You are on page 1of 2

RODOLFO TIGNO VS CA The trust created under the first sentence of Article 1448 is sometimes

referred to as a purchase money resulting trust.


FACTS:

Bienvenido Sison, Remedios Sison and the heirs of Isaac Sison, To give rise to a purchase money resulting trust, it is essential that there
namely: Manuel Sison, Gerardo Sison and Adelaida Sison appointed be:
Dominador Cruz as agent to sell three (3) parcels of land
1. an actual payment of money, property or
Rodolfo Tigno learned that the properties were for sale. services, or an equivalent, constituting valuable
Accordingly, he approached Cruz and told the latter to offer these consideration;
parcels of land to his brother, Eduardo Tigno (appellant).

Despite the fact that no deed of sale was prepared by Atty. Manuel, 2. and such consideration must be furnished by
the alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust. 19
Remedios Sison, Bienvenido Sison and Manuel Sison asked Eduardo
to pay a fifty percent (50%) downpayment for the properties. The latter
acceded to the request and gave Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) In Chiao Liong Tan vs. Court of Appeals, we ruled: 24
each to the 3 abovenamed persons for a total of Fifteen Thousand
Pesos (P15,000.00). This was witnessed by Cruz and Atty. Manuel. A certificate of registration of a motor vehicle in
one's name indeed creates a strong presumption
After giving the downpayment, Eduardo instructed Cruz and Atty. of ownership. For all practical purposes, the
Manuel to place the name of Rodolfo Tigno as "vendee" in the person in whose favor it has been issued is
deeds of sale to be subsequently prepared. This instruction was virtually the owner thereof unless proved
given to enable Rodolfo Tigno to mortgage these properties at the otherwise. In other words, such presumption is
Philippine National Bank (PNB), Lingayen Branch, for appropriate funds rebuttable by competent proof.
needed for the development of these parcels of land as "fishponds".
The New Civil Code recognizes cases of
In all deeds of sale, Rodolfo Tigno was named as "vendee" pursuant to
implied trust other than those enumerated
the verbal instruction of herein appellant. Cruz, the agent in the sale,
therein. (fn: Art. 1447, New Civil Code) Thus,
signed in these three (3) deeds of sale as a witness.
although no specific provision could be cited
Rodolfo Tigno, without the knowledge and consent of Eduardo, sold to to apply to the parties herein, it is undeniable
Spouses Edualino Casipit and Avelina Casipit 508.56 square meters of that an implied trust was created when the
the land previously owned by Bienvenido Sison. At the time of sale, the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle
Casipits were aware that the portion of the land they bought was owned was placed in the name of petitioner although
by Eduardo, not Rodolfo Tigno. the price thereof was not paid by him but by
private respondent.

ISSUE: WON there was an implied trust


IN THE CASE AT BAR

Thes two exhibits are proof merely of the receipt of money by the seller;
RULING: YES they do not show that Rodolfo paid the balance of the purchase
price. 28 On the other hand, Witness Dominador Cruz was unshakable
in testifying that Private Respondent Eduardo, though not named in the
Trusts are either express or implied. Express trusts are created by the
receipts or in the deeds of sale, was definitely the real buyer.
intention of the trustor or of the parties, while implied trusts come into
being by operation of law, 15 In turn, implied trusts are either resulting or
Aside from the "trust and confidence" reposed in him by his brother,
constructive trusts. Resulting trusts are based on the equitable
doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the Petitioner Rodolfo was named as vendee in the deeds of sale to facilitate
equitable title or interest and are presumed always to have been the loan and mortgage the brothers were applying for to rehabilitate the
contemplated by the parties. They arise from the nature or fishponds. Be it remembered that private respondent was a Makati-
circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereby based business executive who had no time to follow up the loan
one person thereby becomes invested with legal title but is obligated in application at the PNB branch in Lingayen, Pangasinan and, at the same
equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of another. On the other hand, time, to tend the fish farm on a daily basis. Atty. Modesto Manuel, who
constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order to prepared and notarized the deeds of sale, unhesitatingly affirmed the
satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise unwritten agreement between the two brothers.
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. 16 From the foregoing, it is clear that the name of Rodolfo Tigno appeared
in the deeds of sale not for the purpose of transferring ownership to him
but only to enable him to hold the property in trust for his brother, herein
A resulting trust is exemplified by Article 1448 of the Civil Code, which private respondent.
reads:
In the face of the credible and straightforward testimony of the two
Art. 1448. There is an implied trust when property witnesses, Cruz and Manuel, the probative value, if any, of the tax
is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party declarations being in the name of Petitioner Rodolfo is utterly minimal to
but the price is paid by another for the purpose of
show ownership. Suffice it to say that these documents, by themselves,
having the beneficial interest of the property. The
are not conclusive evidence of ownership.
former is the trustee, while the latter is the
beneficiary. However, if the person to whom the title
is conveyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of
the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is RICARDO AND MILAGROS HAUNG VS CA
implied by law, it being disputably presumed that
there is a gift in favor of the child. FACTS:
Dolores Sandoval wanted to buy two (2) lots in Dasmarias Village,
Makati, but was advised by petitioner Milagros Huang, wife of her
brother, petitioner Ricardo Huang, that the policy of the subdivision
owner forbade the acquisition of two (2) lots by a single individual.
Consequently, Dolores purchased Lot 21 and registered it in her name.
She also purchased the adjacent lot, Lot 20, but heading the advice of
Milagros, the deed of sale was placed in the name of Ricardo and
Registered in his name under TCT No. 204783.

Ricardo also requested her permission to construct a small residential


house on Lot 20 to which she agreed. She also allowed Ricardo to
mortgage Lot 20 to the Social Security System to secure the payment of
his loan of P19,200.00 to be spent in putting up the house. However,
she actualy financed the construction of the house, the swimming pool
and the fence thereon on the understanding that the Huang spouses
would merely hold title in trust for her beneficial interest.

On 19 March 1968, to protect her rights and interests as the lawful owner
of Lot 20 and its improvements, Dolores requested the Huangs to
execute in her favor a deed of absolute sale with assumption of
mortgage over the property. The letter obliged.

On 15 March 1980, the Huang spouses leased the house to Deltron-


Sprague Electronics Corporation for its various executives as official
quarters without first securing the permission of Dolores. Dolores
tolerated the lease of the property as she did not need it at that time.
But, after sometime, the lessees started prohibiting the Sandoval family
from using the swimming pool and the Huangs then began challenging
the Sandovals' ownership of the property.

ISSUE: WON THERE WAS TRUST CREATED

RULING: YES

In the present case, Dolores provided the money for the purchase of
Lot 20 but the corresponding deed of sale and transfer certificate of title
were placed in the name of Ricardo Huang because she was advised
that the subdivision owner prohibited the acquisition of two (2) lots by a
single individual.

Guided by the foregoing definitions, we are in conformity with the


common finding of the trial court and respondent court that a resulting
trust was created. Ricardo became the trustee of Lot 20 and its
improvements for the benefit of Dolores as owner. The pertinent law is
Art. 1448 of the New Civil Code which provides that there is an implied
trust when property is sold and the legal estate is granted to one party
but the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial
interest for the property. A resulting trust arises because of the
presumption that he who pays for a thing intends a beneficial interest
therein for himself