Oblicon Digest

SPOUSES RA

SPOUSES RAYOS

YOS VS. REYES

VS. REYES ET

ET AL

AL

G.R. NO. 150913

G.R. NO. 150913

FEBRUARY 20, 2003

FEBRUARY 20, 2003

FACTS:

FACTS:

3 parcels of unregistered land in Pangasinan were formerly owned by 3 parcels of unregistered land in Pangasinan were formerly owned by the spouses Tazal who on 1 September 1957 sold them to respondents’

the spouses Tazal who on 1 September 1957 sold them to respondents’ predecessorininterest! "eyes! with right to repurchase within two # years predecessorininterest! "eyes! with right to repurchase within two # years from date thereof by paying to the $endee the purchase price and all

from date thereof by paying to the $endee the purchase price and all e%penses incident to their recon$eyance& 'fter the sale the $endee e%penses incident to their recon$eyance& 'fter the sale the $endee aa retro

retro too( physical possession of the properties and paid the ta%es thereon&too( physical possession of the properties and paid the ta%es thereon&  The other

 The otherwise inconwise inconse)uential se)uential sale became csale became controontro$ersial whe$ersial when # of the 3n # of the 3 parcels were again sold by Tazal in fa$or of petitioners’ predecessorin parcels were again sold by Tazal in fa$or of petitioners’ predecessorin

interest "ayos without *rst a$ailing of his right to repurchase the properties& interest "ayos without *rst a$ailing of his right to repurchase the properties& +n the meantime! the con$entional right of redemption in fa$or of spouses +n the meantime! the con$entional right of redemption in fa$or of spouses  T

 Tazal e%pazal e%pired wired without the rithout the right being ight being e%e%ercised bercised by either the y either the TTazal spouseazal spouses ors or the $endee "ayos&

the $endee "ayos&

'fter the e%piration of the redemption period! Tazal attempted to 'fter the e%piration of the redemption period! Tazal attempted to repurchase the properties from "eyes by asserting that the 1 September repurchase the properties from "eyes by asserting that the 1 September 1957 deed of sale with right of repurchase was actually an e)uitable 1957 deed of sale with right of repurchase was actually an e)uitable

mortgage and o,ering the amount of P7#-&.. to pay for the alleged debt& mortgage and o,ering the amount of P7#-&.. to pay for the alleged debt& /ut "eyes refused the tender of payment and $igorously claimed that their /ut "eyes refused the tender of payment and $igorously claimed that their agreement was not an e)uitable mortgage&

agreement was not an e)uitable mortgage&33

0n 9 ay 192. rancisco Tazal *led a complaint with the 4+ "eyes for the 0n 9 ay 192. rancisco Tazal *led a complaint with the 4+ "eyes for the declaration of the 1 September 1957 transaction as a contract of e)uitable declaration of the 1 September 1957 transaction as a contract of e)uitable mortgage& e also prayed for an order re)uiring defendant amerto "eyes to mortgage& e also prayed for an order re)uiring defendant amerto "eyes to accept the amount of P7#-&.. which he had deposited with the trial court as accept the amount of P7#-&.. which he had deposited with the trial court as full payment for his debt! and canceling the supposed mortgage on the three full payment for his debt! and canceling the supposed mortgage on the three 63 parcels of land with the e%ecution of the corresponding documents of 63 parcels of land with the e%ecution of the corresponding documents of recon$eyance in his fa$or&

recon$eyance in his fa$or&

ISSUE:

ISSUE:

8hether or not the consignation is $alid 8hether or not the consignation is $alid

HELD:

HELD:

+n order that consignation may be e,ecti$e the debtor must show that +n order that consignation may be e,ecti$e the debtor must show that  6a there was a debt due:

6b the consignation of the obligation had been made because the creditor to whom a $alid tender of payment was made refused to accept it:

6c pre$ious notice of the consignation had been gi$en to the person interested in the performance of the obligation:

6d the amount due was placed at the disposal of the court: and! 6e after the consignation had been made the person interested was noti*ed thereof&

+n the instant case! petitioners failed& irst! to o,er a $alid and unconditional tender of payment: Second! to notify respondents of the intention to deposit the amount with the court: and third! to show the acceptance by the creditor of the amount deposited as full settlement of the obligation! or in the

alternati$e! a declaration by the court of the $alidity of the consignation& The failure of petitioners to comply with any of these re)uirements rendered the consignation ine,ecti$e& 4onsignation and tender of payment must not be encumbered by conditions if they are to produce the intended result of

ful*lling the obligation& +n the instant case! the tender of payment of P7#-&.. was conditional and $oid as it was predicated upon the argument of Tazal that he was paying a debt which he could do at any time allegedly because the 1 September 1957 transaction was a contract of e)uitable mortgage and not a deed of sale with right to repurchase& The ostensible purposes of

o,ering the amount in connection with a purported outstanding debt were to

ev!e "#e $"%&'("e! )e!e*&"%+ &e)%+!

