Facts: Alexander Ty died at the age of 34. His wife, Sylvia, files petition for the settlement of his intestate estate. She also asks court to sell or mortgage properties in order to pay the estate tax amounting to 4 million assessed by the BIR. The properties include a parcel of land in EDSA Greenhills, a residential land in Wack Wack, and the Meridien condo unit in Annapolis, Greenhills.
Alejandro Ty, father of Alexander, opposed the move and filed for recovery of the property with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. Alejandro claims that he owns the EDSA, Wack Wack and Meridien condo unit because he paid for them. The property was supposedly registered in trust for Alexander’s brothers and sisters in case he dies. He claimed that Alex had no financial capacity to purchase the disputed property, as the latter was only dependent on him.
Sylvia countered that Alexander had purchased the property with his money. Alexander was financially capable of purchasing it because he had been managing the family corporations since he was 18 years old and was also engage in other profitable businesses.
The RTC granted the application for preliminary injunction and decides in favor of Alejandro regarding the recovery of the property. CA reversed the RTC stating that the implication created by law under Art. 1448 does not apply if the property was in the name of the purchaser’s child. They agreed that Alejandro partly paid for the EDSA property. Alejandro appealed.
Issue: Whether there was an implied trust under Art. 1448 of the Civil Code?
Held: No, there was no implied trust created in relation to the EDSA property. Article 1448 of the Civil Code is clear. If the person to whom the title is conveyed is the child of the one paying the price of the sale, NO TRUST IS IMPLIED BY LAW. The law, instead, disputably presumes a donation in favor of the child.
Regarding the Meridien Condo and Wack Wack property, the court said that plaintiff failed to prove that purchase money came from him. They also said that Alexander was capable of purchasing the property as he had been working for nine years, had a car care business, and was actively engaged in the business dealings of several family corporations from which he received emoluments and other benefits. Hence, no implied trust created because there was no proof that plaintiff had paid for said properties. (Alejandro Ty vs Sylvia Ty, G.R. No. 165696, April 30, 2008)
