BANKING o In 1980, she found out that the respondent was in possession of the

[43] CANEZO v ROJAS property and was cultivating the same. She also discovered that the
GR No. 148788 | Nov 23, 2007 | Nachura tax declaration over the property was already in the name of
Agus Crispulo Rojas.
PETITIONERS: SOLEDAD CAÑEZO, substituted by WILLIAM CAÑEZO and ● MTC ruled in favor of Canezo and ordered Rojas to surrender possession
VICTORIANO CAÑEZO and pay damages.
RESPONDENTS: CONCEPCION ROJAS ● RTC reversed on the ground of acquisitive prescription and that the action
TOPIC: Nature of Express Trust had prescribed.
● On MR, the RTC amended its decision and held that the action had not yet
CASE SUMMARY: Petitioner alleged that she was the owner of land possessed by prescribed considering that the petitioner merely entrusted the property to
Respondent. Petitioner alleged that it was being held in trust for her by her father. SC her father.
denied her petition on the ground that she was unable to discharge her burden of o The ten-year prescriptive period for the recovery of a property held
proving the existence of a trust relationship. in trust would commence to run only from the time the trustee
repudiates the trust.
DOCTRINE: A trust is the legal relationship between one person having an equitable ● CA reversed the RTC and held that the petitioner's inaction for several years
ownership of property and another person owning the legal title to such property, the casts a serious doubt on her claim of ownership over the parcel of land. It
equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties noted that 17 years lapsed since she discovered that respondent was in
and the exercise of certain powers by the latter. adverse possession of the property before she instituted an action to recover
the same. And during the probate proceedings, the petitioner did not even
Express trusts are those which are created by the direct and positive acts of the contest the inclusion of the property in the estate of Crispulo Rojas.
parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a o The CA further held that, assuming that there was an implied trust
trust. between the petitioner and her father over the property, her right of
action to recover the same would still be barred by prescription
In express trusts and resulting trusts, a trustee cannot acquire by prescription a since 49 years had already lapsed since Crispulo adversely
property entrusted to him unless he repudiates the trust. The basis of the rule is that possessed the contested property in 1948.
the possession of a trustee is not adverse. Not being adverse, he does not acquire by
prescription the property held in trust. ISSUES and RULING:
● WON there was an existence of a trust over the property – express or implied –
FACTS: between the petitioner and her father. – NO. Petitioner had the burden to prove
● On Jan 29 1997, Petitioner Canezo filed a complaint for the recovery of real the existence of the trust relationship and she failed to discharge the burden.
property with the MTC of Biliran against her father’s second wife, Respondent Thus, in the absence of a trust relation, we can only conclude that Crispulo's
Rojas. uninterrupted possession of the subject property for 49 years, coupled with the
o Petitioner alleged that she bought the parcel of land in 1939 from performance of acts of ownership, such as payment of real estate taxes, ripened
Crisogono Limpiado, although the transaction was not reduced into ownership.
into writing. o A trust is the legal relationship between one person having an equitable
o She entrusted the said land to her father, Crispulo Rojas, who took ownership of property and another person owning the legal title to such
possession of, and cultivated, the property. property, the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the
 performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain powers by the ▪ In this case, the only evidence to support the claim that an
latter. express trust existed between the petitioner and her father
o Trusts are either express or implied. was the self-serving testimony of the petitioner. Bare
▪ Express trusts are those which are created by the direct allegations do not constitute evidence adequate to support
and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, a conclusion.
or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a trust. o In one case, the Court allowed oral testimony to prove the existence of a
▪ Implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, trust, which had been partially performed. It was stressed therein that what
are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters is important is that there should be an intention to create a trust.
of intent or, independently, of the particular intention of ▪ However, an inference of the intention to create a trust,
the parties, as being superinduced on the transaction by made from language, conduct or circumstances, must be
operation of law basically by reason of equity. made with reasonable certainty. It cannot rest on vague,
● An implied trust may either be a resulting trust uncertain or indefinite declarations. An inference of
or a constructive trust. intention to create a trust, predicated only on
o In express trusts and resulting trusts, a trustee cannot acquire by circumstances, can be made only where they admit of no
prescription a property entrusted to him unless he repudiates the trust. other interpretation.
▪ The basis of the rule is that the possession of a trustee is ▪ Although no particular words are required for the creation
not adverse. Not being adverse, he does not acquire by of an express trust, a clear intention to create a trust must
prescription the property held in trust. be shown; and the proof of fiduciary relationship must be
o Acquisitive prescription may bar the action of the beneficiary against the clear and convincing.
trustee in an express trust for the recovery of the property held in trust o What distinguishes a trust from other relations is the separation of the legal
where (a) the trustee has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation title and equitable ownership of the property. In a trust relation, legal title is
amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust; (b) such positive acts of vested in the fiduciary while equitable ownership is vested in a cestui que
repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust, and (c) the trust.
evidence thereon is clear and conclusive. ▪ Such is not true in this case
o As a rule, however, the burden of proving the existence of a trust is on the ● The petitioner alleged in her complaint that the
party asserting its existence, and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily tax declaration of the land was transferred to the
show the existence of the trust and its elements. The presence of the name of Crispulo without her consent. Had it
following elements must be proved: been her intention to create a trust and make
▪ (1) a trustor or settlor who executes the instrument Crispulo her trustee, she would not have made
creating the trust; an issue out of this because in a trust agreement,
▪ (2) a trustee, who is the person expressly designated to legal title is vested in the trustee. The trustee
carry out the trust; would necessarily have the right to transfer the
▪ (3) the trust res, consisting of duly identified and definite tax declaration in his name and to pay the taxes
real properties; and on the property. These acts would be treated as
▪ (4) the cestui que trust, or beneficiaries whose identity beneficial to the cestui que trust and would not
must be clear. amount to an adverse possession.
o The existence of express trusts concerning real property may not be
established by parol evidence. It must be proven by some writing or deed. Neither can it be deduced that a resulting trust was created.
  A resulting trust is a species of implied trust that is presumed always to o The relation of trustee and cestui que trust does not in fact exist,
have been contemplated by the parties, the intention as to which can be and the holding of a constructive trust is for the trustee himself,
found in the nature of their transaction although not expressed in a deed or and therefore, at all times adverse.
instrument of conveyance. A resulting trust is based on the equitable
doctrine that it is the more valuable consideration than the legal title that DISPOSITIVE:
determines the equitable interest in property. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the
 In order to establish an implied trust in real property by parol evidence, the Court of Appeals, dated September 7, 2000, and Resolution dated May 9, 2001, are
proof should be as fully convincing as if the acts giving rise to the trust AFFIRMED.
obligation are proven by an authentic document. An implied trust, in fine,
cannot be established upon vague and inconclusive proof.37 In the present SO ORDERED.
case, there was no evidence of any transaction between the petitioner and
her father from which it can be inferred that a resulting trust was intended.
PROVISIONS:
● NCC: Article x, Section y, par. Z: “xxximportant section of lawxxx”
Assuming that such a relation existed, it terminated upon Crispulo's death in 1978. A
● P.D. No. 139843: “xxximportant section of special laws
trust terminates upon the death of the trustee where the trust is personal to the
trustee in the sense that the trustor intended no other person to administer it.

A constructive trust is one created not by any word or phrase, either expressly or
impliedly, evincing a direct intention to create a trust, but one which arises in order to
satisfy the demands of justice. It does not come about by agreement or intention but
in the main by operation of law, construed 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.
 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.
 A constructive trust, unlike an express trust, does not emanate from, or
generate a fiduciary relation.
o 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.