RAMOS v.

RAMOS
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS OF ACTION TO ENFORCE IMPLIED TRUSTS

G.R. No. L-19872. December 3, 1974

FACTS: Spouses Martin Ramos and Candida Tanate died on October 4, 1906 and October 26, 1880, respectively.
They were survived by their 3 children. Moreover, Martin was survived by his 7 natural children. In December
1906, a special proceeding for the settlement of the intestate estate of said spouses was conducted. Rafael
Ramos, a brother of Martin, administered the estate for more than 6 years. Eventually, a partition project was
submitted which was signed by the 3 legitimate children and 2 of the 7 natural children. A certain Timoteo
Zayco signed in representation of the other 5 natural children who were minors. The partition was sworn to
before a justice of peace.

The conjugal hereditary estate was appraised at P74,984.93, consisting of 18 parcels of land, some head of
cattle and the advances to the legitimate children. ½ thereof represented the estate of Martin. 1/3 thereof was
the free portion or P12,497.98. The shares of the 7 natural children were to be taken from that 1/3 free portion.
Indeed, the partition was made in accordance with the Old Civil code. Thereafter, Judge Richard Campbell
approved the partition project. The court declared that the proceeding will be considered closed and the record
should be archived as soon as proof was submitted that each heir had received the portion adjudicated to him.
On February 3, 1914, Judge Nepumoceno asked the administrator to submit a report showing that the shares
of the heirs had been delivered to them as required by the previous decision. Nevertheless, the manifestation
was not in strict conformity with the terms of the judge’s order and with the partition project itself. 8 lots of
the Himamaylan Cadastre were registered in equal shares in the names of Gregoria (widow of Jose Ramos) and
her daughter, when in fact the administrator was supposed to pay the cash adjudications to each of them as
enshrined in the partition project. Plaintiffs were then constrained to bring the suit before the court seeking
for the reconveyance in their favor their corresponding participations in said parcels of land in accordance with
Article 840 of the old Civil Code. Note that 1/6 of the subject lots represents the 1/3 free portion of martin’s
shares which will eventually redound to the shares of his 7 legally acknowledged natural children. The
petitioners’ action was predicated on the theory that their shares were merely held in trust by defendants.
Nonetheless, no Deed of Trust was alleged and proven. Ultimately, the lower court dismissed the complaint on
the grounds of res judicata, prescription and laches.

ISSUE: Whether or not the plaintiffs’ action was barred by prescription, laches and res judicata to the effect
that they were denied of their right to share in their father’s estate.

RULING: There is a rule that a trustee cannot acquire by prescription the ownership of property entrusted to
him, or that an action to compel a trustee to convey property registered in his name in trust for the benefit of
the cestui qui trust does not prescribed or that the defense of prescription cannot be set up in an action to
recover property held by a person in trust for the benefit of another, or that property held in trust can be
recovered by the beneficiary regardless of the lapse of time.

That rule applies squarely to express trusts. The basis of the rule is that the possession of a trustee is not
adverse. Not being adverse, he does not acquire by prescription the property held in trust. Thus, section 38 of
Act 190 provides that the law of prescription does not apply in the case of a continuing and subsisting trust.