This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Resulting trusts[65] arise from the nature or circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person becomes invested with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his title for the benefit of another.[66] It is founded on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title is determinative of equitable title or interest and is always presumed to have been contemplated by the parties.[67] Since the intent is not expressed in the instrument or deed of conveyance, it is to be found in the nature of the parties' transaction.[68] Resulting trusts are thus describable as intention-enforcing trusts.[69] An example of a resulting trust is Article 1453 of the Civil Code. | |||||
|
2015-09-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Intention - although only presumed, implied or supposed by law from the nature of the transaction or from the facts and circumstances accompanying the transaction, particularly the source of the consideration - is always an element of a resulting trust and may be inferred from the acts or conduct of the parties rather than from direct expression of conduct.[38] Certainly, intent as an indispensable element, is a matter that necessarily lies in the evidence, that is, by evidence, even circumstantial, of statements made by the parties at or before the time title passes.[39] Because an implied trust is neither dependent upon an express agreement nor required to be evidenced by writing, Article 1457 of our Civil Code authorizes the admission of parole evidence to prove their existence.[40] Parole evidence that is required to establish the existence of an implied trust necessarily has to be trustworthy and it cannot rest on loose, equivocal or Indefinite declarations.[41] In the instant petition, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the MeTC and the CA that, under the circumstances of the case, the parole evidence presented by respondent sufficiently proves that an implied trust was created in her favor. | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the claim of the respondents, it is not error for the trial court to rely on parol evidence, i.e., the oral testimonies of witnesses Simeon Juan Tong and Jose Juan Tong, to arrive at the conclusion that an implied resulting trust exists. What is crucial is the intention to create a trust. "Intention although only presumed, implied or supposed by law from the nature of the transaction or from the facts and circumstances accompanying the transaction, particularly the source of the consideration is always an element of a resulting trust and may be inferred from the acts or conduct of the parties rather than from direct expression of conduct. Certainly, intent as an indispensable element is a matter that necessarily lies in the evidence, that is, by evidence, even circumstantial, of statements made by the parties at or before the time title passes. Because an implied trust is neither dependent upon an express agreement nor required to be evidenced by writing, Article 1457 of our Civil Code authorizes the admission of parol evidence to prove their existence. Parol evidence that is required to establish the existence of an implied trust necessarily has to be trustworthy and it cannot rest on loose, equivocal or indefinite declarations."[18] | |||||