G.R. No. 147863 - Ringor vs. Ringor

Case Summary (G.R. No. 147863)

Factual Background

The dispute concerned several parcels of land in San Fabian, Pangasinan, declared in the name of the late Jacobo Ringor and later registered in the names of his grandson Jose Ringor by means of three land registration proceedings docketed as Expediente 241, Expediente 244, and Expediente 4449. Jacobo had seven grandchildren through his son Juan: Jose, Genoveva, Felipa, Concordia, Agapito, Emeteria and Espirita, who are parties in the present litigation. Various notarial compraventas and a purported donation — executed in 1928 and earlier — transferred the registered or adjudicated interests to Jose, and Torrens instruments including OCT and TCT numbers were subsequently issued in favor of Jose and later in the name of Heirs of Jose M. Ringor, Inc.

Prelitigation Possession and Administration

Testimony at trial established that despite the adjudications and later registrations placing title nominally in Jose’s name, Jacobo retained actual possession and continued to administer the lands until his death in 1935, regularly allotting shares of produce to all seven grandchildren. After Jacobo’s death, Jose continued administration and likewise distributed produce to his siblings. The lands remained undivided at the time of Jose’s death in 1971.

Procedural History

Respondents filed a Complaint for partition and reconveyance with damages on March 27, 1973, later amending their complaint and impleading additional parties, including intervenors and, in 1982, the Heirs of Jose M. Ringor, Inc. The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of the respondents on February 10, 1995, ordering partition and reconveyance, accounting for rents and produce, attorneys’ fees, and costs, and dismissing interventions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in a November 27, 2000 Decision and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated April 24, 2001. Petitioners sought review before this Court.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The core issues presented were whether the factual findings of the lower courts were supported by the record; whether Jacobo created a valid express trust in favor of respondents with Jose as trustee; whether parol evidence could be admitted to prove such express trust despite Art. 1443 of the New Civil Code; whether the lower courts effectively nullified Torrens titles, contravening the principle of indefeasibility and res judicata; and whether respondents’ action was barred by prescription or laches.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioners maintained that no written instrument created an express trust, that the requisite elements for an express trust under the Civil Code were absent, and that the courts erred in admitting and relying on parol evidence to prove a trust in the face of Art. 1443. Petitioners further contended that the decisions of the land registration courts and the subsequent Torrens registrations had conferred indefeasible title upon Jose and his successors, thereby barring reconveyance and partition. Respondents asserted that the totality of documentary and oral evidence, including the manner of possession, administration, continuing acts of ownership by Jacobo, and the long practice of sharing produce, established the intention to create a trust in favor of the grandchildren and that Jose held the registered titles as trustee.

Trial Court Findings

The RTC found that Jacobo had established an express trust over the lands in favor of his grandchildren, that the notarial deeds of sale executed in favor of Jose were simulated and lacked consideration, and that the alleged donation in Expediente 244 was invalid for lack of proof and registration. The trial court concluded that Jose acted as trustee and co-beneficiary, that he did not repudiate the trust, and that parol evidence admittably proved the trust under the circumstances.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in all material respects, sustaining the findings that the compraventas were simulated sales, that the donation was not shown to be valid, and that the evidence supported the existence of a trust with Jose as trustee. The appellate court also denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Legal Standards on Express Trusts and Evidence

The Court reviewed the law on trusts as embodied in Articles 1440 through 1446 and 1449 of the New Civil Code, recognizing that express trusts arise from the trustor’s intention and that no particular words are required. The Court emphasized that while Art. 1443 states that no express trusts concerning an immovable may be proved by parol evidence, the existence of a trust may be shown by the direct and positive acts of the trustor, by inference from circumstances, and where partial performance has occurred. The Court cited authorities holding that a writing is not an indispensable prerequisite to create a trust unless required by statute and that the Statute of Frauds renders an oral trust unenforceable only if executory.

Application of Law to the Facts: Expedientes 241 and 4449

Applying those standards, the Court found credible testimony that the transfers placing title in Jose’s name were made for convenience and that Jacobo continued to exercise ownership and to allocate produce to his grandchildren until his death. The Court held that these consistent acts and Jose’s subsequent conduct in perpetuating distributions constituted sufficient proof of an intended trust. The Court further applied the doctrine of partial performance to remove the objection to parol proof, noting that Jose rendered performance that manifested and sustained the trust.

Application of Law to the Facts: Expediente 244

As to Expediente 244, the Court treated the alleged donation as creating a resulting trust under Art. 1449 when the donee holds merely the legal estate. The Court found that the donation impaired noxious hereditary rights because the registration and the circumstances reflected that Jacobo retained possession and control, and thus Jose held the title in trust. The Court recognized that resulting trusts do not prescribe while the title remains in the trustee and that the action to reconvey is not barred so long as the property stands in the trustee’s name.

