Title
Tong vs. Go Tiat Kun
Case
G.R. No. 196023
Decision Date
Apr 21, 2014
A family dispute over Lot 998 arose when Juan Tong, a Chinese citizen, registered it under his Filipino son Luis, Sr., creating an implied trust. After Luis, Sr.'s death, his heirs claimed ownership, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Juan Tong’s other children, upholding the trust and ordering reconveyance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 196023)

Petitioner’s Claim and Subject Property

The dispute concerns Lot 998 of the Cadastral Survey of Iloilo (2,525 sqm), later subdivided into Lots 998-A and 998-B and covered by various Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT). Petitioners allege that Spouses Juan Tong funded the purchase of Lot 998 in 1957 but had it titled in Luis Sr.’s name solely to comply with nationality requirements, creating an implied resulting trust for the benefit of the family lumber business.

Key Dates

• May 11, 1957 – Purchase of Lot 998 by Juan Tong; May 16, 1957 – TCT No. 10346 issued in Luis Sr.’s name
• May 30, 1981 – Death of Luis Sr.; July 2, 1982 – Extra-Judicial Settlement (EJS) executed by his heirs; July 19, 1982 – TCT No. T-60231 issued
• October 12, 1992 – Subdivision into Lots 998-A (TCT No. 97068) and 998-B (TCT No. T-96216)
• August 31, 1995 – Petitioners learn of subdivision and sale of 998-B; file suit for reconveyance (Civil Case No. 22730)
• February 24, 2001 – Go Tiat Kun’s sale of undivided interest in 998-A to her children; issuance of TCT No. T-134082
• August 2, 2005 – Filing of this action for nullification of titles and deeds over Lot 998-A (Civil Case No. 05-28626)

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution – Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Rule 45 on errors of law
• Civil Code of the Philippines (Articles 1448, 1457) – Implied resulting trusts; admissibility of parol evidence
• Rule of Court 45 – Petition for review on matters of law

Procedural History

• May 21, 2009 (RTC, Branch 37, Iloilo City): Judgment in favor of petitioners declaring an implied resulting trust over Lot 998, nullifying respondents’ deeds and titles, ordering reconveyance, damages, litigation expenses, attorney’s fees, and issuance of new title in petitioners’ names.
• October 28, 2010 (CA, CA-G.R. CV No. 03078): Reversal of RTC decision; dismissal of petitioners’ complaint on grounds that (a) an express trust requires written evidence; (b) resulting trust, if any, converted to constructive trust upon Luis Sr.’s death and barred by ten-year prescription; (c) presumption of gift to child under Art. 1448; (d) estoppel and laches.
• Petition for review under Rule 45 filed with the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether an implied resulting trust arose when Juan Tong purchased Lot 998 and titled it in Luis Sr.’s name.
  2. Whether parol evidence may be admitted to prove a resulting trust.
  3. Whether petitioners’ action is barred by prescription, estoppel, or laches.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

  1. Implied Resulting Trust Established
    – Under Article 1448, a “purchase-money resulting trust” arises when one party furnishes the purchase price but title is taken in another’s name.
    – Evidence shows Juan Tong paid the P55,000 purchase price, the lot remained in service of the family lumber business, possession and tax payments were by Juan Tong (and later Juan Tong Lumber, Inc.), and respondents never exercised ownership until after Luis Sr.’s death.
  2. Parol Evidence Admissible
    – Article 1457 permits parol evidence to prove implied trusts. Testimony regarding source of funds, possession, and family arrangements is reliable and supports finding of intent.
  3. No Prescription, Estoppel, or Laches
    – Actions for reconveyance under an implied resulting trust are imprescriptible as long as legal title re

...continue reading

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