 in the deed of sale which had already e%pired when the tender of payment was made and the 4i$il 4ase was instituted! and as a corollary! to a$ail of the thirty 63.day grace period under 'rt& 12.2 of the Civil Code within which to e%ercise the right to

repurchase& "eyes was therefore within his right to refuse the tender of

payment o,ered by petitioners because it was conditional upon his wai$er of the two 6#year redemption period stipulated in the deed of sale with right to repurchase&

oreo$er! petitioners failed to pro$e in the 4i$il 4ases that any form of notice regarding their intention to deposit the amount of P7#-&.. with the 4+ had been ser$ed upon respondents& This re)uirement is not ful*lled by the notice which could ha$e ensued from the *ling of the complaint in the ci$il case or the stipulation made between Tazal and "eyes regarding the consignation of P7#-&..& The latter constitutes the second notice re)uired by law as it already concerns the actual deposit or consignation of the amount and is di,erent from the *rst notice that ma(es (nown the debtor’s intention to deposit the amount! a re)uirement missing in the instant case& 8ithout any announcement of the intention to resort to consignation *rst being made to the persons interested in the ful*llment of the obligation! the consignation as a means of payment is $oid&

+t is also futile to argue that the deposit of P7#-&.. with the 4ourt of irst +nstance could ha$e perfected the redemption of the three 63 parcels of land because it was not appro$ed by the trial court! much less accepted by

amerto "eyes or his heirs! herein respondents& e%penses that petitioners had to reimburse to respondents’ predecessorininterest aside from

the P7#-&.. earlier deposited by Tazal&

+n the instant case! since there is no clear and preponderant e$idence that the consignation of P7#-&.. satis*ed all the re)uirements for $alidity and enforceability! and since amerto "eyes $ehemently contested the propriety of the consignation! petitioners cannot rely upon sheer speculation and

unfounded inference to construe the Decision of the 4ourt of irst +nstance as one impliedly appro$ing the consignation of P7#-&.. and perfecting the

redemption of the three 63 parcels of land&

+t should be recalled that one of the re)uisites of consignation is the *ling of the complaint by the debtor against the creditor& ence it is the ;udgment on the complaint where the court declares that the consignation has been

properly made that will release the debtor from liability& Should the

consignation be disappro$ed by the court and the case dismissed! there is no payment and the debtor is in mora and he shall be liable for the e%penses and bear the ris( of loss of the thing&

RO-AN CATHOLIC OF -ALOLOS V IAC

GR 2110

NOVE-BER 1/, 1990

FACTS:

0n <uly 7! 1971! the sub;ect contract o$er the land in )uestion was e%ecuted between the petitioner as $endor and the pri$ate respondent through its then president! r& 4arlos & "obes! as $endee! stipulating for a

downpayment of P#3!93.&.. and the balance of P1..!...&.. plus 1#= interest per annum to be paid within four years from e%ecution of the contract& The contract li(ewise pro$ides for cancellation! forfeiture of pre$ious payments! and recon$eyance of the land in )uestion in case the pri$ate respondent would fail to complete payment within the said period& 'fter the e%piration of the stipulated period for payment! 'tty& 'dalia

rancisco 6president of the company who bought land wrote the petitioner a formal re)uest that her company be allowed to pay the principal amount of P1..!...&.. in three e)ual installments of si% months each with the *rst

installment and the accrued interest of P#-!...&.. to be paid immediately upon appro$al of the said re)uest& The petitioner formally denied the said re)uest of the pri$ate respondent! but granted the latter a grace period of *$e days from the receipt of the denial to pay the total balance of

P1#-!...&..& The pri$ate respondent wrote the petitioner re)uesting an e%tension of 3. days from said date to fully settle its account but this was still denied& 4onse)uently! 'tty& rancisco wrote a letter directly addressed to the petitioner! protesting the alleged refusal of the latter to accept tender of payment made by the former on the last day of the grace period& /ut the pri$ate respondent demanded the e%ecution of a deed of absolute sale o$er the land in )uestion& 'tty& ernandez! wrote a reply to the pri$ate respondent stating the refusal of his client to e%ecute the deed of absolute sale so the petitioner cancelled the contract and considered all pre$ious payments forfeited and the land as ipso facto recon$ened&

ISSUE



8hether or not the *nding of the +'4 that 'tty& rancisco had su>cient a$ailable funds did tender payment for the said obligation&

HELD:

?o& Tender of payment in$ol$es a positi$e and unconditional act by the obligor of o,ering legal tender currency as payment to the obligee for the former’s obligation and demanding that the latter accept the same& Thus! tender of payment cannot be presumed by a mere inference from surrounding circumstances& 't most! su>ciency of a$ailable funds is only a>rmati$e of thecapacity or ability of the obligor to ful*ll his part of the bargain& The respondent court was therefore in error&

