Case Digest (G.R. No. 147863)
Facts:
Prospero Ringor, et al. v. Concordia Ringor, et al., G.R. No. 147863, August 13, 2004, First Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the heirs and successor-in-interest of Jose M. Ringor (including Heirs of Jose M. Ringor, Inc.); respondents are various grandchildren and great‑grandchildren of Jacobo Ringor who sued for partition, reconveyance and damages.The disputed subject consists of several parcels in San Fabian, Pangasinan that were the subject of three land‑registration proceedings (Expediente Nos. 241, 244 and 4449). Decrees and original certificates of title (OCTs/TCTs) were issued between 1918 and 1924 in the names of Jacobo, his son Juan, and/or Jose. In 1928 Jacobo executed several notarial compraventas transferring his interests to Jose; some parcels were adjudicated to Jose as a donacion de su abuelo in Expediente 244. The sales/donations were registered years later and new TCTs issued in Jose’s name (various TCT/OCT numbers appear in the record).
Despite the registrations and the 1928 notarized instruments, witnesses testified at trial that Jacobo continued in possession and administration of the lands until his death in 1935 and that he routinely shared the produce with all seven children of his son Juan; thereafter Jose administered the lands and likewise shared proceeds with his siblings. Jose died in 1971; respondents demanded partition from Jose’s heirs and, on March 27, 1973, filed Civil Case No. D‑3037 for partition, reconveyance and accounting. Petitioners answered claiming indefeasible Torrens title, prescription/laches and that the transfers to Jose were valid purchases or inheritance.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 43, Dagupan City) rendered judgment on February 10, 1995 in favor of respondents: it declared the seven children of Juan pro‑indiviso co‑owners of the parcels (covering the TCTs/OCTs), ordered partition into seven equal parts, required accounting for income since 1973, awarded attorneys’ fees and costs, and dismissed certain interventions. The RTC found that Jacobo had created an express trust (and in one instance a resulting trust) in favor of his grandchildren, that the 1928 compraventas were simulated or false and without consideration, and that the alleged donation in Expediente 244 was invalid.
The Court of Appeals, in CA‑G.R. CV No. 48581, affirmed the RTC in a Decision dated November 27, 2000; its Resolution of April 24, 2001 denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court raising, among others, whether an express trust was...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the factual findings of the trial court and Court of Appeals subject to review by this Court in a Rule 45 petition?
- Was there a valid express trust (or resulting trust) created by Jacobo in favor of respondents with Jose as trustee?
- May parol evidence be admitted to prove an express trust concerning immovable property despite Article 1443 of the New Civil Code?
- Did the courts below unlawfully nullify or divest petitioners’ Torrens titles, violating the indefeasibility of Torrens registration and res judicata?
- Were respondents’ claims barred ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)