JULIO v DALANDAN

FACTS

An affidavit was subscribed and sworn to by Clemente Dalandan. By the terms of this writing, Clemente Dalandan, deceased father of defendants Emiliano and Maria Dalandan, acknowledged that a four-hectare piece of riceland in Las Piñas, Rizal belonging to Victoriana Dalandan, whose only child and heir is plaintiff Victoria Julio, was posted as security for an obligation which he, Clemente Dalandan, assumed but, however, failed to fulfill. The result was that Victoriana's said land was foreclosed. The key provisions of said document are: “3. That this riceland owned by VICTORIANA DALANDAN whose sole heir is VICTORIA JULIO was posted as security for an obligation assumed by me even before the outbreak of the last war and because I failed to fulfill the obligation secured by her said farm the same was foreclosed; 4. That because of this, and as agreed upon between us, I accordingly held myself liable to Victoria Julio for the foreclosure of her said land, and I promised her that I would replace her aforesaid land which was foreclosed because of my obligation with another farm of more than four; (4) hectares, that is, one planted to four cavanes of seedlings, more or less;] 5. That my children (EMILIANO AND MARIA DALANDAN) may not be forced to give up the harvest of the farm herein above mentioned; 6.That neither may the land — which was exchanged for the farm with four cavanes of seedlings — be demanded immediately;” After the death of Clemente Dalandan, plaintiff requested from defendants to deliver the land to her, but they refused.

ISSUE

W/N Emiliano and Maria Dalandan are trustees of Victoria Julio.

HELD / RATIO

YES. Emiliano and Maria Dalandan are usufructuaries for an undetermined length of time. For so long as that period has not been fixed and has not elapsed, they hold the property. Theirs is to enjoy the fruits of the land and to hold the same as trustees of Victoria Julio. And this because, by the deed, Clemente Dalandan divested himself of the ownership — qualified solely by withholding enjoyment of the fruits and physical possession. In consequence, Clemente Dalandan cannot transmit to his heirs, the present defendants, such ownership. Nemo dat quod non habet. And then, the document is a declaration by Clemente Dalandan, now deceased, against his own proprietary interests. Such document is binding upon his heirs. While it is true that said deed did not in definitive words institute defendants as trustees, a duty is therein imposed upon them — when the proper time comes — to turn over both the fruits and the possession of the property to Victoria Julio. Not that this view is without statutory support. Article 1444 of the Civil Code states that: "No particular words are required for the creation of an express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended." In reality, the development of the trust as a method of disposition of property, so jurisprudence teaches, "seems in large part due to its freedom from formal requirements." This principle perhaps accounts for the provisions in Article 1444 just quoted. For, "technical or particular forms of words or phrases are not essential to the manifestation of intention to create a trust or to the establishment thereof." Nor would the use of some such words as "trust" or "trustee" essential to the constitution of a trust. Conversely, the mere fact that the word "trust" or

"trustee" was employed would not necessarily prove an intention to create a trust. What is important is whether the trustor manifested an intention to create the kind of relationship which in law is known as a trust. It is unimportant that the trustor should know that the relationship "which he intends to create is called a trust, and whether or not he knows the precise characteristics of the relationship which is called a trust."7 Here, that trust is effective as against defendants and in favor of the beneficiary thereof, plaintiff Victoria Julio, who accepted it in the document itself.

ANUNCIACION VDA. DE OUANO vs. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

Petitioners Anunciacion vda. de Ouano, Mario Ouano, Leticia Ouano Arnaiz and Cielo Ouano Martinez (the Ouanos) seek to nullify the Decision[1] dated September 3, 2004 of the Court of Appeals(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 78027, affirming the Order dated December 9, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court(RTC), Branch 57 in Cebu City, in Civil Case No. CEB-20743, a suit to compel the Republic of the Philippines and/or the Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) to reconvey to the Ouanos aparcel of land.

ISSUE:

Whether abandonment of the public use for which the subject properties were expropriated entitles petitioners to reacquire them

RULING:

If, for example, land is expropriated for a particular purpose, with the condition that when that purpose is ended or abandoned the property shall return to its former owner, then of course, when the purpose is terminated or abandoned, the former owner reacquires the property so expropriated. If, upon the contrary, however the decree of expropriation gives to the entity a fee simple title, then, of course, the land becomes the absolute property of the expropriator… and in that case the non-user does not have the effect of defeating the title acquired by the expropriation proceedings

HEIRS OF DOMINGO v RAMA

FACTS

Petitioners claim that they are the heirs of Domingo Valientes who, before his death, was the owner of a parcel of land in Zamboanga del Sur. In 1939, Domingo Valientes mortgaged the subject property to secure his loan to the spouses Leon Belen and Brigida Sescon (spouses Belen). In the 1950s, the Valientes family purportedly attempted, but failed, to retrieve the subject property from the spouses Belen. Through an allegedly forged document captioned VENTA DEFINITIVA purporting to be a deed of sale of the subject property between Domingo Valientes and the spouses Belen, the latter obtained Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-5, 427 in their name. On 1970, Maria Valientes Bucoy and Vicente Valientes, legitimate children of the late Domingo Valientes, had their Affidavit of Adverse Claim duly entered in the Memorandum of Encumbrances at the back of TCT No. T-5, 427. Upon the death of the spouses Belen, their surviving heirs Brigida Sescon Belen and Maria Lina Belen executed an extra-

judicial settlement with partition and sale in favor of private respondent Vilma Valencia-Minor, the present possessor of the subject property. On 1979, herein private respondent Minor filed with the courts a "PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF MEMORANDUM OF ENCUMBRANCE”. Private respondent Minor filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. 98-021 on the grounds of forum shopping and litis pendentia.

ISSUE

W/N action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust is imprescriptible

HELD

No. We have allowed actions for reconveyance based on implied trusts even beyond such one-year period, for such actions respect the decree of registration as incontrovertible. The right to seek reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust is not absolute nor is it imprescriptible. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property. As discussed above, Civil Case No. 98-021 was filed more than 28 years from the issuance of TCT No. T-5,427. This period is unreasonably long for a party seeking to enforce its right to file the appropriate case. Thus, petitioners' claim that they had not slept on their rights is patently unconvincing