FIRST UNITED CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION AND BLUE STAR

CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v BAYANIHAN AUTO-OTIVE

CORPORATION

G.R. NO. 1/95

 ANUARY 15, 201

FACTS:

Petitioner irst @nited 4onstructors 4orporation 6@44 and petitioner /lue Star 4onstruction 4orporation 6/lue Star were associate construction *rms sharing *nancial resources! e)uipment and technical personnel on a caseto

case basis& rom ay #7! 199# to <uly A! 199#! they ordered si% units of dump truc(s from the respondent! a domestic corporation engaged in the business of importing and reconditioning used <apanmade truc(s! and of selling the truc(s to interested buyers who were mostly engaged in the construction business& 0n September 19! 199#! @44 ordered from the respondent one unit of ino Prime o$er that the respondent deli$ered on the same date& 0n September #9! 199#! @44 again ordered from the respondent one unit of +suzu Transit i%er that was also deli$ered to the petitioners& or the two purchases! @44 partially paid in cash! and the balance through postdated chec(s& @pon presentment of the chec(s for payment! the respondent learned that @44 had ordered the payment

stopped& The respondent immediately demanded the full settlement of their obligation from the petitioners! but to no a$ail& +nstead! the petitioners

informed the respondent that they were withholding payment of the chec(s due to the brea(down of one of the dump truc(s they had earlier purchased from respondent! speci*cally the second dump truc( deli$ered on ay #7! 199#& Bue to the refusal to pay! the respondent commenced this action for collection on 'pril #9! 1993! see(ing payment of the unpaid balance in the amount of P735!...&.. represented by the two chec(s&

ISSUE



8hether or not the petitioners $alidly e%ercised the right of recoupment through the withholding of payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the two purchases

HELD:

'rticle 1599& 8here there is a breach of warranty by the seller! the buyer may! at his election 61 'ccept or (eep the goods and set up against the seller! the breach of warranty by way of recoupment in diminution or

e%tinction of the price: 6# 'ccept or (eep the goods and maintain an action against the seller for damages for the breach of warranty: 63 "efuse to

accept the goods! and maintain an action against the seller for damages for the breach of warranty: 6- "escind the contract of sale and refuse to recei$e the goods or if the goods ha$e already been recei$ed! return them or o,er to return them to the seller and reco$er the price or any part thereof which has been paid& 8hen the buyer has claimed and been granted a remedy in

anyone of these ways! no other remedy can thereafter be granted! without pre;udice to the pro$isions of the second paragraph of article 1191&

"ecoupment is the act of rebating or recouping a part of a claim upon which one is sued by means of a legal or e)uitable right resulting from a

counterclaim arising out of the same transaction&7+t is the setting up of a demand arising from the same transaction as the plainti, claim! to abate or

reduce that claim&

BPI V. CA

G.R. NO. 13/202

 ANUARY 25, 200

FACTS:

Salazar had in her possession three crossed chec(s with an aggregate amount of P#27!29#&5.& These chec(s were payable to the order of <"T 4onstruction and Trading which was the name of Templonue$o’s business& Bespite lac( of (nowledge and endorsement of Templonue$o! Salazar was able to deposit the chec(s in her personal sa$ings account with /P+ and encash the same& The three chec(s were deposited in three di,erent occasions o$er the span of eight months& ' year after the last encashment! Templonue$o

protested the purportedly unauthorized encashments and demanded from /P+ the aggregate amount of the chec(s& /P+ complied with Templonue$o’s

demand& Since the money could no longer be debited from the account of Salazar where she deposited the chec(s! they froze her other account with them& Cater on! /P+ issued a cashier’s chec( in fa$or of Templonue$o for the

aggregate amount and debited P#27! 7.7&7. from Salazar’s account representing the aggregate amount and the ban( charges for the cashier’s chec(& Salazar *led a complaint against /P+&

ISSUE:

8hether or not Bid /P+ ha$e the authority to unilaterally withdraw from Salazar’s account the amount it has pre$iously paid upon certain unendorsed order instrument

HELD:

"ecords show that no prior arrangement e%isted between Salazar and

 Templonue$o regarding the transfer of ownership of the chec(s& This fact is crucial as Salazar’s entitlement to the $alue of the instruments is based on the assumption that she is a transferee within the contemplation of Section -9 of the ?+C& Section -9 of the ?+C contemplates a situation where the

payee or endorsee deli$ers a negotiable instrument for $alue without endorsing it& The underlying premise of this pro$ision! howe$er! is that a $alid transfer of ownership of the negotiable instrument in )uestion has

ta(en place& Transferees in this situation do not en;oy the presumption of ownership in fa$or of holders since they are neither payees nor endorsees of such instruments& ere possession of a negotiable instrument does not in itself conclusi$ely establish either the right of the possessor to recei$e payment! or of the right of one who has made payment to be discharged from liability& Something more than mere possession is necessary to

authorize payment to such possessor

BOGNOT VS. RRI LENDING

GR NO. 101

SEPTE-BER 2, 201

FACTS:

