HUANG v.

CA
EXPRESS TRUST v. IMPLIED TRUST

G.R. No. 108525. September 13, 1994

FACTS: Private respondents Dolores and Aniceto Sandoval wanted to buy two lots in Makati but were allowed
to buy only one lot per policy of the subdivision owner. Private respondents bought Lot 21 and registered it in
their name. Respondents also bought Lot 20 but the deed of sale was in the name of petitioner Ricardo Huang
and registered in his name. Respondents constructed a house on Lot 21 while petitioners were allowed by
respondents to build a house on Lot 20. Petitioners were also allowed to mortgage the Lot 20 to the SSS to
secure a loan. Respondents actually financed the construction of the house, the swimming pool, and the fence
surrounding the properties on the understanding that the petitioners would merely hold title in trust for the
respondents’ beneficial interest.

Petitioner Huangs leased the property to Deltron Corporation for its official quarters without the permission
of the respondents. But later, the lessees prohibited the use of the swimming pool by the respondents, and the
Huangs began challenging the respondents’ ownership of the property. Thus, respondents filed a complaint
before the trial court for the nullification of the deed of sale to the petitioners and the quieting of title of Lot 20.
The trial court found that the respondents were the real owners of the Lot 20 and therefore ordered the
petitioners to vacate the property and to remit to the respondents the rentals earned from Lot 20. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners can claim ownership of the property registered in their name but for which
was paid by the respondents.

RULING: Respondent Sandoval 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 petitioner Huang. Through this transaction, a
resulting trust was created. Petitioner became the trustee of Lot 20 and its improvements for the benefit of
respondent as owner. Article 1448 of the New Civil Code 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 the he who pays for a
thing intends a beneficial therein for himself.

Given these provisions of law, petitioner was only a trustee of the property in question for the benefit of the
respondent who is the real owner. Therefore, petitioner cannot claim ownership of the property even when it
was registered in his name. Thus, petition is denied.