On Parol Evidence and Article 1443

The Court addressed petitioners’ contention that Art. 1443 absolutely barred parol evidence. It concluded that the prohibition in Art. 1443 concerns proof by parol but may be overcome where the evidence of intention to create a trust is furnished by acts, circumstances, or partial performance of the trust. The Court held that the admission and consideration of oral testimony in this case did not constitute reversible error where the record evidenced consistent conduct evincing the settlor’s intent and where petitioners failed to preserve a timely objection that would have negated waiver.

On Torrens Title and Indefeasibility

The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that the judgments effectively nullified Torrens titles and violated indefeasibility. The Court reiterated the settled rule that the Torrens certificate does not create title where none exists, and that registration cannot legitimize a trustee who holds in breach of trust against the true owner. The Court observed that a Torrens title held by a trustee in trust for others does not enable the trustee to repudiate the trust and claim absolute ownership to th

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 147863)

Parties and Posture

Prospero Ringor, Saturnino Ringor, Andres Ringor, substituted by Shakuntala Debie, Claro Alejo, Geronima and Sandie Lour, all surnamed Ringor, Raymunda Ringor, Luisa R. Rimando, Emiliana R. Tiu and Heirs of Jose M. Ringor, Inc., Petitioners sought review of the Court of Appeals decision affirming the Regional Trial Court judgment ordering partition and reconveyance of lands and damages.
Concordia, Felipa, Emeteria, all surnamed Ringor, Marcelina Ringor, in behalf of her deceased father, Agapito Ringor, Avelina, Cresencia, and Felimon, all surnamed Almasen, in behalf of their deceased mother, Espirita Ringor, and Teofilo M. Abalos, in behalf of his deceased mother, Genoveva Ringor, Respondents filed the complaint for partition and reconveyance prompting the litigation.
The petition invoked error in the Court of Appeals Decision dated November 27, 2000 and its Resolution dated April 24, 2001, and resulted in a Supreme Court decision affirming the courts below and denying the petition.

Key Facts

Jacobo Ringor had three marriages and left lands in San Fabian, Pangasinan that were the subject of three land registration proceedings docketed as Expediente 241, Expediente 244, and Expediente 4449.
In Expediente 241 Parcels 1 and 2 were adjudicated to Jacobo and his son Juan as equal co-owners under Decree No. 119561 and OCT No. 23689 was issued in the names of Jacobo and Juan.
In Expediente 241 Jacobo executed a notarized compraventa dated November 6, 1928 transferring his one-half interest in Parcels 1 and 2 to Jose and TCT No. 15918 was ultimately issued; the sale was registered in 1940.
In Expediente 241 Parcel 3 was decreed to Jacobo and later sold by a contemporaneous compraventa to Jose, producing TCT No. 5090 in Jose’s name.
In Expediente 244 the lands were adjudicated to Jose as a donacion de su abuelo and OCT No. 18797 issued in Jose’s name.
In Expediente 4449 the lands were adjudicated partly to Jacobo and partly to Jose by Decree No. 147191, and subsequent compraventas dated November 3, 1928 purportedly transferred Jacobo’s interests to Jose leading to TCTs eventually in Jose’s name or his successors.
Witnesses testified that notwithstanding the registrations and the compraventas, Jacobo continued in possession and exercised acts of ownership until his death in 1935 and regularly shared produce with the seven children of Juan, a practice Jose continued while administering the lands.
Jose assumed administration after Jacobo’s death, conscientiously gave his siblings shares of the produce, and died on April 30, 1971, after which respondents demanded partition and reconveyance, prompting the 1973 complaint for partition and reconveyance.

Procedural History

Respondents filed the Complaint for partition and reconveyance on March 27, 1973, admitted in amended form by the trial court on August 6, 1973, and the case was docketed as Civil Case No. D-3037.
Interventions and impleader actions were filed, including a Complaint in Intervention by Julio Monsis and participation by Leocadia Ringor and later the Heirs of Jose M. Ringor, Inc. as additional defendants.
The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on February 10, 1995 in favor of respondents ordering partition in seven equal parts, accounting, reconveyance and attorneys fees, and dismissed interventions as detailed in the dispositive portion.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in its Decision dated November 27, 2000, and denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration by Resolution dated April 24, 2001.
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with costs against petitioners.

Issues

Whether there was any writing or deed creating an express trust in favor of respondents with Jose as trustee.
Whether the lower courts erroneously relied solely on parol evidence to establish an express trust contrary to Article 1443 of the New Civil Code.
Whether the prohibition in Article 1443 can be waived and whether petitioners waived objection to parol evidence.
Whether the factual findings of the trial court affirmed by the Court of Appeals are supported by the evidence on record.
Whether the courts below effectively nullified the Torrens titles and violated the principle