Professional Documents
Culture Documents
)
Seller bound himself to work for the titling at his own expense the portion of the land sold to buyer but
title issued in name of seller.
Facts:
In 1939,Francisco Ang Bansing, owner of an unregistered tract of land with an area of 29 hectares, sold
to Juan Cruz Yap Chuy a portion of said land (DAVAO CITY), Lot 1846-C with an area of around 5
hectares. In the deed of sale, BANSING made the following commitment: I hereby agree to work for
the titling of the entire area of land under my own expenses and the expenses for the titling of the
portion sold (by) me shall be under the expenses of CHUY. Ten months later, CHUY sold to the
Government Lot 1846-C. In 1941, BANSING executed an afdavit wherein he conrmed the previous
sale to CHUY clarifying that the exact area of the lot sold is 61,107 square meters and certifying that he
intended to cede and transfer the lot to CHUY after the survey of BANSINGs land. The afdavit was
registered. Subsequently, BANSING obtained original certicate of title for the 29-hectare land. By
Presidential Proclamation, certain parcels of land forming part of the Governments private domain
were transferred to MDA (Mindanao Development Authority, now Southern Philippines Development
Administration), a government agency, subject to private rights, if any. Lot 1846-C was among the
parcels of land transferred to MDA in said proclamation. In 1969, MDA led suit against BASNSING
for the reconveyance of the title over Lot 1846-C after the latter ignored repeated demands to the
transfer of title to MDA.
Issue:
Whether BANSING a trustee in an express trust covering Lot 1846-C, and, therefore, the lot should be
adjudicated to MDA?
Held:
No. The stipulation in the deed of sale does not categorically create an obligation on the part of
BANSING to hold the property in trust for CHUY. Hence, there is no express trust. It is essential to the
creation of an express trust that the settlor presently and unequivocably make a disposition of property
and make himself the trustee of the property for the benet of another. While BANSING had agreed
that he will work for the titling of the entire area of my land under my own expenses, it is not clear
therefrom whether said statement refers to the 29-hectare parcel of land or to that portion left to him
after the sale. A failure on the part of the settlor de nitely to describe the subject matter of the
supposed trust or the bene ciaries or object thereof is strong evidence that he intended no trust. And
even assuming that an express trust was created, BANSING had long repudiated it when he refused to
deliver and convey the title to the property to MDA, the alleged bene ciary to the trust. MDA did not
take any action until after the lapse of 23 years. (Mindanao Development Authority vs. Court of
Appeals, supra.)
(Geronimo and Isidro vs. Nava and Aquino, 105 Phil. 145 [1959].)
Vendee a retro, though the title to the property was still in his name, recognized the right to repurchase
of vendor a retro by allowing the latter to exercise acts of ownership over the property.
Facts:
The trial court declared in a decision that JOSE NAVA and WIFE FELISA AQUINO had the right to
redeem four (4) lots with a house of strong materials, and ordered AGATONA GERONIMO and
HUSBAND INOCENCIO ISIDORO to make the resale of the property in favor of JOSE NAVA and WIFE
FELISA AQUINO . After the decision had become nal and executory, AGATONA GERONIMO and
HUSBAND INOCENCIO ISIDORO suggested that the tenants of the house pay his rentals to S instead of
to him. Not only this but when the tenants left the house, JOSE NAVA and WIFE FELISA AQUINO took
possession of, and exercised acts of, ownership over the house and AGATONA GERONIMO and
HUSBAND INOCENCIO ISIDORO all along showed conformity thereto.
Issue:
Whether there was an express trust?
Held:
Yes. The acts of AGATONA GERONIMO and HUSBAND INOCENCIO ISIDORO should be construed as
a recognition of the fact that the property, though still in his name, is to be held in trust for JOSE NAVA
and WIFE FELISA AQUINO , to be conveyed to the latter upon payment of the repurchase price. Such
trust is an express one, not subject to prescription.