+n September 1992! Ceonardo /ognot and his younger brother! "olando /ognot applied for and obtained a loan of P5..!...&.. from ""+ Cending! payable on ?o$ember 3.! 1992& The loan was e$idenced by a promissory note and was secured by a postdated chec( dated ?o$ember 3.! 1992&

D$idence on record shows that Ceonardo renewed the loan se$eral times on a monthly basis& e paid a renewal fee of P5-!2..&.. for each renewal! issued a new postdated chec( as security! and e%ecuted andEor renewed the

promissory note pre$iously issued& ""+ Cending on the other hand! cancelled and returned to Ceonardo the postdated chec(s issued prior to their

renewal& Ceonardo purportedly paid the renewal fees and issued a postdated chec( dated <une 3.! 1997 as security& 's had been done in the past! ""+ Cending superimposed the date F<une 3.! 1997F on the promissory note to ma(e it appear that it would mature on the said date& Se$eral days before the loan’s maturity! "olando’s wife! <ulieta! went to the respondent’s o>ce and applied for another renewal of the loan& She issued in fa$or of ""+ Cending a promissory note and a chec( dated <uly 3.! 1997! in the amount of P5-!2..&.. as renewal fee& 0n the e%cuse that she needs to bring home the loan documents for the /ognot siblings’ signatures and replacement!  <ulieta as(ed the ""+ Cending cler( to release to her the promissory note! the

disclosure statement! and the chec( dated <uly 3.! 1997& <ulieta! howe$er! ne$er returned these documents nor issued a new postdated chec(&

payment of the loan! plus interest and penalty charges& These demands went unheeded&

ISSUE:

8hether or not the parties’ obligation was e%tinguished by payment

HELD:

 <urisprudence tells us that one who pleads payment has the burden of

pro$ing it: the burden rests on the defendant to pro$e payment! rather than on the plainti, to pro$e nonpayment& +ndeed! once the e%istence of an

indebtedness is duly established by e$idence! the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment rests on the debtor& +n the present case! Ceonardo failed to satisfactorily pro$e that his obligation had already been e%tinguished by payment& 's the 4'

correctly noted! the petitioner failed to present any e$idence that ""+ Cending had in fact encashed his chec( and applied the proceeds to the payment of the loan& ?either did he present o>cial receipts e$idencing payment! nor any proof that the chec( had been dishonored&

NARCISO DEGAOS V PEOPLE BERSA-IN

G.R. NO. 1/22/

OCTOBER 1, 2013

FACTS:

?arciso and 'ida Cuz are brother and sister& Cydia (new them because they are the relati$es of her husband& The usual business practice of Sps& 'tty /ordador with the accused was for ?arciso to recei$e the ;ewelry and gold items for and in behalf of 'ida and for ?arciso to sign the FGasunduan at GatibayanF receipts while 'ida will pay for the price later on& The sub;ect items were usually gi$en to ?arciso only upon instruction from 'ida through

telephone calls or letters& Said business arrangement went on for )uite some time since ?arciso and 'ida Cuz had been paying religiously& 8hen the

accused defaulted in their payment! they sent demand letters 'ida sent a letter to Cydia /ordador re)uesting for an accounting of her indebtedness& Cydia made an accounting which contained the amount of P1##!273&.. as principal and P#1!-A3&.. as interest& Thereafter! she paid the principal

amount through chec(s& She did not pay the interest because the same was allegedly e%cessi$e& 'tty& <ose /ordador brought a ledger to her and as(ed her to sign the same& The said ledger contains a list of her supposed

indebtedness to the pri$ate complainants& She refused to sign the same because the contents thereof are not her indebtedness but that of his

brother! ?arciso& She e$en as(ed the pri$ate complainants why they ga$e so many pieces of ;ewelry and gold bars to ?arciso without her permission! and told them that she has no participation in the transactions co$ered by the sub;ect FGasunduan at GatibayanF receipts& 4oaccused ?arciso categorically admitted that he is the only one who was indebted to the pri$ate

complainants and out of his indebtedness! he already made partial payments in the amount of P53!3.7&..& +ncluded in the said partial payments is the amount of P#.!...&.. which was contributed by his brothers and sisters who helped him and which amount was deli$ered by 'ida to the pri$ate

complainants& "T4 found ?arciso H@+CTI beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa but ac)uitted Cuz for insu>ciency of e$idence! imposing on ?arciso twenty years of reclusion temporal& 0n appeal! BegaJos assailed his con$iction

ISSUES:

8hether or not "T4 erred in not *nding that the agreement between the pri$ate complainant and accused was one of sale on credit&

HELD:

 Transaction was an agency! not a sale on credit

.

