Agency Digest

1. Tala Realty vs. Banco Filipino.FACTS: Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino) filed before 17 Regional Trial Courts (RTC) 17 complaints for reconveyance of different properties against Tala Realty Services Corporation (Tala Realty) et al. Banco Filipinos complaints commonly alleged that in 1979, expansion of its operations required the purchase of real properties for the purpose of acquiring sites for more branches; that as Sections 25(a) and 34 of the General Banking Act limit a banks allowable investments in real estate to 50% of its capital assets, its board of directors decided to warehouse some of its existing properties and branch sites. Thus, Nancy L. Ty, a major stockholder and director, persuaded Pedro Aguirre and his brother Tomas Aguirre, both major stockholders of Banco Filipino, to organize and incorporate Tala Realty to hold and purchase real properties in trust for Banco Filipino; that after the transfer of Banco Filipino properties to Tala Realty, the Aguirres sister Remedios prodded her brother Tomas to, as he did, endorse to her his shares in Tala Realty and registered them in the name of her controlled corporation, Add International.

Thus, Nancy, Remedios, and Pedro Aguirre controlled Tala Realty, with Nancy exercising control through her nominees Pilar, Cynthia, and Dolly, while Remedios exercised control through Add International and her nominee Elizabeth. Pedro Aguirre exercised control through his own nominees, the latest being Tala Realtys president, Rubencito del Mundo.In the course of the implementation of their trust agreement, Banco Filipino sold to Tala Realty some of its properties. Tala Realty simultaneously leased to Banco Filipino the properties for 20 years, renewable for another 20 years at the option of Banco Filipino with a right of first refusal in the event Tala Realty decided to sell them.Tala Realty repudiated the trust, claimed the titles for itself, and demanded payment of rentals, deposits, and goodwill, with a threat to eject Banco Filipino.Thus arose Banco Filipinos 17 complaints for reconveyance against Tala Realty.ISSUE:Whether or not the trust agreement is voidHELD:In Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, the Court, by Decision dated November 22, 2002, ruling on one of several ejectment cases filed by Tala Realty against Banco Filipino arising from the same trust agreement in the reconveyance cases subject of the present petitions, held that the trust agreement is void and cannot thus be enforced.

An implied trust could not have been formed between the Bank and Tala as the Court has held that "where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud."

The bank cannot use the defense of nor seek enforcement of its alleged implied trust with Tala since its purpose was contrary to law. As admitted by the Bank, it "warehoused" its branch site holdings to Tala to enable it to pursue its expansion program and purchase new branch sites including its main branch in Makati, and at the same time avoid the real property holdings limit under Sections 25(a) and 34 of the General Banking Act which it had already reached.

Clearly, the Bank was well aware of the limitations on its real estate holdings under the General Banking Act and that its "warehousing agreement" with Tala was a scheme to circumvent the limitation. Thus, the Bank opted not to put the agreement in writing and call a spade a spade, but instead phrased its right to reconveyance of the subject property at any time as a "first preference to buy" at the "same transfer price." This agreement which the Bank claims to be an implied trust is contrary to law. Thus, while the Court finds the sale and lease of the subject property genuine and binding upon the parties, the Court cannot enforce the implied trust even assuming the parties intended to create it. In the words of the Court in the Ramos case, "the courts will not assist the payor in achieving his improper purpose by enforcing a resultant trust for him in accordance with the clean hands doctrine." The Bank cannot thus demand reconveyance of the property based on its alleged implied trust relationship with Tala.

