GOMEZ vs DUYAN

Pagpapahayag case

, the trust created was not merely implied as held by the Court of Appeals but belongs to the
express kind. Based on the provisions of the Civil Code and jurisprudence, "Express trusts
are those which the direct and positive acts of the parties create, by some writing, deed or
will, or words evincing an intention to create a trust."
Even if the word "trust" was not expressly used by the signatories to the 10 February 1978
Pagpapahayag and the document did not expressly state that a trust was being established
by reason thereof, the establishment of an express trust cannot be discounted. Under the
Civil Code, "No particular words are required for the creation of an express trust, it being
sufficient that a trust is clearly intended."
under the law on Trusts, it is not necessary that the document expressly state and provide
for the express trust, for it may even be created orally, no particular words are required for
its creation
Petitioners cannot rely on the registration of the disputed property and the corresponding
issuance of a certificate of title in their name as vesting ownership on them simply because
an express trust over the property was created in favor of respondents. It has been held that
a trustee who obtains a Torrens title over the property held in trust by him for another
cannot repudiate the trust by relying on the registration.
The law safeguards the rightful party's interest in titled land from fraud and improper
technicalities by allowing such party to bring an action for reconveyance of whatever he has
been deprived of as long as the property has not been transferred or conveyed to an
innocent purchaser for value. 47 The action while respecting the registration decree as
incontrovertible, seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the
rightful owner. 48 As this Court held in the case of Escobar vs. Locsin, "The Torrens system
was never calculated to foment betrayal in the performance of a trust."

Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Aying

G.R. No. 144773, 458 SCRA 496

Facts:
Crisanta Maloloy-on petitioned for the issuance of a cadastral decree in her favor over a
parcel of land. After her death a decree in the name of her children (Aying siblings) was
issued. The certificate of title was, however, lost during the war. In 1964, all the heirs of
the Aying siblings executed an Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of
Absolute Sale, conveying the parcel of land to the Aznar Brothers Realty Company.
In 1988, the Company filed a Petition for Reconstitution of the Original Title. The petition
was granted and an OCT was issued in the company's name. In 1991 the Company,
claiming to be the rightful owner of the subject property, sent out notices to vacate,
addressed to persons occupying the property. The Company then filed a complaint for
ejectment against the occupants. The MTC ordered the occupants to vacate the
property.
In 1994, the MTC ordered the occupants to vacate the property. The appeal reached the
SC which rendered a decision in favor of the Company.
Meanwhile, the Ayings, along with other persons claiming to be descendants of the eight
Aying siblings (around 220 persons), had filed a complaint for cancellation of the Extra-

Judicial Partition with Absolute Sale. The Ayings alleged they were the owners of the
property and that the extra-judicial partition of real estate with deed of absolute sale is a
fraud and was null and void ab initio because not all the co-owners of subject property
affixed their signature on said document and some of the co-owners who supposedly
signed said document had been dead at the time of the execution thereof.

The RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription and declared the ExtraJudicial Partition as valid and binding. The CA modified the RTC and held that the heirs
of Emiliano Aying, Simeon Aying and Roberta Aying were the lawful owners of 3/8 of the
contested property (because they did not participate in the execution of said document).
Issues:
Whether or not the Ayings cause of action is imprescriptible; and
If their right to bring action is indeed imprescriptible, may the principle of laches apply.
Held/Ratio:
Yes, the prescriptive period applies since the Ayings had never occupied or been in
possession of the land in dispute. Laches cannot be applied against heirs of Emiliano
and Simeon Aying, as they took action to protect their interest well within the period
accorded them by law.
An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust must perforce
prescribe in ten years and not otherwise. An action for reconveyance based on an
implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title
over the property. The ten-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date of
registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the
property, but if the person claiming to be the owner thereof is in actual possession of the
property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the
property, does not prescribe.
What is the date from which the ten-year period should be reckoned? Since the ExtraJudicial Partition was registered under Act No. 3344 and not under Act No. 496, the Land
Registration Act, the document is deemed not registered. Accordingly, the ten-year
prescriptive period cannot be reckoned from 1964, the date of registration under Act No.
3344. The prescriptive period only began to run from the time the Ayings had actual
notice of the Extra-Judicial Partition.
Evidence as to the date when the ten-year prescriptive period began exists only as to
the heirs of Roberta Aying (1967). As to the heirs of Emiliano Aying and Simeon Aying,
there is no clear evidence of the date when they discovered the document conveying the
subject land to petitioner. Hence, with regard to said heirs, the Court may consider the
admission in the amended complaint that they learned of the conveyance of the disputed
land only in 1991 when the Company sent notices to vacate to the occupants of the
subject land, as the date from which the ten-year prescriptive period should be

reckoned. Respondents filed their Amended Complaint on December 6, 1993.24 Thus,

with regard to the heirs of Roberta Aying who had knowledge of the conveyance as far
back as 1967, their cause of action is already barred by prescription when said amended
complaint was filed as they only had until 1977 within which to bring action. As to the
respondent heirs of Emiliano and Simeon Aying, they were able to initiate their action for
reconveyance of property based on implied or constructive trust well within the ten-year
prescriptive period reckoned from 1991 when they were sent by the Company a notice to
vacate the subject property.