CRISTOBAL VS.

GOMEZ
50 PHIL 810 NO. 27014 OCT 5, 1927
FACTS:
On December 13, 1891, Epifanio Gomez, husband of Paulina Cristobal and father of
Luis, Josefa, Paciencia and Jose Gomez sold the three parcels of land located in
Bacoor Cavite to Luis R. Yangco under a conract of sale wih pacto de retro,
redeemable in five years for the sum of P 2,500.00, Efipanio Gomez remaining in
possession in the character of lessee.
Gomez in order to repurchase the property asked the assistance of Bibiano Banas
with the condition that he would let him have the money provided his brother
Marcelino Gomez and sister Telesfora Gomez would be responsible for the loan.
Banas advance the sum of P7,000 in the name of Marcelino and Telesfora Gomez
who should hold and administer the property until it was paid, after which the
property would be returned to Epifanio Gomez. On July 10, 1907 Luis R. Yangco
conveyed the property to Marcelino and Telesfora Gomez.
On August 12, 1907 Marcelino and Telesfora Gomez created a private partnership in
participation for the purpose of redeeming the property which Epifanio had sold to
Yangco with the provisions of major importance such as;
(h) That all the income, rent, and produce of the aforesaid property of Epifanio
Gomez shall be applied exclusively to the amortization of the capital employed by
the two parties, that is to say, Don Marcelino Gomez and Dona Telesfora Gomez,
with its corresponding interest and other incidental expeses.
(i) As soon as the capital employed, with its interest and other incidental expenses,
shall have been covered, said properties shall be returned to our brother Epifanio
Gomez or to his legitimate children, with the direct intervention, however, of both
parties, namely, Don Marcelino Gomez and Dona Telesfora Gomez, or one of them.
(j) In order that the property of Epifanio Gomez may be returned, it is made
essential that he shall manifest good behavior in the opinion of Don Marcelino
Gomez and Dona Telesfora Gomez, jointly.
Upon the death of Epifanio Gomez in 1908, Marcelino Gomez entered into
possession of the property until his death, wherein during the twenty year period he
set improvement on said parcels of land. While Telesfora Gomez freeing herself from
any responsibility she conveyed to Marcelino Gomez her interest and share and
dissolved the partnership. With Marcelino as the sole debtor, the loan being novated
on September 10, 1909, Banas required him to execute a contract of sale of the
three parcels with pacto de retro for the purpose of securing the indebtedness. On
April 1, 1918, Marcelino Gomez paid to Banas the sum of P7,575.92 in full
satisfaction of the entire claim and recover the land fron Banas.
Thus, action to recover the three parcels of land was instituted by the successors of
Epifanio Gomez. Upon hearing the cause, the trial court found that the property in
question belongs to the plaintiffs, as co-owners, and ordered the defendant to

surrender the property to them and execute an appropriate deed of transfer as well
as to pay the costs of the proceeding.
The defendant appealled.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not Trust agreement exist.
RULING:
Yes trust agereemet exist. Marcelino and Telesfora created a trust for the express
purpose of receiving the property of Epifanio Gomez, and that the property should
be returned to his legitimate children, he being now dead.
The trial Cour did not err in declaring that under the second paragraph Art 1257 of
the Civil Code, the successor of Epifanio Gomez are entitled to demad fulfillment of
the trust. The trust agreement was not kept secret from Epifanio Gomez. In the
testimony of Bibiano Banas, he said that Epifanio Gomez was present when the
arragement for the repurchase of the property from Yangco was discussed.
The condition that Epifanio Gomez should exhibit good behavior, claimed that he
violated this condition by two kinds of misbehavior before his death, first, by selling
different salt lots to various persons and by attending cockfights, an activity
distasteful to his broher ad sister. It is evidentg that misbehavior on the part of
Epifanio Gomez during the year or more that he lived after the trust agreement was
made could not be attributed as a ground of forfeiture to his legitimate children ten
years later, especially as no step had ever been taken in the life of Epifanio Gomez
to defeat his rights under the trust on account of his alleged misbehavior.
Marcelino Gomez having been in possession for more than ten years under the deed
by which he acquired the sole right from his siser in 1909 has no benefit of
prescription. There was no adverse possession under a claim of title exclusive of any
oher right ad adverse to all other claimants. He was merely a trustee in possession
under continuing and subsisting trust.
On the contention that Epifanio Gomez and his successors are estopped from
claiming title to parcel C lot because of his written admission that it belonged to his
brother Marcelino, it is clear that the real title at the time that declaration was made
was in Epifanio Gomez, and in creating said document, he was merely laying the
basis of a scheme to defeat Yangcos rights under his contract of purchase of 1891
or perhaps to defeat other creditors of Epifanio Gomez. As such, no estoppel can be
invoked based upon said document for the reason that he was not misled by he
false statement contained in that document.
The court ordered that the property be retured to Epifanio Gomez or his legitimate
children.
Judgment affirmed.