Title
Lopez vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 157784
Decision Date
Dec 16, 2008
A trustee sought reconveyance of 1,500 hectares excluded from a trust estate, but the Supreme Court ruled the claim prescribed, affirming the trust was constructive and subject to a 10-year limitation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 157784)

Procedural History

The case originates from an action for reconveyance filed by Richard Lopez after the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Balayan, Batangas dismissed his action on the basis of prescription. The RTC's summary judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the current petition for review on certiorari.

Testamentary Intent and Establishment of Trust

Juliana Lopez-Manzano executed a notarial will on March 23, 1968, expressing her intent to create a trust (Fideicomiso) for her paraphernal properties, designated to be administered by her husband, Jose Lopez Manzano. In the event of his death or renunciation, her nephew, Enrique Lopez, was to become the administrator. Juliana passed away shortly after executing her will, and her husband secured its probate, leading to the acknowledgment of the Fideicomiso.

Probate and Adjudication of Properties

Upon Jose’s admission as the executor and trustee, a project of partition was filed, delineating the properties to be included in the Fideicomiso versus those to be adjudicated to Jose as an heir. Notably, the disputed properties were stated to be excluded from the Fideicomiso and were adjudicated entirely to Jose, with the probate court confirming the exclusion.

Death of Jose and Subsequent Actions

Jose Lopez Manzano died on July 22, 1980, leaving a holographic will that bequeathed the disputed properties to the respondents, leading to the issuance of new certificate titles in their names. The petitioner's father took over the trusteeship of Juliana's estate, and in December 1984, Richard Lopez filed for reconveyance against the respondents, arguing that the properties were originally Juliana's paraphernal properties and should not have been included in Jose's estate.

Dismissal Based on Prescription

The RTC ruled that petitioner’s claim had prescribed, computing the prescription period from the date the properties were registered in the name of Jose on September 15, 1969. The Court of Appeals confirmed this ruling, maintaining that the action for reconveyance was barred by the lapse of time.

Legal Analysis of Trust Status

A central element of the case revolves around whether Jose's role as trustee constituted an implied or express trust. Petitioner contended that an express trust was established over the disputed properties, while the courts characterized the situation as one involving an implied trust. The ruling emphasized that while an express trust is based on direct intent, an implied trust can arise from the nature of the parties' actions or legal consequences, especially involving erroneous registrations.

Grounds for Constructive Trust

The courts noted that the properties were explicitly excluded from the Fideicomiso, leading to an adjudication of properties to Jose as his inheritance, which might have been mistakenly assessed. The nature of the exclusion and the corresponding court approval conferred a presumption of regularity to the adjudication, thus operating as a constructive trust rather than an express one.

Prescription an

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.