G.R. No.

178645 January 30, 2009

LINA PEÑALBER, Petitioner,

vs.
QUIRINO RAMOS, LETICIA PEÑALBER, and BARTEX INC., Respondents.

Petitioner operated a hardware store in a building along Bonifacio St.,

Tuguegarao, Cagayan, which stood in acommercial lot owned by Maria
Mendoza, from whom the petitioner rented the same. :the Petitioner allowed
respondents to manage the store. In 1984, Mendoza put the Bonifacio property
for sale. Having no funds, Petitioner allegedly entered into a verbal agreement
with respondents stipulating that the latter shall buy the property in behalf of
the petitioner and the consideration for the lot shall be paid from the
accumulated earnings of the store. When the respondents returned the
management of the store to the petitioner with an inventory showing a
difference of P116,946.15. The petitioner then demanded from the respondents
the reconveyance title of the property but the latter refused. Petitioner argues
that the respondents are mere trustees of the property and thus, are under
moral and legal obligation to reconvey the property to her. Petitioner further
argues that the difference in the inventory proves that such amount was used
to pay for the purchase price of the property. Respondents, on the other hand,
contend that they have the full ownership of the property because they paid for
it out of their own funds.

Issue: Whether or not there is a valid and enforceable trust.

Held: None, the Court ruled that petitioner’s allegations as to the existence of
an express trust agreement with respondent spouses Ramos, supported only
by her own and her son Johnson’s testimonies, are not tenable. A resulting
difference of P116,946.15 in the beginning inventory of the stocks of the
hardware store and the second inventory thereof, by itself, is not conclusive
proof that the said amount was used to pay the purchase price of the Bonifacio
property, such as would make it the property of petitioner held merely in trust
by respondent spouses Ramos. The resulting difference in the two inventories
might have been caused by other factors and the same is capable of other
interpretations, the exclusion of which rested upon the shoulders of petitioner
alone who has the burden of proof in the instant case. This petitioner
miserably failed to do. The fact that respondent spouses Ramos never denied
the P116,946.15 difference, or that they failed to present proof that they indeed
used the said amount to pay the other obligations and liabilities of petitioner is
not sufficient to discharge petitioners burden to prove the existence of the
alleged express trust agreement.