G.R. No.

165696 April 30, 2008

ALEJANDRO B. TY, petitioner,
vs.
SYLVIA S. TY, in her capacity as Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Alexander Ty, respondent.
AZCUNA, J.:

FACTS
Alexander Ty, son of Alejandro Ty and husband of Sylvia Ty, dies of cancer at the age of 34. Sylvia files
petition for the settlement of Alexander’s intestate estate and asks court to sell or mortgage properties in
order to pay the estate tax amounting to P4,714,560.02 assessed by the BIR. The properties include a
parcel of land in EDSA Greenhills, a residential land in Wack Wack, and the Meridien condo unit in
Annapolis, Greenhills.

Alejandro Ty opposed the move and filed for recovery of the property with prayer for preliminary
injunction and/or TRO. Plaintiff Alejandro claims that he owns the EDSA, Wack Wack and Meridien condo
unit because he paid for them. The property was supposedly registered in trust for Alexander’s
brothers and sisters in case plaintiff dies. Plaintiff also claimed that Alex had no financial capacity to
purchase the disputed property, as the latter was only dependent on the former.

Sylvia countered that Alexander had purchased the property with his money. Alexander was financially
capable of purchasing it because he had been managing the family corporations since he was 18 years old
and was also engage in other profitable businesses.

The RTC granted the application for preliminary injunction and decides in favor of Alejandro regarding
the recovery of the property. CA reversed the RTC stating that the implication created by law under Art.
1448 does not apply if the property was in the name of the purchaser’s child. They agreed that plaintiff
partly paid for the EDSA property. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue: Whether there was an implied trust under Art. 1448 of the Civil Code?

Ruling:

NO. Article 1448 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1448. There is an implied trust when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but
the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is
the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. However, if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a
child, legitimate or illegitimate, of one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being
disputably presumed that there is a gift in favor of the child.

The CA conceded that at least part of the purchase price of the EDSA property came from petitioner.
However, it ruled out the existence of an implied trust because of the last sentence of Article 1448: x x
x However, if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of the one
paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being disputably presumed that there is a gift in
favor of the child.