RAMOS v.

RAMOS
December 3, 1974 | J. Aquino | Kinds of Trusts; Express Trusts (1441) No accounting. Before survey of properties by Cadastral Court, Modesto
Ramos was informed by Surveying Dept that they were going to survey these
FACTS: properties. Emiliano and other plaintiffs went to see Jose to inform him there
was going to be a survey and gave Jose a free hand to do something as an
Documentary Evidence: admin. They didn’t intervene in the proceedings because they were promised
Sps. Martin Ramos and Candida died. Survived by three legit children: Jose, by defendants, Jose and Agustin, that they would be responsible to have it
Agustin, and Granada. Martin was also survived by 7 natural children – registered in the name of the heirs.
Atanacia, Timoteo, Modesto, Manuel, Emiliano, Maria and Federico.
Plaintiffs didn’t know that intestate proceedings were instituted for distribution
Special proceedings for settltment of intestate estate. A project of partitition of estate of their father. They didn’t know of the partition proceedings, they
was submitted, signed by three legit children, by 2 natural children, and by never received any sum of money in cash – the alleged 1,785 each – from the
Zayco who represented the 5 natural children who were minors. guardian as their supposed share in the estate of their father under the alleged
project partition.
Conjugal estate was appraised at P74,984. 18 parcels of land, head of cattle,
and advances to legit children. In the project of partition: The plaintiffs discovered later that the property admin by Jose had a Torrens
1. Jose will get Hacienda Calaza Title in the name of his widow, Gregoria and daughter Candida, when plaintiff
2. Granada will get the Riceland Modesto’s children insisted and inquired from Register of Deeds. Therefore
3. Agustin will get Hacienda Ylaya the plaintiffs instituted this suit before the CFI for reconveyance in their favor
4. Natural children will get personal properties valued at P1785. It. Was by defendants Gregoria and husband Jose of their corresponding
taken from the 1/3 free portion which was valued at P12,497. participations in said parcels of land.

Judge Campbell approved project, and Judge Nepomuceno asked admin to CFI:
submit report showing that shares of heirs were delivered. Note that Granada o Suit filed against defendants Agustin, Granada and heirs of Jose to
and natural children assumed to have received shares from admin although secure reconveyance of participations of plaintiffs natural children all
according to the partition, Jose and Agustin were supposed to pay cash surnamed Ramos in the 8 lots of Hacienda Calaza.
adjudications to each of them. o It’s predicated on the theory that plaintiff’s shares were held in
trust by the defendants. No deed of trust was alleged and
Plaintiff’s Version: proven.
Martin Ramos left real estate. Hacienda Calaza and Ylaya, located in Negros o Agustin, Granada and Jose denied existence of trust and pleaded
Occidental. Calaza had sugar, palay, and nipa groves of 400 sqm, and sugar the defense of release of claim as shown in the project partition.
quote of 10,000 piculs, actual value is 500,000. All children of Martin, whether o CFI dismissed complaint
legit or acknowledged natural, lived together in Hacienda Ylaya. Greogria
Ramos, wide of Jose Ramos, admitted that she dealt with sila Emiliano as Plaintiff appealed – contending that trial court erred in dismissing their
family. Upon Martin’s death, properties were left to uncle Rafael Ramos. complaint and in denying their right to share in their father’s estate.
Subsequently, turned over Ylaya to Agustin, Calaza to Jose.
ISSUE: W/N the legitimate children of Martin Ramos held the natural
Agustin supported sila Emiliano by the money from the hacienda’s produce. children’s share in trust?
Jose gave also plaintiffs money. When Jose died, Gregoria Ramos continued to
give sila Emiliano money pertaining to their shares in products of Hacienda HELD: No.
Calaza. But stopped when their lessee, Lacson, stopped paying rentals.
 o Plaintiffs didn’t prove any express trust. The project of partition, the instrument of conveyance" (89 C.J.S. 725). Examples of
decision and the manifestation as to the receipt of shares negatives resulting trusts are found in article 1448 to 1455 of the Civil
the existence of an express trust. The public docus prove that estate Code.
of Martin was settled in that proceeding and that adjudications were o Constructive trust -- trust "raised by construction of law, or
made to his seven natural children. A trust must be proven by clear, arising by operation of law". a trust not created by any
satisfactory, and convincing evidence. words, either expressly or impliedly evincing a direct
o Neither have the plaintiffs specified the kind of implied trust intention to create a trust, but by the construction of equity
contemplated in their action. in order to satisfy the demands of justice. It does not arise
o In cadastral proceedings, which supervened after closure of intestate by agreement or intention but by operation of law. If a
proceeding, 8 lots involved herein were claimed by Sps. Ramos to the person obtains legal title to property by fraud or
exclusion of the plaintiffs. After death of Jose, adjudicated to concealment, courts of equity will impress upon the title a
Gregoria and daughter. so-called constructive trust in favor of the defrauded party
o Candida leased it to Yulo, who transferred lease rights to Bonin and o Trustee cannot acquire by prescription the ownership of property
Olmedo (husband of Atanacia). Bonin and Olmedo sold lease rights entrusted to him; an action to compel a trustee to convey property
to Consing. Transactins prove that heirs of Jose had repudiated any registered in his name in trust for the benefit of the cestui qui trust
trust which was supposedly constituted over Calaza in favor of does not prescribe; defense of prescription cannot be set up in an
plaintiffs. action to recover property held by a person in trust for the benefit of
o Plaintiffs, being of age, could’ve filed an action to annul the partition. another; property held in trust can be recovered by the beneficiary
regardless of the lapse of time
DOCTRINE: o That rule applies squarely to express trusts. The basis of the rule is
o Trust is defined as the right, enforceable solely in equity, to the that the possession of a trustee is not adverse. Not being adverse, he
beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal title to which is vested in does not acquire by prescription the property held in trust.
another, but the word 'trust' is frequently employed to indicate duties, o Acquisitive prescription may bar the action of the beneficiary against
relations, and responsibilities which are not strictly technical trusts the trustee in an express trust for the recovery of the property held in
o There is a fiduciary relation between the trustee and the cestui que trust where (a) the trustee has performed unequivocal acts of
trust as regards certain property, real, personal, money or choses in repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui qui trust; (b) such
action positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui qui
o No particular words are required for the creation of an express trust, trust and (c) the evidence thereon is clear and conclusive
it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended o
o Implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are
deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent, or *Legit Children – Jose, Agustin, Granada
which are superinduced on the transaction by operation of law as *Natural – Atanacia, Timoteo, Modesto, Manuel, Emiliano, Maria and
matters of equity, independently of the particular intention of the Federico
parties" (89 C.J.S. 724). They are ordinarily subdivided into resulting
and constructive trusts
o Resulting trust is broadly defined as a trust which is raised
or created by the act or construction of law, but in its more
restricted sense it is a trust raised by implication of law and
presumed always to have been contemplated of the parties,
the intention as to which is to be found in the nature of
their transaction, but not expressed in the deed or