2. Ringor vs. Ringor

3. Gomez vs. Duyan

Before this Court is a petition for review oncertiorariassailing theDecision[1]of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 49163 ordering the reconveyance by the petitioners to the respondents of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 281115 and declaring said title cancelled, thereby reversing theDecision[2]of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 80 which dismissed the complaint. The dispositive portion of the challengedDecisionreads as follows:WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80 in Civil Case No. Q-91-8821 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY, defendants-appellees are hereby ordered to RECONVEY in favor of plaintiffs-appellants the property covered by TCT No. 281115, which title is hereby declared CANCELLED. With costs.[3]The facts as culled from the records are as follows:The parties in this case are relatives residing at 96 General Avenue, Project 8, Quezon City which consists of four houses situated in an eight hundred-square meter (800 sq.m.) lot, covered by TCT No. 41717 issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City in the name of Eulogio Duyan (now deceased) married to Purisima Duyan, one of the respondents in this case. The property in dispute which constitutes one-half of the property previously covered by TCT No. 41717 is now covered by TCT No. 281115 issued in the name of petitioner spouses.[4]Eulogio Duyan and Feliza Duyan are siblings. In his desire to help his sister, Eulogio allowed her to construct a house on the disputed lot sometime in 1968.[5]Petitioners acknowledged the fact that the disputed property was owned by Eulogio and that they were staying in the disputed property solely due to his benevolence. Accordingly, an instrument entitledPagpapahayagwas executed by the siblings on 5 May 1974. The instrument provides that in the event that the property will be registered in Felizas name, she will continue to acknowledge Eulogio as the owner and will never assert ownership over the same, except in accordance with her brothers wishes.[6]The pertinent portions of the instrument read:Na napagkasunduan naming magcapatid na bouin ang documentong ito bilang katibayan ang lahat;4. Na kaming magkapatid ay magtutulongan at magdadamayan maging sa hirap at ginhawa alang-alang sa ikabubuti ng aming mga mahal sa buhay;5. Na ito ay mailagay sa pangalan man ng aming Ama o pangalan ko ay itoy hindi ko pag-aari kundi ari ito ng aking kuya, Eulogio V. Duyan, at-6. Na ito ay aming igagalang maging saan man makarating ngayon at kailan man.[7]On 11 May 1974, a deed of sale covering a residential house situated on the disputed lot was executed by Eulogio and Regina Velasquez, a common-law wife of the former, in favor of petitioners for the sum of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00). Thereafter, petitioners allegedly asserted ownership not only over the said house but over the whole lot covered by TCT No. 41717.[8]This prompted Eulogios legal wife, Purisima, to file a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioners with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV-B, Quezon City.[9]Deciding the case in favor of Purisima, the trial court ordered petitioners to surrender possession of the property to her. On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case after the parties entered into an amicable settlement.[10]On 25 January 1978, Eulogio and Purisima this time, as vendors, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of petitioners with respect to the disputed lot for the sum of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).[11]Purisima claims that the deed of sale was executed merely to give color of legality to petitioners stay in the disputed property so that she and her children will not drive them away after they (Purisima and her children) manifested their opposition to Eulogios decision to let them stay therein.[12]Petitioners claim otherwise, contending that the sale was freely agreed upon by the parties thereto; hence, it was authentic and validly executed.[13]Subsequent to the execution of the deed of sale or on 10 February 1978,[14]anotherPagpapahayagwas executed between Eulogio and Feliza, where the latter acknowledged that the lot subject of the deed of sale[15]will eventually be transferred to respondents herein who are her nephews and nieces and the children of Eulogio.[16]The pertinent portions of the secondPagpapahayagread:Na pagkatapos ng lahat ng hidwaan sa Husgado ay aming isasagawa agad and conwaring pagbibili muli ng nasabing xxx aming binili sa aking capatid na si Gg. Eulogio V. Duyan. At pag mangyari ang nasabing hatian ng lote, ay aming ilalagay agad sa pangalan ng aming mga pamangkin na sina Salome V. Duyan, Divina V. Duyan, Cresencia V. Duyan, Reulgina V. Duyan, Domincia, Rodrigo at Avencio C. Duyan.[17]Notwithstanding the secondPagpapahayag, petitioners caused the registration of the deed of sale dated 25 January 1978 with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. As a consequence, TCT No. 281115 covering the disputed lot was issued on 22 September 1981 in the name of petitioners.[18]On 20 May 1991, respondents filed a suit for reconveyance of real property and cancellation of TCT No. 281115 with damages against petitioners before Branch 80 of the Quezon City RTC.On 5 September 1994, the trial court rendered a decision, dismissing the complaint and ordering respondents to pay jointly and severally defendants therein, now petitioners, the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000,00) as reasonable attorneys fees and to pay the costs of the suit.