Facts:

The case of Antonio Ma. Barreto et al. vs. Augusto H. Tuason et al. (G.R. No. 23923, March 23, 1926) revolves around a family trust established by Don Antonio Tuason in 1794, which created a mayorazgo (an estate tail) in favor of his first-born son and his descendants. The mayorazgo was approved by a Royal Cedula in 1795, stipulating that four-fifths of the revenue from the properties would go to the first-born and one-fifth to the other eight children. The plaintiffs, descendants of four of the eight children, claimed that the mayorazgo constituted a family trust (fideicomiso familiar) and was subject to the provisions of the Statute of Disentailment of 1820. They alleged that the defendants, descendants of the first-born, had committed fraud by obtaining a Torrens title to the entailed properties and had failed to account for the revenues from the mayorazgo. The plaintiffs discovered the original Royal Cedula in 1922, which had been lost, and sought damages amounting to P...

Facts:

1. Foundation of the Mayorazgo: In 1794, Don Antonio Tuason established a mayorazgo (entail) in Binondo, Manila, with one-third and the remainder of the fifth of his properties. The revenue from the entailed properties was to be distributed: four-fifths to the first-born and his successors, and one-fifth to the founder’s eight other children and their descendants.
2. Plaintiffs' Claims: The plaintiffs, descendants of four of the eight children, alleged that the disposition created a family trust (fideicomiso familiar) subject to the Statute of Disentailment of 1820. They claimed the defendants, descendants of the first-born, had fraudulently obtained a Torrens title to the entailed properties and concealed their rights until 1922 when the original Royal Cedula was discovered in Spain.
3. Defendants' Defenses: The defendants argued that the Royal Cedula and Statute of Disentailment did not support the plaintiffs' claims. They also asserted their Torrens title, prescription of action, and that no claims were filed in the testamentary estate of Don Jose Maria Tuason.
4. Principal Facts:
   • The mayorazgo was created on February 25, 1794, approved by Royal Cedula on August 20, 1795.
   • The Statute of Disentailment was promulgated on October 11, 1820, and extended to the Philippines in 1864.
   • Don Jose Severo Tuason, possessor of the entail, died in 1874, and the properties passed to his first-born son, Don Jose Victoriano Tuason.
   • The defendants continued to respect the mayorazgo and distributed the fifth of the revenue as per the foundation.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Nature of the Mayorazgo: The first-born possessor was a usufructuary, not the owner. The mayorazgo was a family trust (fideicomiso), and the distribution of the fifth of the revenue was a family trust.
2. Statute of Disentailment: Article 4 of the Statute of Disentailment applied, converting the fifth of the revenue into a fifth of the properties.
3. Prescription and Torrens Title: The plaintiffs’ action was not barred by prescription, as the defendants had recognized their rights by distributing the fifth of the revenue. The Torrens title registration did not extinguish the plaintiffs’ rights as beneficiaries of the trust.
4. Entitlement to the Fifth: The plaintiffs, as descendants of four of the eight children, were entitled to a participation in the fifth of the properties and its revenues, as per the foundation and the Statute of Disentailment.
5. Distribution of the Fifth: The court ordered the partition and distribution of the fifth of the properties among the plaintiffs and other descendants of the founder, based on their respective rights.

Resolution on Motion for Reconsideration

The court denied the motion for reconsideration, reiterating its conclusions that the first-born possessor was a usufructuary, the mayorazgo was a trust, the Statute of Disentailment applied, and the plaintiffs’ action was not barred. It set aside the distribution ordered in the original decision to allow new intervenors to participate in the case and for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.