PNB Vs.

CA
FACTS: Private Respondent B.P. Mata & Co. Inc. (Mata), a private
corporation engaged in providing goods and services to shipping
companies. has acted as a manning or crewing agentfor Star Kist
Foods, Inc., USA (Star Kist). Mata makes advances for the crew's
expenses, fees,and basic personal needs. Subsequently, Mata
sends monthly billings to Star Kist, which in turnreimburses Mata by
sending a telegraphic transfer through banks for credit to the
latter'saccount.In 1975, Security Pacific National Bank (SEPAC) of
Los Angeles transmitted a cable messageto the International
Department of Philippine National Bank to pay the amount of
US$14,000 toMata by crediting the latter's account with the Insular
Bank of Asia and America (IBAA), perorder of Star Kist. PNB's
International Department noticed an error and sent a service
messageto SEPAC Bank. The latter replied with instructions that the
amount of US$14,000 should onlybe for US$1,400.
A cashier's check in the amount of US$1,400 representing
reimbursement from Star Kist, was issued by the Star Kist for the
account of Mata on February 25, 1975through the Insular Bank of
Asia and America (IBAA).
However, a few days later, PNB effected another payment in the
amount of US$14,000purporting to be another transmittal of
reimbursement from Star Kist, private respondent'sforeign principal.
Six years later, (in 1981), PNB requested Mata for refund of
US$14,00 after itdiscovered its error in effecting the second
payment.On February 4, 1982, PNB filed a civil case for collection
and refund of US$14,000 against Mataarguing that based on a
constructive trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, it has a right
torecover the said amount it erroneously credited to respondent
Mata.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Manila rendered judgment
dismissing the complaint rulingthat the instant case falls squarely
under Article 2154 on
solutio indebiti
and not under Article1456 on constructive trust. The lower court
ruled out constructive trust, applying strictly thetechnical definition
of a trust as "a right of property, real or personal, held by one party
for thebenefit of another; that there is a fiduciary relation between a
trustee and a
cestui que trust
asregards certain property, real, personal, money or choses in
action."
The appellate court, inaffirming the lower court, concluded
that petitioner's demand for the return of US$14,000 cannotprosper

because its cause of action had already prescribed under Article

1145, paragraph 2 ofthe Civil Code which states that action upon
quasi-contract must be commenced within 6 years.This is because
petitioner's complaint was filed only on February 4, 1982, almost
seven yearsafter March 11, 1975 when petitioner mistakenly made
payment to private respondent.Petitioner naturally opts for an
interpretation under constructive trust as its action filed onFebruary
4, 1982 can still prosper, as it is well within the prescriptive period
of ten (10) years asprovided by Article 1144, paragraph 2 of the
Civil Code.
ISSUE: WON petitioner may still claim the US$14,000 it erroneously
paid private respondentunder a constructive trust.
HELD/RULING: The Court rule in the negative. Although the Court is
aware that only seven (7) years lapsed after petitioner erroneously
credited private respondent with the said amount and that under
Article 1144, petitioner is well within the prescriptive period for the
enforcement of a constructive or implied trust, the Court rule that
petitioner's claim cannot prosper since it is already barred by
laches. It is a well-settled rule now that an action to enforce an
implied trust, whether resulting or constructive, may be barred not
only by prescription but also by laches.While prescription is
concerned with the fact of delay, laches deals with the effect
ofunreasonable delay. It is amazing that it took petitioner almost
seven years before it discovered that it had erroneously paid private
respondent.
(Virgil Maverick B. Lastimoza)
Morales Vs. CA
Ranulfo and Erlinda Ortiz claim that they are the absolute and
exclusive owners of the premises in question (318 sq.m. land
located at corner Umbria St. and Rosales Blvd. Brgy. Central,
Calbayog City) through their
purchase of the said property from Celso Avelino and stated the
following:
The property was purchased by Celso Avelino (the Ortiz's
predecessor in interest) when he was still a bachelor and a city fiscal
of Calbayog city from Alejandra Mendiola and Celita Bartolome
through an "Escritura de Venta." After the purchase, he caused the
transfer of the title as well as the tax declarations in
his name. He faithfully paid the taxes and kept the receipts thereof.
He also caused a survey of the premises in question with the Bureau
of Lands and built a residential house thereon. He took his parents
Rosendo

Avelino and Juana Ricaforte and his sister Aurea to live in his
property until their death. Celso Avelino then became an
Immigration Officer and later a Judge of the Court of First Instance in
Cebu so he left his property under the care of his sister, Aurea.
Without his knowledge, his nephew Rodolfo Morales (a son of his
other sister, Priscilla) constructed a beauty shop on the premises in
question. Celso thereafter sold the property to Ranulfo and Erlinda
Ortiz (Celso's neighbors), they paid the purchase price and a deed of
absolute sale was executed. Rodolfo Morales, however, refused to
vacate the premises unless he isnreimbursed P35,000. He also
occupied the residential building on the property, took in paying
boarders and even claimed ownership of the premises in question.
Rodolfo Morales contends that his grandparents Rosendo Avelino
and Juana Ricaforte originally owned the premises in question. The
property was allegedly bought by Celso Avelino who was entrusted
by Rosendo with the money to buy it. They caused the name of the
property to be under Celso Avelino being the only son. When
Rosendo Avelino and Juana Ricaforte died, their children: Celso
Avelino, Trinidad Cruz, Concepcion Peralta, Priscilla Morales and
Aurea Avelino succeeded as owners thereof.
Issues:
1. W/N Celso Avelino acquired the property as a mere trustee.
2. W/N Rodolfo Morales a builder in good faith that would entitle him
to reimbursement.
Held:
1. NO.
Trusts are either express or implied. Express trusts are created by
the intention of the trustor or of the parties. Implied trusts come into
being by operation of law, either through implication of an intention
to create a trust as a matter of law or through the imposition of the
trust irrespective of and even contrary to, any such intention.
Implied trusts are either resulting or constructive trusts.
Constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order
to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment.
Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable
consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or
interest and are presumed always to have been contemplated by
the parties. They arise from the nature of circumstances of the
consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person
becomes invested with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold
his legal title for the benefit
of another. A resulting trust in exemplified by Article 1448 of the
Civil Code: "There is an implied trust when property is sold, and the
legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another
having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the
trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. However, if the person to
whom title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of the
one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being