[19]In dismissing the case, the trial court held that:[the] TCT No. 281115 (Exh. 4) was validly issued pursuant to the Absolute Deed of Sale dated January 25, 1978 (Exh. 3) duly registered at the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. The same became indefeasible and conclusive upon the expiration of one year period from its entry as it was not attacked directly by anyone due to fraud.[20]On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and held that an implied trust arose in favor of respondents over the disputed property by virtue of thePagpapahayagdated 10 February 1978. It held that the action for reconveyance of property was properly filed by respondents against petitioners.[21]Petitioners motion for reconsideration[22]having been denied by the appellate court in aResolution[23]promulgated on 28 June 2000, the case was elevated to this Court by way of a petition for review.Petitioners in their petition for review[24]contend that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion[25]when it reversed the RTC decision and that the error, if not corrected, will cause them great injustice.[26]They claim that the Court of Appeals erred when it ordered the reconveyance by petitioners to respondents of the property covered by TCT No. 281115 and declared the cancellation of said title[27].The contention is without merit. The Court of Appeals did not err in ordering the reconveyance of the property in dispute.As found by the appellate court, the trial court failed to consider the law on trusts despite the existence of uncontroverted evidence establishing the creation of a trust as it anchored its decision solely on the indefeasibility of title aspect. Although it recognized the instruments creating the trust, the trial court nevertheless held that:In the document entitled Pagpapahayag (Exh. B), although the defendant Felisa Gomez stipulated therein that she will not claim ownership over the lot covered by TCT No. 41717, even in the event that the same will be transferred in her name, the same does not bar her totally from becoming as owner because of the exception provided therein that she can still own the lot or part thereof in accordance with the wishes of the deceased which was clearly manifested when the Absolute Deed of Sale of the half of the lot covered by TCT No. 41717 was executed between the deceased and his spouse Purisima Duyan (plaintiff) and the defendants.[28]While citing the provisions of thePagpapahayagdated 5 May 1974 and concluding therefrom that Feliza was not actually prohibited from claiming ownership over the property, the trial court completely disregarded and missed the import of the otherPagpapahayagdated 10 February 1978.In express terms, Feliza undertook in the subsequentPagpapahayagto convey the property subject of the fictitious deed of sale to her own nephews and nieces who are the children of her brother Eulogio. To reiterate, Feliza statedAt pag mangyari ang nasabing hatian ng lote, ay aming ilalagay agad sa pangalan ng aming mga pamangkin na sina Salome V. Duyan, Divina V. Duyan, Cresencia V. Duyan, Reulgina V. Duyan, Domincia, Rodrigo at Avencio C. Duyan.[29]It must be noted that this Pagpapahayag was entered into by Eulogio and Feliza after the supposed sale of the property on 25 January 1978. Based on the clear provisions of this document, the intent of the siblings to create a trust was manifest with Eulogio as the trustor, Feliza as the trustee and Eulogios children as the beneficiaries or thecestui qui trust[30]of the res[31]which was the disputed property. This is based on the provision of the law on trusts which states that:Art. 1440. A person who establishes a trust is called the trustor; one in whom confidence is reposed as regards property for the benefit of another person is known as the trustee; and the person for whose benefit the trust has been created is referred to as the beneficiary.[32]However, the trust created was not merely implied as held by the Court of Appeals but belongs to the express kind. Based on the provisions of the Civil Code and jurisprudence, Express trusts are those which the direct and positive acts of the parties create, by some writing, deed or will, or words evincing an intention to create a trust.[33]In this case, the provisions of thePagpapahayagdated 10 February 1978 left no room for doubt. It was clearly intended therein by Eulogio and Feliza that the property subject of the sale will subsequently be placed by the latter in the name of respondents, thus creating a trust relationship over the property in dispute.Even if the word trust was not expressly used by the signatories to the 10 February 1978Pagpapahayagand the document did not expressly state that a trust was being established by reason thereof, the establishment of an express trust cannot be discounted. Under the Civil Code, No particular words are required for the creation of an express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended.[34]In a decision penned by Justice Paras, this Court held that under the law on Trusts, it is not necessary that the document expressly state and provide for the express trust, for it may even be created orally, no particular words are required for its creation (Art. 1444, Civil Code).[35]ThePagpapahayagdated 10 February 1978 having been freely entered into by Eulogio and Feliza, it had the force of law between them. It was therefore incumbent upon Feliza as trustee to comply with the provisions of the instrument and have the subject property registered in the names of her nephews and nieces.Petitioners subsequent act of registering the disputed property in their own names and resisting the action for reconveyance later filed by respondents was clearly a betrayal of the provisions of the express trust created by the 10 February 1978Pagpapahayag. By these actions, petitioners not only failed to comply with the provisions of thePagpapahayag, but actually circumvented them.It is worthy of note that petitioners never denied the existence, authenticity and due execution of the 10 February 1978 Pagpapahayag as they merely objected to the purpose of its presentation.