?arciso contends that his agreement with the complainants relati$e to the items of ;ewelry and gold was a sale on credit! not a consignment to sell on commission basis& The contention of BegaJos is de$oid of factual and legal bases& /ased on the e%press terms and tenor of the Gasunduan at Gatibayan! ?arciso recei$ed and accepted the items under the obligation to sell them in behalf of the complainants and he would be compensated with the o$erprice as his

commission& Plainly! the transaction was a consignment under the obligation to account for the proceeds of sale! or to return the unsold items& 's such! he was the agent of the complainants in the sale to others of the items& +n

contrast! according the *rst paragraph of  'rticle 1-5A of the 4i$il 4ode one of the contracting parties in a contract of sale obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deli$er a determinate thing! while the other party obligates himself to pay therefor a price certain in money or its e)ui$alent& 4ontrary to the contention of ?arciso! there was no sale on credit to him because the ownership of the items did not pass to him& ?o$ation did not transpire as to pre$ent the incipient criminal liability from arising BegaJos claims that his partial payments to the complainants no$ated his contract with them from agency to loan! thereby con$erting his liability from criminal to ci$il& e insists that his failure to complete his payments prior to the *ling of the complainta>da$it by the complainants notwithstanding! the fact that the complainants later re)uired him to ma(e a formal proposal before the barangay authorities on the payment of the balance of his outstanding

obligations con*rmed that no$ation had occurred& The 4' re;ected the claim of BegaJos! opining that his argument that no$ation too( place when the pri$ate complainants accepted his partial payments before the criminal information was *led in court and therefore! his criminal liability was

e%tinguished is untenable ?o$ation is not one of the grounds prescribed by the "P4 for the e%tinguishment of criminal liability&

HEIRS OF LABANON V. HEIRS OF LABANON

GR 1/011

AUGUST 1, 200

FACTS:

Buring the lifetime of 4onstancio Cabanon! prior to the outbrea( of 88++! he settled upon a piece of alienable and disposable public agricultural land situated at /rgy& Canao! Gidapawan! 4otabato& 4onstancio culti$ated the said lot and introduced permanent

impro$ements that still e%ist up to the present& /eing of $ery limited educational attainment! he found it di>cult to *le his public land application o$er said lot& 4onstancio then as(ed his brother! a%imo Cabanon who was better educated to *le the corresponding public land application under the e%press agreement that they will di$ide the said lot as soon as it would be feasible for them to do so& The o,er was accepted by a%imo& Buring the time of the application it was 4onstancio who continued to culti$ate the said lot in order to comply with the culti$ation re)uirement set forth under

4ommonwealth 'ct 1-1! as amended! on omestead applications& 'fter which! on <une 2! 19-1! due to industry of 4onstancio!

a%imo was appro$ed with omestead Patent ?o& 2751#&

D$entually! 0riginal 4erti*cate of Title ?o& P1-3#. was issued by the "egister of Beeds of 4otabato o$er said lot in fa$or of a%imo

Cabanon& 0n ebruary 11! 1955! a%imo Cabanon e%ecuted a

document denominated as 'ssignment of "ights and 0wnership& The document was e%ecuted to safeguard the ownership and interest of his brother 4onstancio Cabanon& 'fter the death of 4onstancio

Cabanon! his heirs e%ecuted an e%tra;udicial settlement of estate with simultaneous sale o$er the aforesaid eastern portion of the lot in fa$or of 'lberto a(ilang! the husband of Kisitacion Cabanon! one of the children of 4onstancio& Subse)uently! the parcel of land was declared for ta%ation purposes in the name of 'lberto under TB ?o& 11593& owe$er! in arch 1991! the defendant heirs of a%imo

Cabanon namely! 'licia C& 4aniedo! Ceopoldo Cabanon! "oberto ?ieto and Pancho Cabanon! caused to be cancelled from the records of the defendant Pro$incial 'ssessor of 4otabato the aforesaid TB ?o&

11593 and the latter! without *rst $erifying the legality of the basis for said cancellation! did cancel the same& urther! after disco$ering that the defendantheirs of a%imo Cabanon were ta(ing steps to depri$e the heirs of 4onstancio Cabanon of their ownership o$er the eastern portion of said lot! the latter! thru 'lberto a(ilang!

demanded the owners copy of the certi*cate of title co$ering the aforesaid Cot to be surrendered to the "egister of Beeds of 4otabato so that the ownership of the heirs of 4onstancio may be fully

e,ected but the defendants refused and still continue to refuse to honor the trust agreement entered into by the deceased brothers&  Thus! on ?o$ember 1#! 1991! petitioners *led a complaintL5M _for

Speci*c Performance! "eco$ery of 0wnership! 'ttorneys ees and Bamages with 8rit of Preliminary +n;unction and Prayer for

 Temporary "estraining 0rder against respondents

ISSUE:

8hether or not 8hether or not the Trust 'greement allegedly made by 4onstancio Cabanon and a%imo Cabanon prescribed

HELD:

In the case at bar, Maximo Labanon never repudiated the express trust

instituted between him and Constancio Labanon. And after Maximo Labanons

death, the trust could no longer be renounced; thus, respondents right to enforce the

trust agreement can no longer be restricted nor prejudiced b prescription.

