The Firm
Our Lawyers
Cases and Rulings
Estate Planning Tools
Contact Us


G.R. No. 112872     

April 19, 2001

TY vs. CA




S was married to A the son of ABT.  When A died, he was survived by S and their daughter K.  S was appointed the administratrix of A's estate.  S asked the court for permission to sell some of the pieces of property left by A in order to pay for estate taxes.  ABT contested the sale asking for the nullification of the Deed of Sale covering the subject pieces of property and claiming that even if said property were placed in the name of deceased, they were acquired through ABT’s money, without any cause or consideration from A.



Whether an express trust was created




S contends that ABT is attempting to enforce an unenforceable express trust over the disputed real property.  S is in error when she contends that an express trust was created by private respondent when he transferred the property to his son. 


…[e]xpress trust are those that are created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed or will or by words evidencing an intention to create a trust.  On the other hand, implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are deducible from the nature of the transaction by operation of law as matters of equity, independently of the particular intention of the parties.  Thus, if the intention to establish a trust is clear, the trust is express; if the intent to establish a trust is to be taken from circumstances or other matters indicative of such intent, then the trust is implied (Cuaycong vs. Cuaycong, 21 SCRA 1191 [1967].



In the cases at hand, ABT contends that the pieces of property were transferred in the name of A 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 a trust is implied in fact (Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. 4, p. 678).



If a trust was then created, it was an implied, not an express trust, which may be proven by oral evidence (Article 1457, Civil code), and it matters not whether property is real or personal (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Vol. 4, p. 814).




G.R. No. 168660

June 30, 2009

Orendain vs. Trusteeship of the Estate of Doña Rodriquez


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 of twenty years in accordance with Article 870 of the Civil Code.  The petitioners came to court to move for the dissolution of the trust having already existed for more than twenty years.


  1. w/n the trust should be dissolved
  1. w/n petitioners are entitled to inherit the remaining properties


The trust should be dissolved having lapsed for more than twenty years.

The petitioners are not necessarily entitled to inherit.  The lower court must determine who are the heirs entitled.


G.R. No. L-38972 September 28, 1987

GARCIA vda. de MAPA  et. al., vs. CA et. al.



C died leaving a will and designating her spouse L as the universal heir of her estate having died without any descendant or ascendant.  L was designated as universal heir but with the obligation to hold the residue of her estate in trust for their nephews and nieces.




  1. w/n a trust is created
  2. w/n a trust can be created without consideration of the legitimes of the compulsory heirs



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).

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that as the surviving spouse of the testatrix, L was entitled to a legitime of one-half (1/2) of her hereditary estate. As that portion is reserved by law for the compulsory heirs, no burden, encumbrance, condition or substitution of any kind whatsoever may be imposed upon the legitime by the testator. (Art. 904, second paragraph, Ibid) The trust created by C should therefore be, as it is hereby declared to be effective only on the free portion of her estate, i.e., that portion not covered by L's legitime.


G.R. No. 59550 January 11, 1995

NOEL vs. CA 

G.R. No. 60636 January 11, 1995




G and H were a childless, legally-married couple. G, however, had a child V by another woman. V was reared by G and H since he was two years old. During their marriage, G and H acquired certain property including a 34.7-hectare land in the  province on which they planted sugarcane, corn and bananas; where they lived with V and 15 tenants. Eventually, G died. H then administered the property with the help of V. Through their tenants, H and V enjoyed the produce of the land to the exclusion of J, the brother of G, and E and C, G’s daughters by still another woman. In 1953, V declared the property in his name for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration 5534. On 1 November 1952, H and V, mortgaged the 34.7-hectare land in consideration of the amount of P4,800.00. On 16 February 1954, H and V executed a deed of sale over the same tract of land also in favor of the mortgagor in consideration of the sum of P16,000.00.  When H died, the other heirs of G began to question the sale of the 34.7-hectare land.


Whether the sale of the land by H is valid.



Wife has full ownership of undivided half-interest and the usufruct over the other; Right to alienate half-interest

Under Article 953 thereof, a spouse, who is survived by brothers or sisters or children of brothers or sisters of the decedent was entitled to receive in usufruct the part of the inheritance pertaining to said heirs. The surviving spouse, however, had full ownership, not merely usufruct, over the undivided half of the estate (Spanish Civil Code of 1889, Art. 493). It is only this undivided half-interest that she could validly alienate. Under the law in force in 1945, the surviving spouse was given the management of the conjugal property until the affairs of the conjugal partnership were terminated. The surviving spouse became the owner of one-half interest of the conjugal estate in his own right. He also became a trustee with respect to the other half for the benefit of whoever may be legally entitled to inherit the said portion.


Mistake attended sale of undivided interest in property belonging to the collateral heirs of G

While it cannot be said that fraud attended the sale to the mortgagor, clearly there was a mistake on the part of H and V in selling an undivided interest in the property which belonged to the collateral heirs of Gregorio.


Purchaser is a trustee of an implied trust if property is acquired by mistake or fraud

The sale, having been made in 1954, was governed by the Civil Code of the Philippines. Under Article 1456 of said Code, an implied trust was created on the one-half undivided interest over the 34.7-hectare land in favor of the real owners. Said Article provides that “if the property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.” In Diaz v. Gorricho, 103 Phil. 261 (1958), the Court said that Article 1456 merely expresses a rule recognized in Gayondato v. Insular Treasurer, 49 Phil. 244 (1926). Applying said rule, the Gayondato court held that the buyer of a parcel of land at a public auction to satisfy a judgment against a widow acquired only one-half interest on the land corresponding to the share of the widow and the other half belonging to the heirs of her husband became impressed with a constructive trust in behalf of said heirs.

Feedback form
First name  *
Last name  *
E-mail  *
Comments  *
* Required fields

The FirmServicesOur LawyersArticlesLibraryCases and RulingsEstate Planning ToolsCareersEventsGalleryContact UsDisclaimer