JUAN VS YAP, SR. G.R. No. 182177; 30 March 2011
NATURE:
Petition for review of the ruling of the Court of Appeals finding petitioner Richard Juan as trustee of an implied trust over a mortgage contract in favor of the respondent Gabriel Yap, Yap, Sr. PONENTE:
Carpio, J. FATS:
he spouses !a"imo and #ulcisima Ca$eda mortgaged to petitioner Richard Juan %petitioner&, emplo'ee and nephew of respondent Gabriel Yap, Sr. %respondent&, two parcels of land in alisa', Cebu to secure a loan of P(.)* million, pa'able within one 'ear. Petitioner, represented b' Solon, sought the e"tra+udicial foreclosure of the mortgage. Although petitioner and respondent participated in the auction sale, the properties were sold to petitioner for tendering the highest bid of P. million. -o certificate of sale was issued to petitioner, however, for his failure to pa' the sales commission. Respondent and the Ca$eda spouses e"ecuted a memorandum of agreement %!/A& where %(& the Ca$eda spouses ac0nowledged respondent as their 1real mortgagee2creditor " " " while Richard Juan 3petitioner4 is merel' a trustee1 of respondent5 %& respondent agreed to allow the Ca$eda spouses to redeem the foreclosed properties for P(. million5 and %6& the Ca$eda spouses and respondent agreed to initiate +udicial action 1either to annul or reform the 3Contract4 or to compel Richard Juan to reconve' the mortgagees rights1 to respondent as trustor. hree da's later, the Ca$eda spouses and respondent sued petitioner in the Regional rial Court of Cebu Cit' %trial court& to declare respondent as trustee of petitioner vis a vis the Contract, annul petitioners bid for the foreclosed properties, declare the Contract 1superseded or novated1 b' the !/A, and re7uire petitioner to pa' damages, attorne's fees and the costs. he Ca$eda spouses consigned with the trial court the amount of P(.)* million as redemption pa'ment. Petitioner insisted on his rights over the mortgaged properties. Petitioner also counterclaimed for damages and attorne's fees and the turn2over of the owners cop' of the titles for the mortgaged properties. !SSUE:
8heth 8hether er an impli implied ed trust trust arose arose betwee between n petiti petitione onerr and respon responden dent, t, bindin binding g petiti petitione onerr to hold hold the beneficial title over over the mortgaged properties properties in trust for respondent respondent "E#$:
Yes, Yes, there is an implied trust between the petitioner and the respondent. RAT!O $E!$EN$!:
An implied trust arising from mortgage contracts is not among the trust relationships the Civil Code enumerates. he Code itself provides, however, that such listing 1does not e"clude others established b' the general law on trust " " ".1 9nder the general principles on trust, e7uit' converts the holder of
propert' right as trustee for the benefit of another if the circumstances of its ac7uisition ma0es the holder ineligible 1in " " " good conscience 3to4 hold and en+o' 3it4.1 As implied trusts are remedies against un+ust enrichment, the 1onl' problem of great importance in the field of constructive trusts is whether in the numerous and var'ing factual situations presented " " " there is a wrongful holding of propert' and hence, a threatened un+ust enrichment of the defendant.1 Appl'ing these principles, this Court recogni:ed unconventional implied trusts in contracts involving the purchase of housing units b' officers of tenants associations in breach of their obligations, the partitioning of realt' contrar' to the terms of a compromise agreement, and the e"ecution of a sales contract indicating a bu'er distinct from the provider of the purchase mone'. ;n all these cases, the formal holders of title were deemed trustees obliged to transfer title to the beneficiaries in whose favor the trusts were deemed created. 8e see no reason to bar the recognition of the same obligation in a mortgage contract meeting the standards for the creation of an implied trust. $E!S!ON:
Petition is #<-;<# and the #ecision of the Court of Appeals is A==;R!<#. >mpv