T11.

1 Bernardino Ramos vs CA GR# 111027

Facts: On 1939, Pedro Tolentino, claiming absolute ownership over Lot Nos. 572 and 579 of the
Gattaran cadastre in Lapogan, Gattaran, Cagayan, separately sold said lots to petitioners for P80.00
for each sale. Petitioners complained the issuance of Original Certificates of Title covering Lots 572
and 579 in favor of Lucia Bautista since the latter allegedly did not claim ownership or took possession
of the same. Thus, the said titles as well as TCTs obtained by private respondent Rodolfo Bautista who
adjudicated unto himself said lots as sole heir of Lucia Bautista were null and void. On the theory that
they already acquired the subject lots by acquisitive prescription, petitioners demanded their return
but private respondents refused to do so, hence, compelling them to file a complaint for
reconveyance with damages.

By way of affirmative defense, private respondents maintained that the action for reconveyance filed
by petitioners was tantamount to a reopening of the cadastral proceedings or a collateral attack on
the decrees of registration which cannot be done without violating the rule on conclusiveness of the
decree of registration. Moreover, they argued that since the lots were already under the operation of
the Torrens System, acquisitive prescription would no longer be possible.

After due proceedings, the trial court dismissed petitioners' complaint underscoring the fact that
during the cadastral proceedings in 1940, Bernardino Ramos did not file an answer for the two lots
although he was allegedly the claimant and possessor thereof under the deeds of sale executed by
Pedro Tolentino in his favor on March 14, 1939. Since it was only Lucia Bautista who filed an answer
and who appeared to be the lawful claimant in the proceedings, she was therefore issued original
certificates of title for the subject lots. CA affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto. Petitioners argued
that private respondent Rodolfo Bautista, being the son-in-law of Pedro Tolentino, was bound by the
sale and therefore he and his present wife hold the properties in trust for petitioners' successors-in-
interest hold. On that basis, they aver that their right to claim the property in trust is imprescriptible.

Issue: Whether there was an implied trust that renders their right to claim the property to be
imprescriptible

Held: No. Petitioners' argument would only be tenable upon proof that the property was acquired
through mistake or fraud. As earlier observed, however, petitioners' claim of fraud was never
substantiated and, hence, it has remained a groundless charge. Consequently, petitioners' claim of
imprescriptibility of the action for reconveyance is baseless. An action based on implied or
constructive trust prescribes in 10 years. This means that petitioners should have enforced the trust
within 10 years from the time of its creation or upon the alleged fraudulent registration of the
property. But as it is, petitioners failed to avail of any of the aforementioned remedies within the
prescribed periods. With no remedy in view, their claims should forever be foreclosed.

T11.2 Policarpio vs CA et al GR # 116211, March 7, 1997

Facts: Petitioner and private respondent were former tenants of the 30-door Barretto Apartments.
Private respondent was elected President of the Barretto tenants Association, who sought assistance
of the then Minister of Human Settlements to cause the expropriation of the subject property under
the Urban Land reform Program for subsequent resale to its tenants. The matter was endorsed to
Human Settlements Regulatory Commission which rejected the request for expropriation. Hence, the
tenants negotiated directly with the owner.

Serapia Real Estate, Inc., sent to private respondent a letter offering to sell the subject property for
P4.5M but the negotiations did not ripen to a perfected sale. A year and a half later, petitioner were
notified that private respondent was the new owner of the apartment units occupied by them.
Believing they had been betrayed by their association president, petitioner sued for redemption and
damages. The trial court found that private respondent had been designated and entrusted by
plaintiffs to negotiate with the Barretto family for the sale of the units. It also found that a
constructive trust was created between the private respondent as "the cestui que trust [should be
trustee] and plaintiffs as beneficiaries [or cestuis que trust] vis--vis the subject units. CA reversed the
lower court's ruling.
Issue: Whether there is a constructive trust existed between

Held: The Court held that an implied trust was created by the agreement between petitioner (and the
other tenants) and private respondent. Implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are
deducible from the nature of the transaction by operation of law as matters of equity, independently
of the particular intention of the parties. Constructive trusts are created in order to satisfy the
demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise against one who, by fraud, duress or
abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and
good conscience, to hold. It is not necessary that the intention of the tenants to purchase their
apartments units be categorically stated in the purposes of their Association. A constructive trust as
invoked by petitioner can be implied from the nature of the transaction as a matter of equity,
regardless of the absence of such intention in the purposes of their Association. During his
negotiations with Serapia Realty, Inc., private respondent admitted that he was not only representing
himself but also the other tenants as president of the Association. This admission recognized the
confidence reposed in him by his co-tenants.