Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 341 views

    Digest 07 - Palma Vs Cristobal

    Uploaded by

    Liaa Aquino
    Palma claimed ownership over a parcel of land based on certificates of title registered under his name. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case, finding that the land was actually community property held in trust by Palma. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Palma secured the title through fraud and in a fiduciary capacity for the true owners. As a trustee, Palma could not acquire ownership of the land by prescription against the beneficiaries. The fiduciary relationship prevented Palma from gaining an adverse title to the principal owners of the property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest 07 - Palma Vs Cristobal

    Uploaded by

    Liaa Aquino
    341 views2 pages
    Palma claimed ownership over a parcel of land based on certificates of title registered under his name. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case, finding that the land was actually community property held in trust by Palma. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Palma secured the title through fraud and in a fiduciary capacity for the true owners. As a trustee, Palma could not acquire ownership of the land by prescription against the beneficiaries. The fiduciary relationship prevented Palma from gaining an adverse title to the principal owners of the property.

    Original Description:

    Digest 07 - Palma vs Cristobal

    Original Title

    Digest 07 - Palma vs Cristobal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Palma claimed ownership over a parcel of land based on certificates of title registered under his name. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case, finding that the land was actually community property held in trust by Palma. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Palma secured the title through fraud and in a fiduciary capacity for the true owners. As a trustee, Palma could not acquire ownership of the land by prescription against the beneficiaries. The fiduciary relationship prevented Palma from gaining an adverse title to the principal owners of the property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    341 views2 pages

    Digest 07 - Palma Vs Cristobal

    Uploaded by

    Liaa Aquino
    Palma claimed ownership over a parcel of land based on certificates of title registered under his name. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case, finding that the land was actually community property held in trust by Palma. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Palma secured the title through fraud and in a fiduciary capacity for the true owners. As a trustee, Palma could not acquire ownership of the land by prescription against the beneficiaries. The fiduciary relationship prevented Palma from gaining an adverse title to the principal owners of the property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    PALMA vs CRISTOBAL

    FACTS:

    1909 - after registration proceedings under ACT 496, the original certificate of title was issued
    in the names of Palma and his wife (Luisa Cristobal).
    1923 - said certificate was cancelled by virtue of CFI decree, but was later substituted by
    another certificate of title also in the name of Palma and his wife.
    1928 - Bc of his wife's death, a new certificate was issued in Palma's name only
    Palma sought at first to eject Cristobal from a parcel of land in Tondo (TCT of w/c registered to
    Palma). Cristobal raised the question of ownership and the case was dismissed. Palma filed w/
    CFI Manila praying he be declared owner of the land and for Cristobal to be ordered to restore
    its possession to him and remove his house therefrom.
    The CFI dismissed the case, and when the case was brought to the CA it was similarly
    dismissed.
    CA concluded that the parcel of land in question is a community property held by Palma in trust
    for the real owners (respondent Cristobal being an heir of one of them), the registration having
    been made in accordance with an understanding between the coowners, by reason of the
    confidence they had in Palma and his wife.
    This confidence, close relationship, and the fact that co-owners were receiving their shares in
    the rentals, were the reasons why no step had been taken to partition the property.
    Before the death of Palma's wife, she called her husband and enjoined him to give her coowners their shares and he told her not to worry about it bc he would.
    The CA, in dismissing the case, invoked SC rulings w/c declared that the registration of the
    property in the name of the trustees in possession thereof, must be deemed to have been effected
    for the benefit of the principal/cestui que trust.
    Thus this appeal by certiorari.

    ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the case


    HELD: NO, the CA did not err. Palma contends that if he did commit fruad, Cristobal was in fact a
    part of it, but the SC held that the fact that Cristobal has been a party to the deception which resulted in
    Palma's securing in his name the title to a property not belonging to him, is not a valid reason for
    changing the legal relationship between the latter and its true owners to such an extent as to let them
    lose their ownership to a person trying to usurp it.
    Cristobal is not barred because his appearance as attorney for petitioner was not a misrepresentation
    which would induce Palma to believe that he recognized Palma as the sole owner of the property in
    controversy. The misrepresentation could deceive the court and outsiders, because they were not aware
    of the understanding between the co-owners that the property be registered in the name of Palma.
    Palma then claimed that even granting the property was owened by several co-owners he now owns it
    bc of prescription. This theory holds no water because, according to the pronouncement of the CA,
    Palma held the property and secured its the registration in his name in a fiduciary capacity, and it is
    elementary that a trustee cannot acquire by prescription the ownership of a property entrusted to him.
    The position of a trustee is of representative nature. His position is the position of a cestui que trust. It
    is logical that all benefits derived by the possession and acts of the agent, as such agent, should accrue
    to the benefit of his principal.

    The relations of an agent to his principal are fiduciary and in regard to property forming the subject
    matter of the agency, he is estopped from acquiring or asserting a title adverse to that of the principal.
    His position is analogous to that of a trustee and he cannot consistently, with the principles of good
    faith, be allowed to create in himself an interest in opposition to that of his principal or cestui que trust.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy