Title
Spouses Devisfruto vs. Greenfell
Case
G.R. No. 227725
Decision Date
Jul 1, 2020
A naturalized Australian financed property purchases registered under her niece’s name. Upon reclaiming Philippine citizenship, she demanded reconveyance, proving an implied trust under Article 1448. The Supreme Court upheld her claim, rejecting arguments of gratuitous donation due to insufficient evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 227725)

Background of the Case

On October 18, 2011, Greenfell, a natural-born Filipino who later became an Australian citizen, filed a Complaint for Reconveyance and Damages against the Devisfruto Spouses in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. Greenfell alleged she financed the purchase of a house and two lots from the Magisa Spouses, but the properties were registered in her niece Ruth's name. Greenfell contended that a trust was formed, mandating that the properties be transferred back to her upon her reacquisition of Philippine citizenship in 2009.

Municipal Circuit Trial Court Decision

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court ruled in favor of Greenfell. It recognized the existence of a purchase money resulting trust under Article 1448 of the Civil Code, asserting that Ruth held legal title merely as a depository for Greenfell. Thus, the court ordered the Devisfruto Spouses to reconvey the properties to Greenfell and awarded her attorney's fees and costs.

Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals Review

The Devisfruto Spouses sought to appeal this decision. The Regional Trial Court upheld the Municipal Circuit Trial Court's ruling. They then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals, which concluded that an implied trust had indeed been created and dismissed their petition. The appellate court emphasized that the intention to create a trust was supported by testimony from the properties' former owner.

Arguments Raised by Petitioners

In the subsequent motion for reconsideration and the petition for review before the Supreme Court, the Devisfruto Spouses contended that no trust had been established, claiming any purported trust was express and not supported by documentary evidence. They further insisted that the properties were gifts due to the close familial relationship and claimed that Greenfell had only sought legal recourse after their relationship deteriorated.

Respondent’s Position

In response, Greenfell maintained her position on the ownership of the properties, supported by the testimony of the original owner, Dante Magisa, who affirmed the arrangement that Ruth was to convey the properties back to Greenfell upon her return to the Philippines.

Supreme Court Findings and Decision

The Supreme Court analyzed the nature of the trust formed under Article 1448 of the Civil Code, establishing that it is created when one party pays for a property while another holds legal title. The Court found that both lower courts correctly determined that the legal title was held by Ruth while the purchase money was supplied by Greenfell, aimed at providing her beneficial interest in the property.

Petitioners

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.