Canezo V Rojas – D E A T H O F T R U S T E E
Facts: Petitioner (canezo) filed complaint for recovery of real property property against respondent R ojas .
P etitioner etitioner filed filed c omplaint for recovery of real property agains t Rojas(2 nd wife of her dad) plus damages- subject property is a 4k sqm unregistered unregistered land in Biliran P etitioner etitioner alleges s he bough t the the land from Limpiado and the transaction was not reduced in writing. she immediately took posses sion of said propert property y S he allegedly allegedly E NT R US TE D the proper propertty to his his father father when when she and hubby left for Mindanao in 1984 and said father took possession of land and cultivated it. 1980 she foun found d out out that R E S PO NDE NT(2nd wife) was in posses sion/cult sion/cultivati ivating ng the sa me a s well as tax declarationsin declarationsin C rispulo rispulo R ojas ojas ’s name (father) .
R esp ondent claims that it was the father father who boug ht the the property the reason why tax declaration was in his name and was in possession until death and property was included in ESTATE which petitioner petitioner RE C EIVE D her s hare in the estate estate..
R espo ndent claims that father bought the property property in 1948 and that is why the tax declarations was in father’s name. F ather posses sed a nd cultivated cultivated the land until until his death. Upon death in 1978, propert property y was part of E S TA T E . R espo ndent claims that petitioner petitioner ought to to have impleade d all of the heirs as defendants. F urther claims that petitioner petitioner has a band oned her right over the property since she just filed her complaint in 1997
MTC ruled in favor of petitioner- RTC reversed – RTC reversed and ruled in favor of P etitioneretitioner- C A ruled in favo r of the the respondents
Hao
MTC claims that there there was no proof that that father bought the the proper propertty R TC 1st reverse d MTC stating that presc presc ription ription took took placeand a cquisitive cquisitive prescription prescription has already set.
R T C reveres its original decision stating stating that no prescription prescription took took place since petitioner petitioner E NT R US T E D the propert property y to her father, and that 10-year prescription starts from the day the trust trustee ee R E PU DIATE S the tru trust. st. RT C found found no eviden evidence ce showing such. C A ruled in favor of the the resp ondent- father is owner, owner, petitioner ’s inaction for 17 years since discovery of possession of 2 nd wife tax declaration was in father’s name, father father was in adve rse poss es sion, and property property was included in estate C A- ev en ass uming Im plied trust, trust, petitioners petitioners right of action action to recover is is barred by by prescripti prescription on - 49 Y E AR S lapsed. P etit etition ioner er contends contends that that there there was was E XP R E S S TR US T hence prescription will not set in.
ISS UE: WON trust existed. existed. HE L D: NO, neither neither express or implied resulting resulting TR UST existed in this cas e
Intention Intention to create trust C AN NO T b e inferred inferred from from petitioner’s testimony and on the facts and c ircumstanc e P etitioner etitioner only T E S T IFIE D that father father agreed to give her proceeds proceeds of the the production of the land S C states that had it been had it been her intention to create trust, she should not have made an issue of the tax declarations. declarations. T rustee rustee would necess arily have leg al titl title e hence right to transfer the tax declarations in his name as this was more beneficial to the beneficiary. In light of the disquisitions, we hold that there was no express trust or resulting trust established between the petitioner and her father. Thus, in the absence of a trust relation, we can only conc lude that C rispulos uninterrupted uninterrupted poss es sion of the the subject property for 49 years, coupled with the performance of acts of ownership, such as payment of real estate taxes, ripened into ownership.
Assuming trust existed it was terminated upon DEATH of father.
A TR US T T E R MINATE S UPO N DE ATH of the trustee where the trust is P E R S ON AL to the trustee in the sens e that the trustor INTE NDE D NO OT HE R person to administer. If father was appointed as trustee of the property, such appointment cannot be intended to be conveyed to the respondent or heirs After death, the respondent had no right to retain possession of the property. At such point, a CO NS TR UC TIVE TR US T would be created over the property by operation of lawWhere one mistakenly retains property which rightfully belongs to another, a constructive trust is the proper remedial device to correct the situation.
GR: Trustee cannot acquire by prescription ownership over property entrusted to him UNLE S S he repudiates the TR UST . A p p li c a bl e to E X P R E S S a nd R E S U L T I NG I MP L I E D T R U S T a n d NOT to constructive trust .
In constructive trust the relation of trustee and cestui que trust does not in fact exist, and the holding of a constructive trust i s for t he trustee himself, and therefore, at all times adverse.
WHEREFORE ,
premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated September 7, 2000, and Resolution dated May 9, 2001, are AFFIRMED .
Hao
