This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03635 affirming in toto the Decision[2] in Criminal Case No. Q-06-144482 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103 of Quezon City. The RTC Decision found Freddie Ladip y Rubio (accused) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. | |||||
|
2014-02-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Closely analogous cases of unenforceable contracts are those where a person signs a deed of extrajudicial partition in behalf of co-heirs without the latter's authority;[15] where a mother as judicial guardian of her minor children, executes a deed of extrajudicial partition wherein she favors one child by giving him more than his share of the estate to the prejudice of her other children;[16] and where a person, holding a special power of attorney, sells a property of his principal that is not included in said special power of attorney.[17] | |||||
|
2010-06-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In this case, the notarized Memorandum of Agreement and the certified true copies of the Portfolio Mix Analysis prepared by Citytrust clearly prove that petitioner invested P5,504,748.25, using funds of the Employees' Trust Fund, to purchase the MBP lot. Since the MBP lot was registered in VMC's name only, a resulting trust is created by operation of law. A resulting trust is based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable interest and is presumed to have been contemplated by the parties.[39] Based on this resulting trust, the Employees' Trust Fund is considered the beneficial co-owner of the MBP lot. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| A trust is the legal relationship between one person having an equitable ownership of property and another person owning the legal title to such property, the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain powers by the latter.[21] Trusts are either express or implied.[22] Express trusts are those which are created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a trust.[23] Implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent or, independently, of the particular intention of the parties, as being superinduced on the transaction by operation of law basically by reason of equity.[24] An implied trust may either be a resulting trust or a constructive trust. | |||||
|
2005-05-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Vda. De Esconde vs. Court of Appeals,[8] the Court expounded thus:Construing this provision of the Civil Code, in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, the Court stated: | |||||
|
2004-08-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Express trusts, sometimes referred to as direct trusts, are intentionally created by the direct and positive acts of the settlor or the trustor by some writing, deed, or will, or oral declaration.[45] It is created not necessarily by some written words, but by the direct and positive acts of the parties. No particular words are required, it being sufficient that a trust was clearly intended.[46] Unless required by a statutory provision, such as the Statute of Frauds, a writing is not a requisite for the creation of a trust.[47] Such a statute providing that no instruments concerning lands shall be "created" or declared unless by written instruments signed by the party creating the trust, or by his attorney, is not to be construed as precluding a creation of a trust by oral agreement, but merely as rendering such a trust unenforceable.[48] Contrary to the claim of petitioners, oral testimony is allowed to prove that a trust exists. It is not error for the court to rely on parol evidence, - - i.e., the oral testimonies of witnesses Emeteria Ringor, Julio Monsis and Teofilo Abalos - - which the appellate court also relied on to arrive at the conclusion that an express trust exists. What is crucial is the intention to create a trust. While oftentimes the intention is manifested by the trustor in express or explicit language, such intention may be manifested by inference from what the trustor has said or done, from the nature of the transaction, or from the circumstances surrounding the creation of the purported trust.[49] | |||||