Severino v. Severino (JILL) January 16, 1923Ostrand, J.

FACTS Melecio Severino owned a land, by which brother Guillermo served as administrator. Upon the death of Melecio, Guillermo continued occupation of the land, and in a cadastral proceeding successfully had the land Titled in his favor, considering that he has possessed it for 30 y e a r s . T h i s a c t i o n n o w i s b r o u g h t b y t h e n a t u r a l daughter and sole heir of Melecio, Fabiola Severino, to compel defendant Guillermo to convey the lands in her favor. Meanwhile, administratrix of Melecios estate, Felicitas Villanueva, also i n t e r v e n e d s o t h e l a n d w i l l b e c o n v e y e d i n t h e estates name. D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e l a n d w a s o w n e d i n common by their father and did not solely belongto Melecio and that his Title is indefeasible under the Land Registration Act. ISSUE: WON defendant Guillermo has rights over the property? HELD: NO. T h e r e l a t i o n o f a n a g e n t t o a p r i n c i p a l i s fiduciary, and the agent is estopped from acquiringo r a s s e r t i n g T i t l e a d v e r s e t o t h e p r i n c i p a l . H i s position is analogous to a trustee, and that w h a t e v e r h e d o e s i n u r e s t o t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e cestui que vie. In Gilbert v. Hewetson, a trustee or agent is utterly disabled from acquiring for his own any property committed in his custody. This is entirely i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e f a c t w h e t h e r a n y f r a u d h a s intervened. No fraud in fact need be show. The rule stands on moral obligation to refrain from placing ones self in conflicts of self-interest and integrity. It seeks to remove the temptation that might arise out of ones relation to serve anothers interest for his own benefit.H e r e , w h i l e t h e l e g a l t i t l e o f G u i l l e r m o i s n o t questioned, it must be deemed as to inure to the benefit of the estate of Melecio Severino, as the cestui que vie with superior equitable right. I t m u s t b e n o t e d t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y s h a l l i n u r e t o the ESTATES benefit and not to the daughter who b r o u g h t t h e a c t i o n s i n c e i t i s t h e e s t a t e w h o w i l l apportion all the claims. Moreover, the legitimacy of Fabiola as a natural child is also being questioned.