[36]As held by the appellate court:Neither refutation nor denial of the existence of such document exist in the records of the case at bar. Particularly, Feliza did not even raise any objection as to the due execution and authenticity of the Pagpapahayag dated 10 February 1978. In relation thereto, it is worthy to note that an objection as to the purpose of its presentation is not tantamount to an objection as to the authenticity and due execution of the document. In view of the absence of such objection, the GOMEZES as signatories thereto, are deemed bound by the stipulations therein.[37]A trust is sacred and inviolable. The courts have therefore shielded fiduciary relations against every manner of chicanery or detestable design cloaked by legal technicalities.[38]Considering this pronouncement of the Supreme Court and the betrayal by petitioners of the provisions of thePagpapahayagcreating the trust in this case, the Court of Appeals rightly ordered the reconveyance of the disputed property to respondents and the cancellation of TCT No. 21885.Moreover, petitioners admitted in thePagpapahayagitself that the 25 January 1978 sale was fictitious. This is evident by the use of the phraseconwaring pagbibili[39]which means simulated or fictitious sale. Thus, petitioners are estopped from claiming or asserting ownership over the subject property based on the 25 January 1978 deed of sale. Felizas admission in the saidPagpapahayagof the falsity of the sale is deemed conclusive upon her and her co-petitioner Eugenio Gomez. Under the Civil Code, Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.[40]That admission cannot now be denied by Feliza as against Eulogio and his successors-in-interest, the latter having relied upon her representation.Petitioners argue that the action for reconveyance filed by respondents against them is not proper, the latter not being the owners of the property in question.[41]Invoking the 25 January 1978 deed of sale despite Felizas admission adverted to above that such sale was fictitious, petitioners assert that they are the owners of the subject property. They claim that the best proof of ownership of a piece of land is the certificate of title, and the TCT being in their name, they are the rightful owners thereof.[42]They further argue that based on the case ofDela Pea vs. Court of Appeals[43]among others, reconveyance is a remedy granted only to the owner of the property alleged to be wrongfully titled in anothers name.[44]The argument begs the question. Reconveyance is precisely the proper action for respondents to take against petitioners since the former are claiming that they are the rightful owners of the property in question, not petitioners. By filing an action for reconveyance, a party seeks to show that the person who secured the registration of the questioned property is not the real owner thereof.[45]Petitioners cannot rely on the registration of the disputed property and the corresponding issuance of a certificate of title in their name as vesting ownership on them simply because an express trust over the property was created in favor of respondents. It has been held that a trustee who obtains a Torrens title over the property held in trust by him for another cannot repudiate the trust by relying on the registration.[46]The law safeguards the rightful partys interest in titled land from fraud and improper technicalities by allowing such party to bring an action for reconveyance of whatever he has been deprived of as long as the property has not been transferred or conveyed to an innocent purchaser for value.[47]The action while respecting the registration decree as incontrovertible, seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner.[48]As this Court held in the case ofEscobar vs. Locsin, The Torrens system was never calculated to foment betrayal in the performance of a trust.[49]In a further effort to bolster the claim that they own the property in dispute, petitioners attempt to introduce new evidence annexed to their petition in the form of a purported declaration made by Eulogio dated 19 February 1979.[50]The declaration purports to state that the previous instruments entered into by him and the petitioners are void because he had already sold the lot to them.[51]This declaration, although annexed to the Petition for Review appears nowhere in the records of the trial court and the appellate court. This is a piece of factual evidence which should have been presented before the trial court to be considered and to allow respondents the opportunity to rebut it or to present evidence to the contrary. The Rules of Court specifically provides that The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered[52]The alleged declaration not having been formally offered in evidence is deemed to be a mere scrap of paper which has no evidentiary value.Lastly, petitioners contend that the conflict between the decision of the appellate court and that of the trial court provides this Court with a ground to review the decisions of both courts.[53]That may be true but the circumstance does not suffice to warrant the reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision. Quite the contrary, the undisputed facts and the applicable law ineluctably support the conclusion that the appellate court did not commit any reversible error.WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED due course and the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.SO ORDERED.

