligation to pay the expenses for the registration of land shall be made by one of the parties. Declaration of trust must be clear and unequivocal.

Roa Jr. v. Court of Appeals A constructive trust, which is a remedy against unjust enrichment, is created if a person acquires property by committing a breach of confidence of another. If a person succeeds in titling a land in his name by virtue of promises (e.g. replacement with another parcel of land or payment of a certain amount) made to the current possessor, such person becomes a mere trustee of the land in case he fails to fulfill his promises. The land, although acquired without fraud, cannot be retained by the person now holding it.

Perez v. Araneta Beneficiaries of a trust constituted (only) on the income and profits of the trust estate are not entitled to the profits realized in the sale of trust properties for the same are part of the capital and hence do not constitute income or profits.

Cuaycong v. Cuaycong A trustor who expressly stated that he is establishing a trust over a land in favor of his brothers and sisters created an express trust and not an implied trust. In such case, parol evidence is inadmissible to prove the existence of the (express) trust. ART. 1443.

Sinaon v. Sorongon Though an implied trust may be proved by parol evidence (ART. 1457), it cannot be established against the recitals of a Torrens title upon vague and conslusive proof.

An action for reconveyance of realty based on an implied trust prescribes in ten years. The prescriptive period is reckoned from the issuance of title which operates as a constructive notice.

O'Laco v. Co Cho Chit If the issuance of title in someone's name is not adverse because of the existence of a trust relations i.e. title was registered in another's name because the true owners were Chinese nationals who cannot own land, prescription begins to run only when a clear act of repudiation of the trust is committed by the trustee (in this case by sale of the land held in trust).

A resulting trust is repudiated when: 1. The trustee has performed clear and unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust 2. The acts of repudiation must have been made known to the cesitu que turst 3. The evidence thereof is clear and convincing

Special Services Corporation v. Centro La Paz A judgment creditor cannot levy on properties merely being held in trust by the judgment debtor. An express trust can be proven by preponderance of documentary evidence such as deed of donation, deed of acknowledgment, and written petition for tax exemption.

Chiao Liong Tan v. CA An implied trust is created when the price of a property is paid by one party but is registered in another's name. ART. 1448

Homena v. Casa The doctrine of implied trust cannot be invoked based on an illegal contract.

A contract of sale establishing a trust over a land which must not be sold within the five year prohibitory period (but the land was sold nonetheless, transfer of title to happen after five years) under the Homestead Patent Law is void ab initio. Hence, no implied trust was created.

Heirs of Candelaria v. Romero An implied trust is created if one party made the necessary payments for the purchase of land yet the title was registered in the name of another in the understanding that transfer of title will be made at a later time. The heirs of the former may demand reconveyance of said land from the heirs of the latter.

PNB v. CA A payment by mistake creates either a solutio indebiti under ART. 2154 or a constructive trust under ART. 1145. The former prescribes in six years, the latter in ten years. The mistaken payor may opt to avail of an action to enforce either of the two. An action for recovery of the amount paid by mistake filed seven years later by a banking institution is however barred by laches, which deals with the effects of unreasonable delay. The bank must bear the cost of its own negligence.