Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RODOLFO TIGNO AND SPS. EDUALINO AND EVELYN CASIPIT v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 182908 2014-08-06	HEIRS OF FRANCISCO I. NARVASA v. IMBORNAL PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The burden of proving the existence of a trust is on the party asserting its existence, and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the existence of the trust and its elements.[45] While implied trusts may be proven by oral evidence, the evidence must be trustworthy and received by the courts with extreme caution, and should not be made to rest on loose, equivocal or indefinite declarations. Trustworthy evidence is required because oral evidence can easily be fabricated.[46]
	GR No. 196023 2014-04-21	JOSE JUAN TONG v. GO TIAT KUN REYES, J.
The principle of a resulting trust is based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest and are presumed always to have been contemplated by the parties. They arise from the nature or circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person thereby becomes invested with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of another. On the other hand, a constructive trust, unlike an express trust, does not emanate from, or generate a fiduciary relation. Constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise contrary to intention 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.[14]
	GR No. 182177 2011-03-30	RICHARD JUAN v. GABRIEL YAP CARPIO, J.
Applying these principles, this Court recognized unconventional implied trusts in contracts involving the purchase of housing units by officers of tenants' associations in breach of their obligations,[18] the partitioning of realty contrary to the terms of a compromise agreement,[19] and the execution of a sales contract indicating a buyer distinct from the provider of the purchase money.[20] In all these cases, the formal holders of title were deemed trustees obliged to transfer title to the beneficiaries in whose favor the trusts were deemed created. We see no reason to bar the recognition of the same obligation in a mortgage contract meeting the standards for the creation of an implied trust.
	GR No. 162175 2010-06-28	MIGUEL J. OSSORIO PENSION FOUNDATION v. CA CARPIO, J.
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, unless a different intention or understanding appears. The trust which results under such circumstances does not arise from a contract or an agreement of the parties, but from the facts and circumstances; that is to say, the trust results because of equity and it arises by implication or operation of law. [38]
	GR No. 148788 2007-11-23	SOLEDAD CAÑEZO v. CONCEPCION ROJAS NACHURA, J.
A 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.[21] Trusts are either express or implied.[22] Express trusts are those which are created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a trust.[23] Implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent or, independently, of the particular intention of the parties, as being superinduced on the transaction by operation of law basically by reason of equity.[24] An implied trust may either be a resulting trust or a constructive trust.
	GR No. 157806 2007-11-22	SPS. SHEIKDING BOOC AND BILY BOOC v. FIVE STAR MARKETING CO. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As a rule, the burden of proving the existence of a trust is on the party asserting its existence and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the existence of the trust and its elements.[20]
	GR NO. 149542 2006-07-20	ALBERTO HERBON v. LEOPOLDO T. PALAD AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The trust created under the first sentence of Article 1448 is sometimes referred to as a purchase money resulting trust, the elements of which are: (a) an actual payment of money, property or services, or an equivalent, constituting valuable consideration; and (b) such consideration must be furnished by the alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust.[23]
	GR NO. 146853 2006-02-13	SALVADOR COMILANG v. FRANCISCO BURCENA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[12] Tigno v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 486, 499 (1997); Morales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117228, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 282, 299; 76 Am. Jur. 2d Trusts § 180.