Scribd
Upload
81 views4 pages

M. Labanon Versus C. Labanon

1. Constancio Labanon settled on public land and cultivated it, asking his brother Maximo to file the land application under an agreement to divide the land. Maximo was issued the title but acknowledged Constancio's ownership of the eastern portion. 2. When Constancio's heirs demanded the title, Maximo's heirs questioned the validity of the agreement. The court upheld the express trust between the brothers, as Maximo never repudiated it. 3. Prescription does not apply to an express trust as long as the trustee does not renounce the trust. The court found the agreement was a valid express trust.

Uploaded by

SHeena MaRie ErAsmo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
81 views4 pages

M. Labanon Versus C. Labanon

1. Constancio Labanon settled on public land and cultivated it, asking his brother Maximo to file the land application under an agreement to divide the land. Maximo was issued the title but acknowledged Constancio's ownership of the eastern portion. 2. When Constancio's heirs demanded the title, Maximo's heirs questioned the validity of the agreement. The court upheld the express trust between the brothers, as Maximo never repudiated it. 3. Prescription does not apply to an express trust as long as the trustee does not renounce the trust. The court found the agreement was a valid express trust.

Uploaded by

SHeena MaRie ErAsmo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

1.

Heirs of Maximo Labanon vs Heirs of Constancio Labanon


FACTS:

Constancio Labanon settled upon a piece of alienable and disposable public


agricultural land situated in Kidapawan, Cotabato. He cultivated the said lot
and introduced permanent improvements. Constancio asked his brother,
Maximo, who was better educated to file a public land application under the
express agreement that they will divide the said lot as soon as it would be
feasible for them to do so. During the time of the application it was
Constancio who continued to cultivate the said lot. "The Homestead
Application was approved and an original Certificate of Title over said lot was
issued in favor of Maximo Labanon. Maximo Labanon executed a document
denominated as assignment of Rights and Ownership' to safeguard the
ownership and interest of his brother Constancio Labanon. Later on, Maximo
executed a sworn statement reiterating his desire that his elder brother
Constancio, his heirs and assigns shall own the eastern portion of the Lot.
After the death of Constancio, his heirs executed an (e)xtra judicial
settlement of estate with simultaneous sale over the aforesaid eastern
portion of the lot in favor of Alberto Makilang, the husband of Visitacion
Labanon, one of the children of Constancio. Subsequently, the parcel of land
was declared for taxation purposes in the name of Alberto. The defendants
heirs of Maximo caused to be cancelled from the records of the
defendant provincial assessor of Cotabato the aforesaid tax declaration and
the latter, without first verifying the legality of the basis for said
cancellation, cancelled the same. The heirs of Constancio demanded the
owners copy of the certificate of title covering the aforesaid Lot to be
surrendered to the register of deeds.

ISSUE: WON the trust agreement alleged made by Constancio Labanon and
Maximo Labanon prescribed.

HELD:

Maximo Labanon maintained the title over the property while acknowledging
the true ownership of Constancio Labanon over the eastern portion of the
land. The existence of an express trust cannot
be doubted nor disputed. In the case at bar, Maximo never repudiated the
express trust instituted between him and Constancio and after Maximos
death, the trust could no longer be renounced thus, respondents right to
enforce the trust agreement can no longer be restricted nor prejudiced by
prescription. In addition, petitioners can no longer question the validity of
the positive declaration of Maximo Labanon in the assignment of rights and
ownership in favor of the late Constancio Labanon, as the agreement was
not impugned during the formers lifetime and there cognition of his
brothers rights over the eastern portion of the low was further affirmed and
confirmed in the subsequent sworn statement.
Facts: Petitioner (canezo) filed complaint for recovery of real property against respondent
Rojas.
Petitioner filed complaint for recovery of real property against Rojas (2nd wife of her dad) plus
damages- subject property is a 4k sqm unregistered land in Biliran.
Petitioner alleges she bought the land from Limpiado and the transaction was not reduced in
writing. She immediately took possession of said property.
She allegedly ENTRUSTED the property to his father when she and hubby left for Mindanao in
1984 and said father took possession of land and cultivated it.
In 1980 she found out that RESPONDENT (2nd wife) was in possession/cultivating the same as
well as tax declarations in Crispulo Rojass name (father).

Respondent claims that it was the father who bought the property the reason why tax
declaration was in his name and was in possession until death and property was included in
ESTATE which petitioner RECEIVED her share in the estate.
Respondent claims that father bought the property in 1948 and that is why the tax declarations
was in fathers name.
Father possessed and cultivated the land until his death. Upon his death in 1978, property was
part of ESTATE. Respondent claims that petitioner ought to have impleaded all of the heirs as
defendants.

Further claims that petitioner has abandoned her right over the property since she just filed her
complaint in 1997 MTC ruled in favor of petitioner- RTC reversed RTC reversed and ruled in
favor of Petitioner- CA ruled in favor of the respondents
MTC claims that there was no proof that father bought the property RTC 1st reversed MTC
stating that prescription took place and acquisitive prescription has already set.

RTC reveres its original decision stating that no prescription took place since petitioner
ENTRUSTED the property to her father, and that 10-year prescription starts from the day the
trustee REPUDIATES the trust. RTC found no evidence showing such.

CA ruled in favor of the respondent- father is owner, petitioners inaction for 17 years since
discovery of possession of 2nd wife tax declaration was in fathers name, father was in adverse
possession, and property was included in estate. CA: even assuming Implied trust, petitioners
right of action to recover is barred by prescription - 49 YEARS lapsed.

Petitioner contends that there was EXPRESS TRUST hence prescription will not set in.

ISSUE: WON trust existed.

HELD: NO, neither express or implied resulting TRUST existed in this case

Intention to create trust CANNOT be inferred from petitioners testimony and on the facts and
circumstance Petitioner only TESTIFIED that father agreed to give her proceeds of the
production of the land.
SC states that had it been had it been her intention to create trust, she should not have made
an issue of the tax declarations. Trustee would necessarily have legal title hence right to
transfer the tax declarations in his name as this was more beneficial to the beneficiary.

In light of the disquisitions, we hold that there was no express trust or resulting trust established
between the petitioner and her father. Thus, in the absence of a trust relation, we can only
conclude that Crispulos uninterrupted possession of the subject property for 49 years, coupled
with the performance of acts of ownership, such as payment of real estate taxes, ripened into
ownership.

Assuming trust existed it was terminated upon DEATH of father.


A TRUST TERMINATES UPON DEATH of the trustee where the trust is PERSONAL to the
trustee in the sense that the trustor INTENDED NO OTHER person to administer.
If father was appointed as trustee of the property, such appointment cannot be intended to be
conveyed to the respondent or heirs.
After death, the respondent had no right to retain possession of the property. At such point, a
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST would be created over the property by operation of law where one
mistakenly retains property which rightfully belongs to another, a constructive trust is the proper
remedial device to correct the situation.

GR: Trustee cannot acquire by prescription ownership over property entrusted to him UNLESS
he repudiates the TRUST. Applicable to EXPRESS and RESULTING IMPLIED TRUST and
NOT to constructive trust.

In constructive trust 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.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals, dated September 7, 2000, and Resolution dated May 9, 2001, are AFFIRMED.

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