4. Canezo vs. Soledad

FACTS: Caezo vs Soledad G.R. No. 148788Facts: Petitioner alleges she bought the land and only entrusted to her father for she left and went to Mindanao. In 1948 she found out that her step mother was in possession of the land. She filed for recovery and damages against defendant. It reached the court of appeals where the land was awarded to the defendant because there has been a satisfaction that the father of the petitioner was the owner.Issue: Whether or not the action of the respondent filed out of time.Held: Resolution of the issue hinges on the determination of trust - express or implied - by the petitioner and her father. Intention to create a trust cannot be inferred from the petitioner's testimony; the petitioner only testified to the effect that her agreement with her father was that she will be given a share in the produce of the property. Petitioner should not have made an issue in the declaration of taxes in her father's name if there really was trust. There was no trust that was established. Petitioner is estopped from asserting ownership by her failure to protest in the decision of the estate of her father. Her action is barred by laches.

5. Araneta vs. CA

6. Herbon vs. PaladABERTO HERBON, MARGARITO HERBON and GABINO HERBON, petitioners,vs.LEOPOLDO T. PALAD and HELENP. CAYETANO, respondents., G.R. No. 149542July 20, 2006CASE DIGESTGonzaloPaladinhis lifetime wasaco-ownerofaparcelofagriculturallandlocatedinPoblacion, Bagac, Bataan known as Lot 421, with an area of 32,944 square meters and coveredby Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 4408 of the Register of Deeds of Bataan. Gonzalosshare was conjugal property, having been acquired during his marriage with Alejandra Nava.Alejandra died in1949, Gonzalo contracted asecond marriage with Remedios Torres,a widowwith three children from her previous marriage, herein petitioners. The union of Gonzalo andRemedios bore no children. On November 16,1983, Gonzalo died. Thereafter, petitioners tookpossessionofaportionofthepropertyanddespiterespondentsdemandtovacateandturnover possession of the property, petitioners refused to do so.OnJuly22,1997,theRTCrendereditsDecisiondismissingthecomplaintandorderingrespondents to pay petitioners P 3,000.00 as attorneys fees and cost of suit. The RTC held thatthe action for recovery of possession cannot prosper since petitioners proved that they are co-owners ofthe subjectproperty based onthe twodeedsod absolutesale;that Remediosinherited a portion of Gonzalos share and that when Remedios died, her shareswere inheritedby her three sonand being co-owners cannot be ejected since no definite portion of Lot 421was allotted to petitioners and respondents.Respondents filed an appeal with the CA, the CA set aside the decision of the RTC and orderedpetitioners to vacate the premises in favor of the respondents, thus a petition for review oncertiorari under Rule 45 assailing the decision of the CA.The Supreme Court rules in favor of the petitioners. The Court finds that on matters of impliedtrust, Article 1448 of the Civil Code provides: There is an implied trust when property is sold,and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another for the purpose ofhaving the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the trustee, while the latter is thebeneficiary.However,ifthepersonwhomthetitleisconveyedisachild,legitimateorillegitimate, of the onepaying the price of the sale, no trust isimplied by law, it being disputablypresumed that there is a gift infavor of the child. The trust created issometimes referred to asa purchase money resulting trust, the elements of which are: a) an actual payment of money,propertyorservices,oranequivalent,constitutingvaluableconsideration;andb)suchconsideration must be furnished by the alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust

