B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Heirs of Emilio Candelaria v Romero
I. Recit-ready summary
Brothers Lucas and Emilio bought one lot each in Solokan
Subdivision on an installment basis. When Lucas got very sick, he sold his
interest over his lot to Emilio who then (1) reimbursed Lucas for the 2
installments already paid and (2) paid the rest of the installments under
Lucas’ name. The necessary documents of transfer was to be made later
since they were brothers. The TCT for the lot was named under Lucas’ and
his wife. Emilio died and his heirs are now demanding for reconveyance,
asserting that Lucas only held the lot in trust for their benefit. The court
ruled that there was implied trust in this case because an implied trust
arises where a person purchases land with his money (Emilio in this
case) and takes a conveyance thereof in the name of another (Lucas in
this case). The court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for
further proceedings.
II. Facts of the case
● Emilio’s heirs are appealing an order denying their complaint for
reconveyance of real property and damages (dismissal was ordered
on mere motion to dismiss AND before an answer was filed)
● [Dec 20, 1956] complaint filed by Ester Candelaria (on her own
behalf and in representation of other alleged heirs of Emilio
Candelaria) and alleges:
- prior to 1917, Emilio Candelaria and his brother Lucas
Candelaria bought a lot each in Solokan Subdivision on an
installment basis
- Lucas paid first 2 installments for his lot but was unable to pay
the subsequent installments because of sickness which caused
him to be bedridden
- Lucas sold his interest of his lot to Emilio who then (1)
reimbursed Lucas the amount equivalent to the 2 installments
and (2) paid the rest of the installments until full payment
UNDER LUCAS’ NAME (with the understanding that the
necessary documents of transfer would be made later since they
were brothers)
G.R. NO: L-12149
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Implied Trust
[September 30, 1960]
Heirs of Emilio Candelaria v Romero
- [1918] TCT for the lot was issued by the register of deeds of
Manila in the name of Lucas Candelaria married to Luisa
Romero
- That Lucas merely held title to the lot merely in trust for Emilio
and this fact was acknowledged not only by Lucas but also by his
heirs
- Lucas' possession of the lot was merely tolerated by Emilio
and his heirs
- From the time Emilio bought the lot from Lucas, Lucas had
been collecting all its rents for his own use as financial
aid to him as a brother in view of the fact that he was
bedridden without any means of livelihood and with
several children to support
- From 1926 when Emilio was conned at the Culion Leper
Colony up to his death on February 5, 1936, Lucas had
been giving part of the rents to Fortunata Bautista, the
second wife of Emilio, in accordance with the latter's
wishes
- Lucas died in August, 1942, survived by the present
defendants, who are his spouse Luisa Romero and several
children
- said defendants are still in possession of the lot, having
refused to reconvey it to plaintiff despite repeated demands.
● Instead of answering the complaint, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss
- Emilio heir’s cause of action unenforceable under new Civil COde
- Action has prescribed
● Lower Court granted motion to dismiss and held
- an express trust not an implied trust created which is unenforceable
without any writing
- Prescribed- TCT was issued to Lucas in 1918 (38 years before
filing of complaint)
III. Issue/s
1. W/N Lucas held the lot in trust? Yes, Implied trust
2. W/N Action prescribed? Remanded to lower court
PONENTE: Gutierrez David, J.
DIGEST MAKER: Chang
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED [September 30, 1960]

Heirs of Emilio Candelaria v Romero Heirs of Emilio Candelaria v Romero

IV. Ratio/Legal Basis - interest of justice would be better served if the heirs were to
be given an opportunity to be heard and allowed to present
● Implied trust was created proof in support of their claim - since there is the allegation that
- Rule: An implied trust arises where a person purchases land trust was acknowledged by Lucas and his heirs
with his money and takes a conveyance thereof in the name of
another. V. Disposition
- In such a case, the property is held on a resulting trust in
favor of the one furnishing the consideration for the transfer, ● Order of dismissal reversed; case remanded to court a quo for further
unless a different intention or understanding appears. The trust proceedings
which results under such circumstances does not arise from
contract or agreement of the parties, but from the facts and VI. Notes
circumstances, that is to say, it results because of equity and
arises by implication or operation of law
- Where property is taken by a person under an agreement to hold it
for, or convey it to another or the grantor, a resulting or implied trust
arises in favor of the person for whose benefit the property was
intended (founded on equity)
- where the grantee takes the property under an agreement to convey
to another on certain conditions, a trust results for the benefit of such
other or his heirs, which equity will enforce according to the
agreement
- In the present case, the allegation that although Lucas had no more
interest over the lot and that subsequent payments were made under
Lucas’ name by Emilio (presumption that Emilio intended to
purchase said lot for his own benefit) with the understanding that
necessary documents of transfer will be made later on show that
the lot was conveyed to Lucas on the faith of his intention to hold
it for, or convey it to the grantor, Emilio.
● Prescription
- Constructive or implied trusts may be barred by lapse of time
- Rule: laches constitute a bar to actions to enforce the trust, and
repudiation is not required, unless there is concealment of the
facts giving rise to the trust
- Continuous recognition of a resulting trust precludes any
defense of laches in a suit to declare and enforce the trust
- Beneficiary of a resulting trust may, therefore, without prejudice
to his right to enforce the trust, prefer the trust to persist and
demand no conveyance from the trustee

G.R. NO: L-12149 PONENTE: Gutierrez David, J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Implied Trust DIGEST MAKER: Chang