It must be noted that the Assignment of !ights and "wnership and Maximo

Labanons #worn #tatement were executed after the $omestead %atent was applied

for and eventuall granted with the issuance of $omestead %atent &o. '()*+

on une ', *-+. /videntl, it was the intent of Maximo Labanon to hold the title

over the land in his name while recogni0ing Constancio Labanons e1uitable

ownership and actual possession of the eastern portion of the land covered b "C2

 &o. %3*4+5.

In addition, petitioners can no longer 1uestion the validit of the positive

declaration of Maximo Labanon in the Assignment of !ights and "wnership in

favor of the late Constancio Labanon, as the agreement was not impugned during

the formers lifetime and the recognition of his brothers rights over the eastern

 portion of the lot was further affirmed and confirmed in the subse1uent April +),

*-'+ #worn #tatement.

#ection 4*, !ule *45 of the !ules of Court is the repositor of the settled precept

that 6w7here one derives title to propert from another, the act, declaration, or 

omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the propert, is evidence

against the former. 2hus, petitioners have accepted the declaration made b their 

 predecessor3in3interest, Maximo Labanon, that the eastern portion of the land

covered b "C2 &o. %3*4+5 is owned and possessed b and rightfull belongs to

Constancio Labanon and the latters heirs. %etitioners cannot now feign ignorance

of such ac8nowledgment b their father, Maximo.

Lastl, the heirs of Maximo Labanon are bound to the stipulations embodied

in the Assignment of !ights and "wnership pursuant to Article *4(* of the Civil

Code that contracts ta8e effect between the parties, assigns, and heirs.

%etitioners as heirs of Maximo cannot disarrow the commitment made b

their father with respect to the subject propert since the were merel subrogated

to the rights and obligations of their predecessor3in3interest. 2he simpl stepped

into the shoes of their predecessor and must therefore recogni0e the rights of the

heirs of Constancio over the eastern portion of the lot. As the old adage goes, the

spring cannot rise higher than its source.

WHEREFORE

_{, the petition is}

DENIED

_{. 2he Ma 9, +554 CA :ecision}

and "ctober *4, +554 !esolution in CA3.!. C< &o. ')'*( are

AFFIRMED

 _with

the modifications that the =idapawan Cit, Cotabato !2C, >ranch *( is directed to

have "C2 &o. %3*4+5 segregated and subdivided b the Land Management

>ureau into two ?+@ lots based on the terms of the ebruar **, *-)) Assignment

of !ights and "wnership executed b Maximo Labanon and Constancio Labanon;

and after approval of the subdivision plan, to order the !egister of :eeds of 

=idapawan Cit, Cotabato to cancel "C2 &o. %3*4+5 and issue one title each to

 petitioners and respondents based on the said subdivision plan.

Costs against petitioners.

T*4+ v C((e+

'4TS

/efore 191#! the Tamayos sold a piece of land to ernando Bomantay! who too( possession of the land& 8hen Kicente died after the sale and his widow wai$ed her rights to the remaining portion of the property to their children ariano and arcos! the two brothers applied to register the land in their name! saying they inherited it from their father! including the part that was sold to Bomantay& +n 191A Bomantay sold the land to 4alle;o& +n 19-.

ariano Tamayo sold the land to Dstacio! whose sur$eyor went to the land in 195# to segregate it: that same year 4alle;o registered his ad$erse claim to the land& Tamayo pleaded the statute of limitations as defense! but the court found that in 191A! when they had the land registered in their name! ariano  Tamayo! on his behalf and that of his brother! e%ecuted a public document

ac(nowledging that his deceased parents had sold a parcel of the land to Bomantay&

 Though there was no clear e$idence to create a trust! ruling out an e%press trust! the admission of the sale in a public document turned the implied trust into an e%press one& 'n e%press trust! the court held! was a Ncontinuing and subsisting trustO until repudiated! in which case the period of prescription begins to run only from the time of repudiation&

ISSUE:

8hether or not in not holding that the respondent Aurelio Callejo's cause of action, if any, had already prescribed

