This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2012-10-10 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| However, the action to recover property held in trust prescribes after 10 years from the time the cause of action accrues,[22] which is from the time of actual notice in case of unregistered deed.[23] In this case, Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas claimed to have knowledge of the extrajudicial settlement with sale after the death of their father, Enrique, in 1994 which spouses Uy failed to refute. Hence, the complaint filed in 1997 was well within the prescriptive period of 10 years. | |||||
|
2008-12-16 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Aying,[8] the Court differentiated two kinds of implied trusts, to wit:x x x In turn, implied trusts are either resulting or constructive trusts. These two are differentiated from each other as follows: | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| However, in a number of cases in the past, the Court has consistently ruled that if the person claiming to be the owner of the property is in actual possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.[55] The reason for this is that one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right.[56] The reason being, that his undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.[57] Thus, considering that Lucia continuously possessed the subject lot, her right to institute a suit to clear the cloud over her title cannot be barred by the statute of limitations. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As previously stated, the rule that a trustee cannot, by prescription, acquire ownership over property entrusted to him until and unless he repudiates the trust, applies to express trusts and resulting implied trusts. However, in constructive implied trusts, prescription may supervene even if the trustee does not repudiate the relationship. Necessarily, repudiation of the said trust is not a condition precedent to the running of the prescriptive period.[44] A constructive trust, unlike an express trust, does not emanate from, or generate a fiduciary relation. While in an express trust, a beneficiary and a trustee are linked by confidential or fiduciary relations, in a constructive trust, there is neither a promise nor any fiduciary relation to speak of and the so-called trustee neither accepts any trust nor intends holding the property for the beneficiary.[45] The relation of trustee and cestui que trust does not in fact exist, and the holding of a constructive trust is for the trustee himself, and therefore, at all times adverse. | |||||
|
2007-08-10 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| However, in a number of cases in the past, the Court declared that if the person claiming to be the owner of the property is in actual possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.[29] The reason for this is that one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the rationale for the rule being that his undisturbed possession provides him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by the one who is in possession.[30] | |||||
|
2007-06-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The party who alleges the fact has the burden of proving it. The burden of proof is assigned to the defendant of a claim when he or she alleges an affirmative defense, which is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the complainant's cause of action - the existence of the receipts, in the present case - but is one which, if established, will be a good defense, i.e., an avoidance of the claim.[25] One who alleges an affirmative defense that is denied by the complainant - the falsity of the receipts, in this case - has the burden of proving it. Unless the party asserting the affirmative of an issue sustains the burden of proof, his or her cause will not succeed. If he or she fails to establish the facts of which the matter asserted is predicated, the complainant is entitled to a verdict or decision in his or her favor. [26] In this case, U-BIX's affirmative defense that the receipts are spurious is rejected due to utter lack of proof. | |||||
|
2006-02-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Whether there is fiduciary relation between petitioners and respondents is of no moment. Construing the provision of Article 1456, the Court in Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Aying[53] stated:A deeper analysis of Article 1456 reveals that it is not a trust in the technical sense for in a typical trust, confidence is reposed in one person who is named a trustee for the benefit of another who is called the cestui que trust, respecting property which is held by the trustee for the benefit of the cestui que trust. A constructive trust, unlike an express trust, does not emanate from, or generate a fiduciary relation. While in an express trust, a beneficiary and a trustee are linked by confidential or fiduciary relations, in a constructive trust, there is neither a promise nor any fiduciary relation to speak of and the so-called trustee neither accepts any trust nor intends holding the property for the beneficiary. | |||||