7. Heirs of Moreno vs. MACTANGR- 156273October 15, 2003FACTS:MORENO: successors of 2 parcels of landMACTAN wanted to acquire land:i.Government assured landowners that they could repurchase their lands once Lahug Airport was closed or its operations transferred to Mactan Airportii.Moreno refused offer.iii.Civil Aeronautics Administration as the successor agency of the National Airport Corporation filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, for the expropriation of land.iv.Trial court promulgated public use upon payment of just compensation.v.MORENO were paid; no appeal.vi.Certificates of title were issued.LAHUG AIRPORT CEASED OPERATIONS, lands not utilized.Moreno plead for repurchase of land.i.Filed complaint for reconveyance and damages.ii.Averred that they have been convinced not to oppose since they could repurchase.iii.MCIAA did not object.ENCHUAN FILED FOR MOTION OF TRANSFERAcquired through deeds of assignment the rights of land.DPWH claimed it leased in good faith from MCIAA to Regional Equipment Services and Region 7 Office.TRIAL COURT GRANTED RIGHT TO REPURCHASE but subject to the alleged property rights of Richard E. Enchuan and the leasehold of DPWH.CA reversed: rights gained by MCIAA were indicative of ownership in fee simpleISSUE:Do they have right to repurchase? Or right to reversion?HELD:PETITION GRANTED. CA DECISION REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.

1.Return or repurchase of the condemned properties of petitioners could be readily justified as the manifest legal effect or consequence of the trial courts underlying presumption that Lahug Airport will continue to be in operation when it granted the complaint for eminent domain and the airport discontinued its activities.

2.ARTICLE 1454: If an absolute conveyance of property is made in order to secure the performance of an obligation of the grantor toward the grantee, a trust by virtue of law is established. If the fulfillment of the obligation is offered by the grantor when it becomes due, he may demand the reconveyance of the property to him.a.In the case at bar, government obliged itself to use of land for the expansion of Lahug Airporti.Failure to keep its bargain: can be compelled to reconvey, otherwise, petitioners would be denied the use of their properties upon a state of affairs that was not conceived nor contemplated when the expropriation was authorized.

3.ARTICLE 1189: If the thing is improved by its nature, or by time, the improvement shall inure to the benefit of the creditor.a.CREDITOR: person who stands to receive something as a result of the process of restitution.i.Petitioners must pay MCIAA the necessary expenses in sustaining the properties and servicesii.Government may keep whatever income or fruits it may have obtained from the parcels of land.iii.Petitioners need not account for the interests that the amounts they received as just compensation may have earned in the meantime.

