Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
112872
SYLVIA
S.
TY,
petitioner,
vs.
properties are bought through his money even if said properties are placed
B. TY, respondents.
Alexander
T.
Ty,
petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ALEJANDRO B. TY, respondents.
The motions to dismiss were denied. Petitioner then filed petitions for
certiorari in the , which were also dismissed for lack of merit. Thus, the
present petitions now before the Court.
Petitioner contends that private respondent is attempting to enforce an
unenforceable express trust over the disputed real property. Petitioner is in
error when she contends that an express trust was created by private
Doctrine: A resulting trust arises in favor of one who pays the purchase
money of an estate and places the title in the name of another, because of
the presumption that he who pays for a thing intends a beneficial interest
therein for himself. The trust is said to result in law from the acts of the
parties.
intention to create a trust. On the other hand, implied trusts are those which,
leukemia on May 19, 1988 and was survived by his wife, petitioner Sylvia,
without being expressed, are deducible from the nature of the transaction by
and only child, Krizia Katrina. In the settlement of his estate, petitioner was
of the parties.
In the cases at hand, private respondent contends that the pieces of property
were transferred in the name of the deceased Alexander for the purpose of
taking care of the property for him and his siblings. Such transfer having
been effected without cause of consideration, a resulting trust was created.
A resulting trust arises in favor of one who pays the purchase money of an
estate and places the title in the name of another, because of the
presumption that he who pays for a thing intends a beneficial interest therein
for himself. The trust is said to result in law from the acts of the parties. Such
Issues:
a
a
be proven by oral evidence (Article 1457, Civil Code), and it matters not
Held:
The trust should be dissolved having lapsed for more than
twenty years.
Facts:
Facts:
MR died with a will. She left no compulsory or forced heirs. In
her will, she created a trust over her estate which expressly
prohibits alienating or mortgaging some specified pieces of
property. The Supreme Court cited its previous ruling that
such provision on perpetual trust shall only last for a maximum
but with the obligation to hold the residue of her estate in trust
for their nephews and nieces.
Issue:
a
b
Held:
Although the word "trust" itself does not appear in the Will, the
testatrix's intent to create one is nonetheless clearly
demonstrated by the stipulations in her Will. In designating her
husband L as universal and sole heir with the obligation to
deliver the properties to petitioners and private respondents,
she intended that the legal title should vest in him, and in
significantly referring to petitioners and private respondents as
"beneficiarios," she intended that the beneficial or equitable
interest to these properties should repose in them. To our
mind, these designations, coupled with the other provisions for
co-ownership and joint administration of the properties, as well
as the other conditions imposed by the testatrix effectively
created a trust in favor of the parties over the properties
adverted to in the Will. "No particular words are required for
the creation of an express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is
clearly intended. " (Art. 1443, Civil Code of the Philippines).
FACTS:
During their lifetime, spouses Julian and Aurelia Paringit
leased a lot in Sampaloc, Manila (the lot) from Terocel
Realty, Inc. (Terocel Realty). They built their home there and
raised five children. Aurelia died on November 6, 1972.
For having occupied the lot for years, Terocel Realty offered
to sell it to Julian. Julian sought the help of his children so
he can buy the property but only his son Felipe and wife
Josefa had the financial resources he needed at that time.
To bring about the purchase, on January 16, 1984 Julian
executed a deed of assignment of leasehold right in favor of
Felipe and his wife that would enable them to acquire the
lot. On April 12, 1984 Felipe and his wife paid the last
installment and the realty company executed a Deed of
LAW:
Implied
Trust
on
sale
of
land
HELD:
The CA found that Felipe and his wifes purchase of the lot
falls under the rubric of the implied trust provided in Article
1450
of
the
Civil
Code.
Implied trust under Article 1450 presupposes a situation
LAW:
Prescription
on
implied
trust
identified
and
definite
real