Estate of Margarita Cabancungan v. Marilou Laigo GR. No. 175073 August 15, 011 !acts" 1.

Margarita Cabacungan (Margarita) owned three parcels of unregistered land in Paringao and in Baccuit, Bauang, La Union. 2. o!eti!e in 1"#$, Margarita%s son, &oberto Laigo, 'r. (&oberto), applied for a noni!!igrant (isa to the United tates, and to support his application, he allegedl) as*ed Margarita to transfer the ta+ declarations of the properties in his na!e. ,. -or said purpose, Margarita, un*nown to her other children, e+ecuted an .ffida(it of /ransfer of &eal Propert) whereb) the sub0ect properties were transferred b) donation to &oberto. 1. 2ot long after, &oberto%s (isa was issued and he was able to tra(el to the U. . as a tourist and returned in due ti!e. 3n 1"4", he adopted respondents Pedro Laigo (Pedro) and Marilou Laigo (Marilou), and then he !arried respondent 5stella Balagot. 6. 3n 'ul) 1""7, &oberto sold the 1,612 s8 ! propert) in Baccuit to the spouses Mario and 'ulia Ca!pos for P2,,777.77. #. /hen in .ugust 1""2, he sold the 1,"$# s8 ! and ,,161 s8 ! lots in Paringao, respecti(el), to Marilou for P177,777.77 and to Pedro for P17,777.77. 4. .llegedl), these sales were not *nown to Margarita and her other children. $. 3t was onl) in .ugust 1""6, at &oberto%s wa*e, that Margarita ca!e to *now of the sales as told b) Pedro hi!self. ". 3n -ebruar) 1""#, Margarita, represented b) her daughter, Lu9, instituted the instant co!plaint for the annul!ent of said sales and for the reco(er) of ownership and possession of the sub0ect properties as well as for the cancellation of &icardo%s ta+ declarations. 17. Margarita ad!itted ha(ing acco!!odated &oberto%s re8uest for the transfer of the properties to his na!e, but pointed out that the arrange!ent was onl) for the specific purpose of supporting his U. . (isa application. he e!phasi9ed that she ne(er intended to di(est herself of ownership o(er the sub0ect lands and, hence, &oberto had no right to sell the! to respondents and the pouses Ca!pos. he li*ewise alleged that the sales, which were fictitious and si!ulated considering the gross inade8uac) of the stipulated price, were fraudulentl) entered into b) &oberto. he i!puted bad faith to Pedro, Marilou and the pouses Ca!pos as bu)ers of the lots, as the) supposedl) *new all along that &oberto was not the rightful owner of the properties. 11. /he pouses Ca!pos ad(anced that the) were innocent purchasers for (alue and in good faith, and had !erel) relied on &oberto%s representation that he had the right to sell the propert): and that, hence, the) were not bound b) whate(er agree!ent entered b) Margarita with her son. 12. 3n !uch the sa!e wa), Marilou and Pedro, who li*ewise professed the!sel(es to be bu)ers in good faith and for (alue, belie(ed that Margarita%s cause of action had alread) been barred b) laches, and that e(en assu!ing the contrar), the cause of action was ne(ertheless barred b) prescription as the sa!e had accrued wa) bac* in 1"#$ upon the e+ecution of the affida(it of transfer b) (irtue of which an i!plied trust had been created. 3n this regard, the) e!phasi9ed that the law allowed onl) a period of ten (17) )ears within which an action to reco(er ownership of real propert) or to enforce an

i!plied trust thereon !a) be brought, but Margarita !erel) let it pass. #ssue" 1. ;hether or not that the co!plaint is barred b) laches and prescription 2. ;hether or not the rule on innocent purchaser for (alue applies in this case of sale of unregistered land 3. $%et%er or not t%ere is evi&ence to su''ort t%e fin&ing t%at t%ere is an i('lie& trust create& bet)een Margarita an& %er son Roberto *el&" 1. 2o 2. 2o ,. <es Ratio" -or issues 1 and 2 (case discusses at length the different t)pes of trusts) 3n the case at bar, lands in(ol(ed are concededl) unregistered lands: hence, there is no wa) b) which Margarita, during her lifeti!e, could be notified of the furti(e and fraudulent sales !ade in 1""2 b) &oberto in fa(or of respondents, e+cept b) actual notice fro! Pedro hi!self in .ugust 1""6. =ence, it is fro! that date that prescription began to toll. /he filing of the co!plaint in -ebruar) 1""# is well within the prescripti(e period. ,. 3ntention > although onl) presu!ed, i!plied or supposed b) law fro! the nature of the transaction or fro! the facts and circu!stances acco!pan)ing the transaction, particularl) the source of the consideration > is alwa)s an ele!ent of a resulting trust and !a) be inferred fro! the acts or conduct of the parties rather than fro! direct e+pression of conduct. Certainl), intent as an indispensable ele!ent, is a !atter that necessaril) lies in the e(idence, that is, b) e(idence, e(en circu!stantial, of state!ents !ade b) the parties at or before the ti!e title passes. Because an i!plied trust is neither dependent upon an e+press agree!ent nor re8uired to be e(idenced b) writing, .rticle 1164 of our Ci(il Code authori9es the ad!ission of parole e(idence to pro(e their e+istence. Parole e(idence that is re8uired to establish the e+istence of an i!plied trust necessaril) has to be trustworth) and it cannot rest on loose, e8ui(ocal or indefinite declarations. /hus, contrar) to the Court of .ppeals% finding that there was no e(idence on record showing that an i!plied trust relation arose between Margarita and &oberto, we find that petitioner before the trial court, had actuall) adduced e(idence to pro(e the intention of Margarita to transfer to &oberto onl) the legal title to the properties in 8uestion, with attendant e+pectation that &oberto would return the sa!e to her on acco!plish!ent of that specific purpose for which the transaction was entered into. /he e(idence of course is not docu!entar), but rather testi!onial.