8. Estate of Cabacungan vs. LaigoFACTS:Margarita Cabacungan owned three parcels of unregistered land in La Union which are covered by tax declaration all in her name. Sometime in 1968, Margaritas son, Roberto Laigo, Jr. applied for a non-immigrant visa to the United States, and to support his application, he allegedly asked Margarita to transfer the tax declarations of the properties in his name. For said purpose, Margarita, unknown to her other children, executed an Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property whereby the subject properties were transferred by donation to Roberto.Roberto adopted respondents Pedro Laigo and Marilou Laigo. In July 1990, Roberto sold the aforementioned three parcel of land. One parcel of land was sold to spouses Mario and Julia Campos and the rest were sold to Pedro Laigo and Marilou Laigo. These sales were not known to Margarita and her other children.During Robertos wake, Margarita came to know of the sales as told by Pedro himself. Margarita, represented by her daughter, Luz, instituted a complaint for the annulment of said sales and for the recovery of ownership and possession of the subject properties as well as for the cancellation of Ricardos tax declarations.

Spouses Campos advanced that they were innocent purchasers for value and in good faith. Further, they noted that Margaritas claim was already barred by prescription and laches owing to her long inaction in recovering the subject properties.

Marilou and Pedro contends to be buyers in good faith and for value. They also believed that Margaritas cause of action had already been barred by laches, and that even assuming the contrary, the cause of action was nevertheless barred by prescription as the same had accrued way back in 1968 upon the execution of the affidavit of transfer by virtue of which an implied trust had been created. In this regard, they emphasized that the law allowed only a period of ten (10) years within which an action to recover ownership of real property or to enforce an implied trust thereon may be brought, but Margarita merely let it pass.Margarita and the Spouses Campos amicably entered into a settlement whereby they waived their respective claims against each other. Margarita died two days later and was substituted by her estate.On February 8, 1999, the trial court rendered a Partial Decision approving the compromise agreement and dismissing the complaint against the Spouses Campos. Trial on the merits ensued with respect to Pedro and Marilou.Trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint. It explained that the 1968 Affidavit of Transfer operated as a simple transfer of the subject properties from Margarita to Roberto. It found no express trust created between Roberto and Margarita by virtue merely of the said document as there was no evidence of another document showing Robertos undertaking to return the subject properties. It concluded that an "implied or constructive trust" was created between the parties, as if affirming that there was indeed an agreement to have the properties returned to Margarita in due time.Moreover, the trial court barred recovery from respondents who were found to have acquired the properties supposedly in good faith and for value. It also pointed out that recovery could no longer be pursued in this case because Margarita had likewise exhausted the ten-year prescriptive period for reconveyance based on an implied trust which had commenced to run in 1968 upon the execution of the Affidavit of Transfer.The appellate court had found no implied trust relation in the transaction between Margarita and Roberto, nevertheless, it held that the ten-year prescriptive period under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, in relation to an implied trust created under Article 1456, had already been exhausted by Margarita because her cause of action had accrued way back in 1968 and that while laches and prescription as defenses could have availed against Roberto, the same would be unavailing against Pedro and Marilou because the latter were supposedly buyers in good faith and for value.ISSUES:Whether or not an action for reconveyance under a constructive implied trust in accordance with Article 1456 does not prescribe.HELD:The Court disagree with the Court of Appeals finding that there was no evidence on record showing that an implied trust relation arose between Margarita and Roberto. It finds that petitioner had offered evidence to prove the intention of Margarita to transfer to Roberto only the legal title to the properties in question, with expectation that Roberto would return the same to her on accomplishment of that specific purpose for which the transaction was entered into. It explained that trust is the legal relationship between one person having an equitable ownership of property and another person owning the legal title to such property, the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain powers by the latter. Express or direct trusts are created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by oral declaration in words evincing an intention to create a trust. Implied trusts arise by legal implication based on the presumed intention