Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. COA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 179096 2013-02-06	JOSEPH GOYANKO v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK BRION, J.
The petitioner argues in his petition that: first, an express trust was created, as clearly shown by PALII's March 28, 1996 and November 15, 1996 letters.[9] Citing jurisprudence, the petitioner emphasizes that from the established definition of a trust,[10] PALII is clearly the trustor as it created the trust; UCPB is the trustee as it is the party in whom confidence is reposed as regards the property for the benefit of another; and the HEIRS are the beneficiaries as they are the persons for whose benefit the trust is created.[11] Also, quoting Development Bank of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit,[12] the petitioner argues that the naming of the cestui que trust is not necessary as it suffices that they are adequately certain or identifiable.[13]
	GR No. 176959 2010-09-08	METROPOLITAN BANK v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES: RIVERSIDE MILLS CORPORATION PROVIDENT CASE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
A trust is a "fiduciary relationship with respect to property which involves the existence of equitable duties imposed upon the holder of the title to the property to deal with it for the benefit of another." A trust is either express or implied. Express trusts are those which the direct and positive acts of the parties create, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a trust.[15]
	GR No. 178624 2009-06-30	JOSE CONCEPCION v. COMELEC BRION, J.
More importantly, we had this to say in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit[18] - a case that involves a certiorari petition, under Rule 64 in relation with Rule 65, of a ruling of the Commission on Audit (a constitutional commission like COMELEC):The novel theory advanced by the OSG would necessarily require persons not parties to the present case - the DBP employees who are members of the Plan or the trustees of the Fund - to avail of certiorari under Rule 65. The petition for certiorari under Rule 65, however, is not available to any person who feels injured by the decision of a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The "person aggrieved" under Section 1 of Rule 65 who can avail of the special civil action of certiorari pertains only to one who was a party in the proceedings before the court a quo, or in this case, before the COA. To hold otherwise would open the courts to numerous and endless litigations. Since DBP was the sole party in the proceedings before the COA, DBP is the proper party to avail of the remedy of certiorari.
	GR NO. 165849 2007-12-10	GILBERT G. GUY v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Article 1440 of the Civil Code provides that: ART. 1440. A person who establishes a trust is called the trustor; one in whom confidence is reposed as regards property for the benefit of another person is known as the trustee; and the person for whose benefit the trust has been created is referred to as the beneficiary. In the early case of Gayondato v. Treasurer of the Philippine Islands,[23] this Court defines trust, in its technical sense, as "a right of property, real or personal, held by one party for the benefit of another." Differently stated, a trust is "a fiduciary relationship with respect to property, subjecting the person holding the same to the obligation of dealing with the property for the benefit of another person."[24]
	GR NO. 144148 2005-03-18	SPS. FELIZA DUYAN GOMEZ AND EUGENIO GOMEZ v. PURISIMA DUYAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In express terms, Feliza undertook in the subsequent Pagpapahayag to convey the property subject of the fictitious deed of sale to her own nephews and nieces who are the children of her brother Eulogio. To reiterate, Feliza stated "…At pag mangyari ang nasabing hatian ng lote, ay aming ilalagay agad sa pangalan ng aming mga pamangkin na sina Salome V. Duyan, Divina V. Duyan, Cresencia V. Duyan, Reulgina V. Duyan, Domincia, Rodrigo at Avencio C. Duyan".[29] It must be noted that this Pagpapahayag was entered into by Eulogio and Feliza after the supposed sale of the property on 25 January 1978. Based on the clear provisions of this document, the intent of the siblings to create a trust was manifest with Eulogio as the trustor, Feliza as the trustee and Eulogio's children as the beneficiaries or the cestui qui trust[30] of the res[31] which was the disputed property. This is based on the provision of the law on trusts which states that: Art. 1440. A person who establishes a trust is called the trustor; one in whom confidence is reposed as regards property for the benefit of another person is known as the trustee; and the person for whose benefit the trust has been created is referred to as the beneficiary.[32] However, the trust created was not merely implied as held by the Court of Appeals but belongs to the express kind. Based on the provisions of the Civil Code and jurisprudence, "Express trusts are those which the direct and positive acts of the parties create, by some writing, deed or will, or words evincing an intention to create a trust."[33]