disputable presumed that there is gift in favor of a child. The last

sentence of Article 1448 gives one of the recognized exceptions to
the establishment of an implied resulting trust. (The other two would
be: when actual contrary intention is proved and when purchase is
made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express
provision.) As a rule the burden of proving the existence of trust is
on the party asserting its existence, and such proof must be clear
and satisfactorily show the existence of trust. While implied trusts
may be proved by noral evidence, evidence must be trustworthy
and received by the courts wth extreme caution. On this basis alone,
Rodolfo and Priscilla Morales' claim must fail. Rodolfo and Priscilla
relied merely on testimonial evidences which are self-serving. Proof
of Ranulfo and Erlinda Ortiz's lawful acquisition of the
property through Celso Avelinos ownership on the other hand was
supported by documentary evidences such as the deed of absolute
sale and tax declarations. Even testimonies of Celso's other sisters
prove that they believe that he is the true owner of the property.
The fact that the other siblings did not intervene in
this case to protect their right and that upon the death of their
parents no extra-judicial partition occurred further strengthens
Celso's ownership. Moreover, assuming that their claim that Celso
was a mere trustee is true, it still falls under the exemption under
the last sentence of Article 1448 which states that if the person to
whom the title conveyed is a child, there is a presumption that it is a
gift in favor of the child.
2. NO.
Article 448 (This is on builders in good faith, look it up nalang if you
want) only applies when a builder thinks he owns the land or
believes himself to have a claim of title. From the evidences
adduced, Rodolfo Morales knew from the beginning that he was not
the owner of the land. Rodolfo is not entitled to
reimbursement.
Goyangko Vs. UCPB
Goyanko, Jr. v. United Coconut Planters Bank G.R. No.
179096, 6 February 2013 Second Division, Brion,
J.
Nature:
Petition for Review on Certiorari
Facts:
In 1995, the late Joseph Goyanko, Sr. invested
2,000,000.00 with Philippine Asia Lending Investors, Inc.
(PALII). Goyanko, Sr.s legitimate

family, represented by Joseph Goyanko, Jr. (petitioner), the

administrator of Goyanko, Sr.s Estate , and his illegitimate
family presented conflicting claims to PALII for the release of
the investment. Pending the investigation of the conflicting
claims, PALII deposited the proceeds of the investment with
UCPB on October 29, 1996 under the name Phil Asia: ITF
(In Trust For) The Heirs of Joseph Goyanko, Sr. (ACCOUNT).
On
September 27, 1997, the deposit under the ACCOUNT was
1,509,318.76. On December 11, 1997, UCPB allowed PALII to
withdraw
1,500,000.00 from the Account, leaving a balance of only
9,318.76. When UCPB refused the demand to restore the
amount withdrawn plus legal interest from December 11,
1997, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC). In its answer to the complaint, UCPB
admitted, among others, the opening of the ACCOUNT under
the name ITF (In Trust For) The Heirs of Joseph Goyanko,
Sr., (ITF HEIRS) and the withdrawal on December 11, 1997.
After trial, the RTC dismissed petitioners complaint. It did
not consider the words ITF HEIRS sufficient to charge
UCPB with knowledge of any trust relation between PALII
and Goyankos heirs (HEIRS). It concluded that UCPB merely
performed its duty as a depository bank in allowing PALII to
withdraw from the ACCOUNT, as the contract of deposit was
officially only between PALII, in its own capacity, and UCPB.
Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed his case to the Court of
Appeals (CA). Before the CA, the petitioner maintained that
by opening the ACCOUNT, PALII established a trust by which
it was the
trustee and the HEIRS are the trustors - beneficiaries;
thus, UCPB should be liable for allowing the withdrawal.
After due consideration, the CA held that no express trust
was created between the HEIRS and PALII. For a trust to be
established, the law requires, among others, a competent
trustor and trustee and a clear intention to create a trust,
which were absent in this case. Quoting the RTC with
approval, the CA noted that the contract of deposit was only
between PALII in its own capacity and
UCPB, and the words ITF HEIRS were
insufficient to establish the existence of a trust. The CA
concluded that as no trust existed, expressly or impliedly,
UCPB is not liable for the amount withdrawn.
Issue:
Whether or not UCPB should be held liable for the amount
withdrawn because a trust agreement existed between PALII
and UCPB, in favor of the HEIRS, when PALII opened the
ACCOUNT with UCPB?

Held:
No. A trust, either express or implied,
is the fiduciary relationship x x x
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.
Express or direct trusts are created by the direct and
positive acts of the trustor or of the parties. No written
words are required to create an express trust. This is clear
from Article 1444 of the Civil Code, but, the creation of an
express trust must be firmly shown; it cannot be assumed
from loose and vague declarations or circumstances capable
of other interpretations.