It should be noted, however, that although the trust created by the application for registration filed by Mariano and Marcos Tamayo, on or about September !, "!"#, and the inclusion in $CT %o& ", issued in their names, on %ovember "(, "!"(, of the tract of land previously sold by their parents to )ernando *omantay + and later conveyed b y him to Aurelio Callejo may have had a constructive or implied  nature, its status was substantially affected on une -, "!"-, by the following facts, namely. $n the date last mentioned, )ernando *omantay and petitioner Mariano Tamayo + the latter acting in his own behalf and on that of his brother Marcos Tamayo + e/ecuted the public instrument 0/hibit I whereby Mariano Tamayo explicitly ac1nowledged that his deceased parents, 2icente Tamayo and Cirila 2elasco, had sold to )ernando *omantay, for the sum of 344, the parcel of land of about ,"(5"6# s7uare meters, then held by the latter, and stipulating, inter alia, that )ernando *omantay is the absolute owner of said land, free from any lien or encumbrance thereon, and that, in view of the sale thus made by his parents, he 8Mariano Tamayo9 :7uedo responsible al susodicho *on )ernando *omantay, sus herederos y causa habientes por la propiedad, cuyo titulo

me comprometo a defender contra las reclamaciones &&& de 7uienes las presentare&: 1

This e/press recognition by Mariano Tamayo + on his behalf and that of his brother Marcos Tamayo + of the previous sale, made by their parents, to )ernando *omantay had the effect of imparting to the aforementioned trust the + nature of an express trust + it having been created by the will of the parties, :no particular words: being :re7uired for the creation of an e/press trust, it being sufficient

that a trust is clearly intended: 2 _—

 which e/press trust is a :continuing and subsisting: trust, not subject to the statute of limitations, at least, until repudiated, in which event the period of prescription begins to run only from the time of the repudiation& 3

The latter did not ta1e place, in the case at bar, until early in une, "!(, when Mariano Tamayo rejected Aurelio Callejo's demand that the now disputed portion be e/cluded from TCT %o& (;- in the former's name& <ut, then, the case at bar was filed wee1s later, or on une (, "!(, when the period of prescription had barely begun to run&

It is thus apparent that the Court of Appeals did not err in overruling the plea of prescription&

0’ Caco $s 4o 4ho 4hit acts

Dmila is the halfsister of 0 Cay Gia who is! as is her husband 4o 4ho 4hit! a 4hinese national and cannot own property in the Philippines& 0 lay

(ia bought a piece of land and had it named under her sister! Dmilia& Dmilia on the other hand sold the property to the 4hurch without the (nowledge of her sister& 8hen 0 Cay Gia found out! they immediately *led a case for

breach of contract& +ssue

8hether or not there was a trust relationship between the sisters eld

 Ies&Trust relations between parties may either be e%press or implied& D%press trusts are those which are created by the direct and positi$e acts of

the parties! by some writing or deed! or will! or by words e$idencing an intention to create a trust&

+mplied trusts are those which! without being e%pressed! are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent! or which are super induced on the transaction by operation of law as matters of e)uity! independently of  the particular intention of the parties& +mplied trusts may either be resulting or constructi$e trusts! both coming into being by operation of law& "esulting trusts are based on the e)uitable doctrine that $aluable consideration and not legal title determines the e)uitable title or interest and are presumed always to ha$e been contemplated by the parties& They arise from the nature or circumstances of the consideration in$ol$ed in a transaction whereby one person thereby becomes in$ested with legal title but is obligated in e)uity to hold his legal title for the bene*t of another& 0n the other hand! constructi$e trusts are created by the construction of e)uity in order to satisfy the

demands of ;ustice and pre$ent un;ust enrichment& They arise contrary to intention against one who! by fraud! duress or abuse of con*dence! obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not! in e)uity and good conscience! to hold& +n this case! the court cited *$e instances that pro$e a trust relationship& irst! sps 0 Cay Gia were in possession of all the pertinent documents of the sale from the beginning until the end of the transaction& Second! there is a pre$ious case of similar facts in$ol$ing 0 lay (ia and her brother on a di,erent parcel of land decided in her fa$or& Third! the

circumstances leading to Dmilia ac)uiring a title to the land was dubious& ourth! until the sale to the church! Dmilia actually recognized the trust

V!. !e RIGONAN v$. DERECHO

G.R. N+. 15951

 '(4 15, 2005

FACTS:

 The instant contro$ersy re$ol$es around a parcel of land located at  Tuburan Sur! Banao 4ity! originally owned by ilarion Berecho& 8hen ilarion died long before 8orld 8ar ++! his eight children  Ceonardo! 'polinar! 'ndres! onorata! Bolores! Herardo! 'gaton! and 0li$a  became pro indiviso coowners of the sub;ect property by intestate succession& Subse)uently! Ta% Beclaration ?o& ..#27L5M _{was issued under the name eirs}

0n <uly 12! 19#1! *$e of the coowners  Ceonardo! 'polinar! 'ndres! onorata! and Bolores  sold the inherited property to rancisco Cacambra! sub;ect to a *$eyear redemption clause&L2M _{?otably! the three other Berecho}

heirs  Herardo! 'gaton! and 0li$a  were not parties to the  pacto de retro sale&

Sometime in 19#A! two years after  the period for redemption e%pired! Bolores  together with her husband! Ceandro "igonan  purchasedL7M _the

land from Cacambra and immediately occupied it&LAM

ore than *$e decades passed without any contro$ersy& 0n 'pril #-! 19A.! Ceandro "igonan e%ecuted the assailed '>da$it of 'd;udication in fa$or of his son! Teodoro "igonan 6the deceased husband of Petitioner Bel*na $da& de "igonan&L9M _{@nder this instrument! Ceandro declared himself} 

to be the sole heir of ilarion!L1.M _{while Teodoro obtained the cancellation of} 

