GLORILYN M.

MONTEJO

Alejandro Ty vs. Sylvia Ty

553 SCRA 306

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. She also 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 temporary restraining order. 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 plaintiff 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 or not there was an implied trust.

HELD: No, there was no implied trust created in relation to the EDSA property. If the person to whom the
title is conveyed is the child of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law under Art.
1448, the so-called purchase money resulting trust. The said article provides an exception: “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 disputable presumed that there is a gift in favor of the child.” The
Court also noted that plaintiff failed to prove that he did not intend a donation.

Regarding the Meridien Condo and Wack Wack property, the court said that plaintiff failed to prove that
purchase money came from him. They also said that Alexander was capable of purchasing the property
as he had been working for nine years, had a car care business, and was actively engaged in the
business dealings of several family corporations from which he received emoluments and other benefits.
Hence, no implied trust created because there was no proof that plaintiff had paid for said properties.