ART. 1445.

No trust shall fail because the trustee appointed declines the designation, unless the
contrary should appear in the instrument constituting the trust.

Acceptance of trust is necessary to charge him with the administration of the trust and to vest the legal
title in him. However the acceptance of the trust is not necessary to its existence and validity, since even
if he declines, the court will appoint a trustee to fill the Office that he declines. A new trustee must be
appointed otherwise, the trust will not exist. s

Renunciation can only be by resignation or retirement with court approval, or with the
agreement of beneficiaries and on satisfaction of all legal liabilities out of the acceptance of the trust.

MELCHORA CABANAS vs. FRANCISCO PILAPIL

GR. NO. L-25843, July 25, 1974

FACTS:

The insured, Florentino Pilapil had a child, Millian Pilapil, with a married woman, the plaintiff
Melchora Cabanas. The child was ten years old at the time the complaint was filed on October 10, 1964.
The defendant, Francisco Pilapil, is the brother of the deceased. The deceased insured himself and
instituted as beneficiary, his child, with his brother to act as trustee during her minority. Upon his death,
the proceeds were paid to him. Hence, this complaint by the mother, with whom the child is living,
seeking the delivery of such sum. She filed the bond required by the Civil Code. Defendant would justify
his claim to the retention of the amount in question by invoking the terms of the insurance policy.

ISSUE:

Whether the uncle who acted as trustee should be entitled to the sum.

HELD:

Under the Civil Code, the father, or in his absence the mother, is the legal administrator of the property
pertaining to the child under parental authority. The property which the unemancipated child has
acquired or may acquire with his work or industry, or by any lucrative title, belongs to the child in
ownership, and in usufruct to the father or mother whom he is under parental authority and whose
company he lives.

MARIA TORBELA vs. SPOUSES ANDRES T. ROSARIO AND LENA DUQUE ROSARIO

GR. NO. 140528 December 7, 2011

FACTS:

The controversy began with a parcel of land in Pangasinan in the name of Valeriano Semilla married to
Potenciano Acosta. The lot was given by Valeriano to his sister Marta, married to Eugenio Torbela. Upon
the death of the Spouses Torbela, the lot was adjudicated in equal shares among their children, the
Torbela siblings, by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition. Then the Torbela siblings executed a Deed
of Absolute Quitclaim over the lot in favor of Dr. Rosario. Another Deed of Absolute Quitclaim was
subsequently executed, this time by Dr. Rosario, acknowledging that he only borrowed the lot from the
siblings and was already returning the same.

Following the issuance of TCT No. 52751, Dr. Rosario and his wife, Duque-Rosario, obtained a loan from
Banco Filipino (this is their third loan) secured by a mortgage constituted on the lot. Later, a complaint
was filed for the recovery of ownership and possession of said land. Also, since the Spouses failed to pay
their loan with Banco Filipino, the property was foreclosed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trust was validly repudiated by Dr. Rosario

HELD: No. Dr. Rosario’s argument that he has repudiated the trust when he registered the lot in his
name and thus the action for the recovery has already prescribed. The Court rejects this argument and
said that a trustee who obtains a Torrens Title over a property held in trust for him by another cannot
repudiate the trust by relying on the registration.