Title
Supreme Court
Ang vs. So
Case
G.R. No. 182252
Decision Date
Aug 3, 2016
Chinese citizen Sy So registered properties in petitioner Jose Norberto’s name, alleging implied trust. Court ruled no trust, barred ownership due to constitutional prohibition, ordered reversion of land to the State.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 182252)

Antecedent Facts

Sy So owned and operated a sari-sari store, while her late husband, Jose Ang, had a foundry shop. After adopting Jose Norberto in 1941, she registered several properties, including lots in Caloocan City, under his name as per Chinese tradition. Following the death of her husband in 1943, she built and expanded residential units on these lots where she and her wards lived for over 30 years. Disputes regarding ownership emerged when Jose Norberto filed petitions, asserting his control over the properties and demanding rent from Sy So.

Dispute Origin and Legal Action

Respondent Sy So later sought to transfer trusteeship of the properties to another ward, Tony Ang, citing issues of trust and ownership. She filed a case against Jose Norberto, claiming breach of trust in managing the properties. Jose Norberto argued that the properties were rightfully his due to gifts from Sy So and that he bore the financial responsibilities associated with them.

Ruling of the RTC

The Regional Trial Court dismissed Sy So's complaint, confirming Jose Norberto's ownership of the properties. It ruled that no implied trust existed between them since, under Article 1448 of the New Civil Code, ownership transferred as a gift to a child does not signify a trust. The court also found Sy So's action barred by laches due to the delay in her instigation of the complaint.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Sy So appealed the RTC's decision. The Court of Appeals partially granted her appeal, declaring her the lawful owner of the 10th Avenue property while denying her claim over the 11th Avenue lot due to prescription. The appellate court introduced the concept of an implied trust, stating that the lack of formal adoption negated any disputable presumption of gifting, thereby allowing Sy So's case for reconveyance of the property to move forward.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision. It reiterated that Sy So's status as a Chinese citizen disqualified her from legally owning land in the Philippines, citing provisions from both the 1935 and subsequent constitutions prohibiting land ownership by aliens. The Court further clarified that any transaction made in violation of this constitutional prohibition invalidated ownership claims, including the action for reconveyance.

Impli

...continue reading

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.