 Ta% Beclaration ?o& ..#27!L11M _{and ac)uired Ta% Beclaration ?o& ..227 in his}

own name&L1#M

Buring the same year! Teodoro mortgaged the sub;ect property to the "ural /an( of 4ompostela of 4ebu& Breading foreclosure! he settled his obligations with the ban(L13M _{by securing the aid of Spouses Kalerio and}

Kisminda Caude& 0n 'pril 5! 19A-! Teodoro e%ecuted the assailed Beed of  'bsolute Sale of @nregistered Cand in fa$or of Kalerio Caude!L1-M _{who then}

obtained Ta% Beclaration ?o& ..7#2 under the latters name on ay 1.! 19A-&

L15M

0n ?o$ember 1.! 1993! respondents  as the alleged heirs of ilarion and pro indiviso owners of the sub;ect realty  brought an action before the "egional Trial 4ourt 6"T4 of Banao 4ity 6/ranch #5! rst ! to reco$er the property: and! second, to annul the Beed of Sale in fa$or of CaudeL12M _{and the}

'>da$it of 'd;udication! whose $alidity and authenticity they assailed on the ground of fraud& They li(ewise maintained that the sub;ect property had not been partitioned among the heirs: thus! it was still coowned at the time it was con$eyed to Petitioner Caude&L17M

Petitioners did not deny the imputed fraud in the e%ecution of the '>da$it of 'd;udication& They! howe$er! a$erred that the document had no bearing on their claim of ownership! which had long pertained to the "igonan spouses following the 19#A con$eyance from the absolute owner! Cacambra&

L1AM _{They theorized that the coownership o$er the property ended when the}

period for redemption lapsed without any action on the part of the co owners&L19M _{Therefore! the "igonan spouses bought the property as legitimate}

$endees for $alue and in good faith! not in the capacity of redeeming co owners&L#.M

Petitioners li(ewise argued that they and their predecessorsininterest had continuously owned and possessed the sub;ect property for 7# years& 'ccordingly! ac)uisiti$e prescription had allegedly set in! in their fa$or! when the case was *led in 1993&L#1M

Castly! petitioners maintained that they were entitled to the e)uitable defense of laches& "espondents and their forebears were rebu(ed for not asserting their rights o$er the property for the past 7# years& They supposedly did so only after *nding that the land had been de$eloped! and that it had appreciated in $alue&L##M

I$$'e:

8hether or not respondent erred in holding that the land sub;ect matter hereof is property held in common by the eirs of ilarion Berecho and an implied trust was created by the act of repurchase&

He(!:

Petitioners contend that the appellate court erred in holding that an implied trust had arisen from the 19#A repurchase by the "igonan spouses&  They argue that the sale was a con$eyance of the absolute ownership of 

Cacambra o$er the land! which he had ac)uired by $irtue of a failure to redeem& Therefore! when he sold it! the spouses li(ewise ac)uired absolute ownership&

'n implied trust arises! not from any presumed intention of the parties! but by operation of law in order to satisfy the demands of ;ustice and e)uity and to protect against unfair dealing or downright fraud&L-2M _{@nder 'rticle 1-52 of} 

the new 4i$il 4ode! if property is ac)uired through mista(e or fraud! the person obtaining it is! by force of law! considered a trustee of an implied trust for the bene*t of the person from whom the property comes& 'lthough this pro$ision is not retroacti$e in character! and thus inapplicable to the 19#A purchase! it merely e%presses a rule already recognized by our courts prior to the e,ecti$ity of the 4ode&L-7M

+n the present case! the implied trust arose in 19#1! when *$e of the eight coowners assumed ownership of the whole inherited property and sold

it in its entirety  to Cacambra& The sale clearly defrauded the three other co heirs who were not parties to the transaction  Herardo! 'gaton! and 0li$a  and unlawfully depri$ed them of their undi$ided shares in the inheritance&  Thus! to the e%tent of their participation! the property is deemed to ha$e

been ac)uired through fraud: and the person who ac)uired it! a trustee for the bene*t of the person from whom it was ac)uired&L-AM

+n the present case! Cacambra was the trustee who held the property partly for the bene*t of the three mentioned heirs 6 cestuis que trustent &

 The 4'! howe$er! erred in *nding that the implied trust had arisen in 19#A! when the "igonan spouses repurchased the property from Cacambra&

L-9M _{/y then! Petitioners "igonan were merely stepping into the shoes of}