Evidence to Prove Express Trust

Sinaon vs Sorongan
Doctrine: There was no express trust in this case. Express trusts concerning real property cannot
be proven by parol evidence (Art. 1443, Civil Code). An implied trust "cannot be established,
contrary to the recitals of a Torrens title, upon vague and inconclusive proof"
Facts: According to the documentary evidence consisting of public documents and tax records,
Judge (later Justice) Carlos A. Imperial in a decree dated March 4, 1916 adjudicated to Canuta
Soblingo (Somblingo), a widow, Lot No. 4781 of the Sta. Barbara, Iloilo cadastre with an area of
5.5 hectares.
In 1923 Canuta sold the lot to the spouses Patricio Sinaon and Julia Sualibio for P2,000 (Exh. 8).
TCT No. 2542 was issued to the Sinaon spouses (Exh. 9 or C). It is still existing and uncancelled
up to this time, Julia was the granddaughter of Canuta.
Canuta was one of the five children of Domingo Somblingo, the alleged original owner of the lot
when it was not yet registered. His other four children were Felipe, Juan, Esteban and Santiago.
The theory of respondents Sorogon, et al.,
which they adopted in their 1968 second amended complaint (they filed the action in 1964) is
that Canuta and the Sinaons were trustees of the lot and that the heirs of Domingo's four children
are entitled to a 4/5 share thereof.
That theory was sustained by the trial court and the Appellate Court. The trial court ordered the
Sinaons to convey 4/5 of Lot No. 4781 to respondents Sorogon, et al. It decreed partition of the
lot in five equal parts. The Sinaons appealed to this Court.
Issue: whether an action for reconveyance of a registered five-hectare land, based on implied
trust, would lie after the supposed trustees had held the land for more than forty years.
Held: There was no express trust in this case. Express trusts concerning real property cannot be
proven by parol evidence (Art. 1443, Civil Code). An implied trust "cannot be established,
contrary to the recitals of a Torrens title, upon vague and inconclusive proof" (Suarez vs.
Tirambulo, 59 Phil. 303; Salao vs. Salao, L-26699, March 16,1976, 70 SCRA 65, 83).
The supposed trust in this case, which is neither an express nor a resulting trust, is a constructive
trust arising by operation of law (Art. 1456, Civil Code). It is not a trust in the technical sense.
plaintiffs' action was clearly barred by prescription
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the complaint is dismissed.
The receivership is terminated. The receiver is directed to wind up his accounts.

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

1 | Page

Concept of Implied Trusts

Abellana vs Ponce
Doctrine: The concept of implied trusts is that from the facts and circumstances of a given case,
the existence of a trust relationship is inferred in order to effect the presumed intention of the
parties. Thus, one of the recognized exceptions to the establishment of an implied trust is where
a contrary intention is proved, as in the present case.
Facts: Felomina, a spinster, pharmacist and aunt of private respondent Lucila Ponce, purchased
from the late Estela Caldoza-Pacres a 44,297 square meter agricultural lot with the intention of
giving said lot to her niece, Lucila.
The relationship between Felomina and respondent spouses Romeo and Lucila Ponce,
however, turned sour. The latter allegedly became disrespectful and ungrateful to the point of
hurling her insults and even attempting to hurt her physically. Hence, Felomina filed the instant
case for revocation of implied trust to recover legal title over the property.
On August 28, 2000, the trial court rendered a decision holding that an implied trust
existed between Felomina and Lucila, such that the latter is merely holding the lot for the benefit
of the former. It thus ordered the conveyance of the subject lot in favor of Felomina.
Private respondent spouses appealed to the Court of Appeals which set aside the decision
of the trial court ruling that Felomina failed to prove the existence of an implied trust and upheld
respondent spouses ownership over the litigated lot. The appellate court further held that even
assuming that Felomina paid the purchase price of the lot, the situation falls within the exception
stated in Article 1448 of the Civil Code which raises a disputable presumption that the property
was purchased by Felomina as a gift to Lucila whom she considered as her own daughter.
Issue: Who, as between Felomina and respondent spouses, is the lawful owner of the
controverted lot? To resolve this issue, it is necessary to determine who paid the purchase price
of the lot.
Main Issue: What is the nature of the transaction between her and Lucila.
Held: 1. After a thorough examination of the records and transcript of stenographic notes, we
find that it was Felomina and not Lucila who truly purchased the questioned lot from Estela. The
positive and consistent testimony of Felomina alone, that she was the real vendee of the lot, is
credible to debunk the contrary claim of respondent spouses.
2. In the instant case, what transpired between Felomina and Lucila was a donation of an
immovable property which was not embodied in a public instrument as required by the foregoing
article. Being an oral donation, the transaction was void.
The concept of implied trusts is that from the facts and circumstances of a given case, the
existence of a trust relationship is inferred in order to effect the presumed intention of the parties.
Thus, one of the recognized exceptions to the establishment of an implied trust is where a
contrary intention is proved, as in the present case. From the testimony of Felomina herself, she

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

2 | Page

wanted to give the lot to Lucila as a gift. To her mind, the execution of a deed with Lucila as the
buyer and the subsequent issuance of title in the latters name were the acts that would effectuate
her generosity. In so carrying out what she conceived, Felomina evidently displayed her
unequivocal intention to transfer ownership of the lot to Lucila and not merely to constitute her
as a trustee thereof. It was only when their relationship soured that she sought to revoke the
donation on the theory of implied trust, though as previously discussed, there is nothing to
revoke because the donation was never perfected.

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

3 | Page