Title
Constantino vs. Espiritu
Case
G.R. No. L-22404
Decision Date
May 31, 1971
A trust agreement for an unborn child, involving a fictitious sale and subsequent mortgage, was upheld as enforceable despite the Statute of Frauds, with the Supreme Court remanding for further proceedings.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22404)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the transaction
    • On October 30, 1953, Pastor B. Constantino executed what was styled as an absolute sale of a two‐storey house and four subdivision lots (TCT No. 20174) in his name to Herminia Espiritu for ₱8,000.00, with the parol agreement that Espiritu would hold the properties in trust for their then-unborn illegitimate son, Pastor Constantino, Jr.
    • Thereafter, Espiritu mortgaged the properties twice (loans of ₱3,000.00 and ₱2,000.00) to Republic Savings Bank and later offered them for sale, contrary to the alleged trust agreement.
  • Procedural history
    • The Register of Deeds of Rizal canceled part of TCT No. 20174 and issued TCT No. 32744 in Espiritu’s name. Constantino filed a complaint seeking a preliminary injunction against further alienation, specific performance by a deed of sale in favor of the minor beneficiary, and ₱2,000.00 attorney’s fees.
    • Espiritu moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to include the minor beneficiary as party-plaintiff and for unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with costs.
    • Constantino moved to admit an amended complaint adding Pastor Constantino, Jr. as co-plaintiff and appointing himself guardian ad litem. Espiritu opposed, characterizing it as an improper substitution of parties. The trial court denied the motion, prompting this direct appeal on a question of law.

Issues:

  • Joinder of parties
    • Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to file an amended complaint adding the unborn child as co-plaintiff under a stipulation pour autrui.
  • Statute of Frauds
    • Whether the action for specific performance of the alleged trust is barred by the Statute of Frauds.
  • Parol evidence rule
    • Whether proof of the alleged implied trust under Article 1453, Civil Code, is precluded by the parol evidence rule.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.