of the parties or on equitable principles independent of the particular intention of the parties.Constructive trusts, on the one hand, come about in the main by operation of law and not by agreement or intention. They arise not by any word or phrase, either expressly or impliedly, evincing a direct intention to create a trust, but one which arises in order to satisfy the demands of justice. Constructive trusts are illustrated in Articles 1450, 1454, 1455 and 1456Roberto is merely a depositary of legal title having no duties as to the management, control or disposition of the property except to make a conveyance when called upon by the cestui que trust. Hence, the sales he entered into with respondents are a wrongful conversion of the trust property and a breach of the trust.The Court finds that an action for reconveyance under a constructive implied trust in accordance with Article 1456 does not prescribe unless and until the land is registered or the instrument affecting the same is inscribed in accordance with law, inasmuch as it is what binds the land and operates constructive notice to the world.In the present case, however, the lands involved are unregistered lands. There is no way by which Margarita, during her lifetime, could be notified of the furtive and fraudulent sales made in 1992 by Roberto in favor of respondents, except by actual notice from Pedro himself in August 1995. Hence, it is from that date that prescription began to toll. The filing of the complaint in February 1996 is well within the prescriptive period. Finally, such delay of only six (6) months in instituting the present action hardly be sufficient to justify a finding of inexcusable delay or to create an inference that Margarita has allowed her claim to stale by laches.The Court granted the petition, affirming the judgment of the Regional Trial Court and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It also directed the cancellation of the tax declarations covering the subject properties in the name of Roberto D. Laigo and his transferees, nullified the deeds of sale executed by Roberto D. Laigo in favor of respondents Pedro Roy Laigo and Marilou Laigo and directed said respondents to execute reconveyance in favor of petitioner.9. TIGNO V CAFacts: Sometime in January, 1980, Bienvenido Sison, Remedios Sison and their heirs appointed Dominador Cruz as agent to sell three (3) parcels of land adjoining each other located at Padilla St., Lingayen, Pangasinan. Rodolfo Tigno learned that the above described properties were for sale. Accordingly, he approached Cruz and told the latter to offer these parcels of land to his brother, Eduardo Tigno, herein appellant.Pursuant thereto, Cruz and Rodolfo Tigno went to appellant's Makati office to convince the latter to buy the properties earlier described. Appellant agreed to buy them and it was agreed that each parcel of land would cost Ten Thousand Pesos.The appropriate deeds of sale were prepared by Atty. Manuel and signed by Bienvenido Sison and his heirs. In all these deeds of sale, Rodolfo Tigno was named as "vendee" pursuant to the verbal instruction of herein appellant so that his brother Rodolfo Tigno, who was then jobless, could have a source of income as a caretaker of the fishponds; that plaintiff and Rodolfo agreed that the latter would secure a loan from the Philippine National Bank at Lingayen using said lands as collateral; that considering the busy schedule of plaintiff, then as executive vice-president of an American firm based in Makati, Metro Manila, it was made to appear in the deeds of sale that Rodolfo M. Tigno was the vendee so that the latter could, as he actually did, secure a loan from the PNB without need of plaintiff's signature and personal presence, the loan proceeds to be used as seed capital for the fishponds; that there being trust and confidence as brothers between plaintiff and defendant. Cruz, the agent in the sale, signed in these three (3) deeds of sale as a witness.On May 16, 1989, appellant learned that Rodolfo Tigno is "negotiating" a portion of his land to the Casipits. Appellant then sent a letter to the Casipits advising them to desist from the intended sale, not knowing that the sale was already consummated as early as April 29, 1989.On May 24, 1989, the plaintiff filed a case for "Reconveyance, Annulment of Document, Recovery of Possession and Damages" against Rodolfo M. Tigno and defendant spouses Edualino Casipit and Avelina Estrada.Issue: Whether the evidence on record proves the existence of an implied trust between Rodolfo Tigno and Eduardo Tigno.Held: An implied trust arises where a person purchases land with his own money and takes conveyance thereof in the name of another. In such a case, the property is held on resulting trust in favor of the one furnishing the consideration for the transfer. From the foregoing, it is clear that the name of Rodolfo Tigno appeared in the deeds of sale not for the purpose of transferring ownership to him but only to enable him to hold the property in trust for his brother, Eduardo. Declaring the Deed of Sale executed by Rodolfo M. Tigno in favor of spouses Edualino Casipit and Avelina Estrada as null and void and of no effect.