Held:
No, there may be a moral duty on the part of petitioners to convey the one-half portion of the property
previously sold to private respondent. However, they are under no legal obligation to do so. Hence, the
action to quiet title filed by private respondent must fail.
(1) Petitioners did not act in bad faith. There is no suf cient basis for the trial court to conclude
that herein petitioners acted in bad faith in their dealings with the Campo spouses. The latter had full
knowledge of the existing mortgage of the whole property in favor of GSIS prior to the sale of the onehalf portion to them. There is also no showing that as one of the considerations of the sale, herein
petitioners undertook to release the property from the mortgage at all costs. With this condition of the
property at the time of the sale, private respondents were forewarned of the consequences of their
transaction with the petitioners.
(2) Petitioners did not deliberately allow the mortgage to be foreclosed. There is also no basis to
conclude that petitioners deliberately allowed the loan to lapse and the mortgage to be foreclosed. No
speci c act or series of acts were presented and proven from which it could be safely concluded that
the failure of petitioners to pay off their loan was deliberate. They explained that their nancial
condition prevented them from dutifully complying with their obligations to the GSIS. In a display of
their good faith and fair dealing after the property was foreclosed, the petitioners, realizing the
imminent loss of the said property, even granted the private respondent the right to redeem it from the
GSIS. This right was granted in the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by petitioners in favor of the
Campo spouses. Moreover, it was also stipulated that private respondent recognized the superior lien of
GSIS on the property and agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the mortgage. These
stipulations were all contained in the Deed. In view of the failure of either the Manzanilla spouses or
the Campo spouses to redeem the property from GSIS, title to the property was consolidated in the
name of GSIS. The new title cancelled the old title in the name of the Manzanilla spouses. GSIS at this
point had a clean title free from any lien in favor of any person including that of the Campo spouses.
(3) Action to quiet title must fail. If it were true that petitioners deliberately allowed the loan to
lapse and the mortgage to be foreclosed, we do not see how these circumstances can be utilized by
them to their advantage. There was no guarantee that petitioners would be able to redeem the property
in the event the mortgage thereon was foreclosed as in fact they failed to redeem because they had no
money. On the other hand, had they opted to eventually exercise their right of redemption after
foreclosure, they would be under a legal duty to convey one-half portion thereof sold to the Campo
spouses because by then, title to the property would still be in their name. Either way, petitioners were
bound to lose either the entire property in case of failure to redeem or the one-half portion thereof sold
to private respondent in the case of redemption. Further, should petitioners let the period of redemption
lapse without exercising the right of redemption, as what happened in this case, there was no guarantee
that the same could be reacquired by them from GSIS nor would GSIS be under any legal duty to resell
the property to them. There may be a moral duty on the part of petitioners to convey the one-half
portion of the property previously sold to private respondents. However, they are under no legal
obligation to do so. Hence, the action to quiet title led by private respondent must fail.
(4) There was no mistake or fraud on the part of petitioners. Article 1456 has no application in the
case at bar. There was no mistake nor fraud on the part of petitioners when the subject property was
reacquired from the GSIS. The fact that they previously sold one-half portion thereof has no more
signi cance in this re-acquisition. Private respondents right over the one-half portion was obliterated
when absolute ownership and title passed on to the GSIS after the foreclosure
sale. The property as held by GSIS had a clean title. The property that was passed on to petitioners
retained that quality of title.
(5) Second buyer acted in good faith. As regards the rights of private respondent Ines Carpio, she is
a buyer in good faith and for value. There was no showing that at the time of the sale to her of the
subject property, she knew of any lien on the property except the mortgage in favor of the Bian Rural
Bank. No other lien was annotated on the certi cate of title. She is also not required by law to go
beyond what appears on the face of the title. When there is nothing on the certi cate of title to indicate
any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property or any encumbrances thereon, the purchaser is not
required to explore further than what the Torrens Title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden
defect or inchoate right thereof.