In order to establish an implied trust in real property by parol evidence, the proof should be as fully convincing as if the acts giving rise to the trust obligation are proven by an authentic document

0 comments

Facts: Ramon, Lorenzo and Benjamin are brothers. 

In 1966, Ramon Yap, an accountant, purchased a parcel of land situated in Quezon City from Spouses Nery. The lot was thereupon registered in the name of Ramon Yap. He also declared the property in his name for tax purposes and paid the real estate taxes due thereon from 1966 to 1992.

In 1962 Ramon constructed a two-storey 3-door apartment building for the use of the Yap family. 1/5 of the cost of the construction was defrayed by Ramon while the rest was shouldered by their mother Chua Mia. Upon the request of the old woman, the tax declaration for the real estate was placed under the name of Lorenzo.

Lorenzo died in 1970. Upon his death, petitioners (Lorenzo's wife Sally and their children) were allowed by Ramon to stay in one unit of the apartment building. On March 18, 1992, Ramon Yap sold the land and his share of the 3-door apartment to Benjamin. 

Upon learning of the sale, petitioners advised Ramon of their claim of ownership over the property and demanded that Ramon execute the proper deed necessary to transfer the title to them.

Ramon and Benjamin filed an action with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, for quieting of title against petitioners. In their answer, petitioner's averred that sometime in 1966 the spouses Nery offered to sell the disputed parcel of land to Lorenzo Yap. Since Lorenzo and Sally Yap were at that time Chinese citizens, Lorenzo requested his brother Ramon to allow the use of the latter's name in the purchase, registration, and declaration for tax purposes of the subject lot to which Ramon Yap consented. It was agreed that the property would remain registered in the name of Ramon Yap until such time as Lorenzo would have acquired Philippine citizenship but that, should Lorenzo predecease, the lot would then be transferred to Lorenzo's heirs upon the latter's naturalization. Petitioners contended that it was Lorenzo who had caused the construction of the 3-door apartment on the property, merely entrusting the money therefor to Ramon. The death of Lorenzo in 1970 prompted petitioners to move in and occupy the apartment and the lot, without any objection from Ramon and Benjamin, although the latter were allowed to stay in the premises since they had no other place to live in. In 1991, petitioners acquired Philippine citizenship and, forthwith, they requested Ramon Yap to have the title to the lot transferred to their names but to their chagrin they discovered that Ramon had sold the lot to Benjamin.

The RTC adjudged Benjamin Yap to be the true and lawful owner of the disputed property. CA affirmed the decision.

Issue: Was Sally's testimony enough to prove the existence of a trust?

Held: It is true that an implied trust may be established by parol evidence. Even then, in order to establish an implied trust in real property by parol evidence, the proof should be as fully convincing as if the acts giving rise to the trust obligation are proven by an authentic document. An implied trust, in fine, cannot be established upon vague and inconclusive proof.

The evidence submitted by Sally consisting mainly of her self-serving testimony is utterly wanting as against the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Spouses Nery in favor of Ramon which is public document and is presumed to have been regularly executed. The fact that the business establishment of her husband Lorenzo was razed by fire in 1964 would somehow place to doubt the claim that he indeed had the means to purchase the subject land about two years later from the Nery spouses. Upon the other hand, Ramon Yap was by then an accountant with apparent means to buy the property himself. 

Furthermore, the trust agreement between Ramon and Lorenzo, if indeed extant, would have been in contravention of, in fact, the fundamental law limiting transfer or assignment of land only to citizens of the Philippines. A trust or a provision in the terms of the trust would be invalid if the enforcement thereof is against the law even though its performance does not involve the commission of a criminal tortuous act. (Heirs of Lorenzo Yap et. al. vs. Court of Appeals et. al. G.R. No. 133047 Aug. 17, 1998)

Leave a Reply