Tickler: Trust, Definition and Kinds

G.R. No. L-19872 December 3, 1974

EMILIANO B. RAMOS, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.
GREGORIA T. RAMOS, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

DOCTRINE:

Under Art. 1440, Civil Code, A person who establishes a trust is called the trust or one in whom
confidence is reposed is known as the trustee and the person for whose benefit the trust has been
created is referred to as the beneficiary.

FACTS:

The spouses Martin Ramos and Candida Tanate were deceased and they were survived by their
three legitimate children named Jose, Agustin and Granada. Martin Ramos was also survived by his
seven natural children named Atanacia, Timoteo, Modesto, Manuel, Emiliano, Maria and Federico.
On December 10, 1906 a special proceeding was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental for the settlement of the intestate estate of the said spouses. Rafael O. Ramos, a brother
of Martin, was appointed administrator.

A project of partition was submitted and it was signed by the three legitimate children, by the two
natural children, and representative of the other five natural children who were minors. The partition
of the conjugal hereditary estate was appraised at P74,984.93. It consisted of eighteen parcels of
land, some head of cattle and the advances to the legitimate children. An action was filed on
September 5, 1957 for the purpose of securing a reconveyance of the supposed participations of
plaintiffs Atanacia, Emiliano, Manuel, Maria and Modesto in the aforementioned eight (8) lots which
apparently form part of Hacienda Calaza. The defendants denied the existence of a trust. The lower
court dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

WON express or implied trust existed in the case

HELD:

No, the plaintiffs did not prove any express on implied trust in this case. "Trusts are either express or
implied. Express trusts are created by the intention of the trust or of the parties. Implied trusts come
into being by operation of law." (Art. 1144, Civil Code). "No express trusts concerning an immovable
or any interest therein may be proven by oral evidence. An implied trust may be proven by oral
evidence" (Ibid, Arts. 1443 and 1457). The expediente of the intestate proceeding particularly the
project of partition, the decision and the manifestation as to the receipt of shares negatives the
existence of an express trust. A trust must be proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.
An express trust cannot be proven by parol evidence. Neither have the plaintiffs specified the kind of
implied trust contemplated in their action. The Court have stated that whether it is a resulting or
constructive trust, its enforcement may be barred by laches.