Canezo V Rojas DEATH OF TRUSTEE

Facts: Petitioner (canezo) filed complaint for recovery of real

property against respondent Rojas.

Petitioner filed complaint for recovery of real property against

Rojas(2nd wife of her dad) plus damages- subject property is
a 4k sqm unregistered land in Biliran
Petitioner alleges she bought the land from Limpiado and the
transaction was not reduced in writing. she immediately took
possession of said property
She allegedly ENTRUSTED the property to his father when
she and hubby left for Mindanao in 1984 and said father took
possession of land and cultivated it.
1980 she found out that RESPONDENT(2nd wife) was in
possession/cultivating the same as well as tax declarationsin
Crispulo Rojass name (father).

Respondent claims that it was the father who bought 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 RECEIVED her share in the estate.

Respondent claims that father bought the property in 1948

and that is why the tax declarations was in fathers name.
Father possessed and cultivated the land until his death.
Upon death in 1978, property was part of ESTATE.
Respondent claims that petitioner ought to have impleaded all
of the heirs as defendants.
Further claims that petitioner has abandoned 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 Petitioner- CA ruled in favor of the
respondents

Hao

MTC claims that there was no proof that father bought the
property RTC 1st reversed MTC stating that prescription took
placeand acquisitive prescription has already set.

RTC reveres its original decision stating that no prescription

took place since petitioner ENTRUSTED the property to her
father, and that 10-year prescription starts from the day the
trustee REPUDIATES the trust. RTC found no evidence
showing such.
CA ruled in favor of the respondent- father is owner,
petitioners inaction for 17 years since discovery of
possession of 2nd wife tax declaration was in fathers name,
father was in adverse possession, and property was included
in estate
CA- even assuming Implied trust, petitioners right of action to
recover is barred by prescription - 49 YEARS lapsed.
Petitioner contends that there was EXPRESS TRUST hence
prescription will not set in.

ISSUE: WON trust existed.

HELD: NO, neither express or implied resulting TRUST existed in
this case

Intention to create trust CANNOT be inferred from petitioners

testimony and on the facts and circumstance Petitioner only
TESTIFIED that father agreed to give her proceeds of the
production of the land
SC states that had it been had it been her intention to create
trust, she should not have made an issue of the tax
declarations. Trustee would necessarily have legal title 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
conclude that Crispulos uninterrupted possession of 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 TRUST TERMINATES UPON DEATH of the trustee where

the trust is PERSONAL to the trustee in the sense that the
trustor INTENDED NO OTHER 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 CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
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 UNLESS he repudiates the TRUST.
Applicable to EXPRESS and RESULTING IMPLIED TRUST and
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 is for the 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