Digest Author: Dompor

Morales vs Court of Appeals (1997)

Petition: Review on certiorari
Petitioner: Rodolfo Morales (represented by heirs) and Priscilla Morales
Respondent: Court of Appeals, Ranulfo Ortiz Jr., Erlinda Ortiz
Ponencia: Davide Jr.

9. The spouses Ortiz demanded orally and in writing to vacate the

premises. Morales still refused.
10. As the spouses Ortiz were about to undertake major repairs on the
building, Morales had already occupied the same, took in boarders and
claimed ownership over the premises. Thus, the Ortizes instituted an
action for recovery of possession of land + damages

DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
1. The spouses Ortiz are the absolute owners of a parcel of land (in
Calbayog, Samar) which they bought from one Celso Avelino
Following is a timeline of events leading to purchase of premises by
the spouses Ortiz:
2. Celso Avelino purchased the land (2 parcels of land) while he was still a
bachelor through a Escritura de Venta and later on had tax declarations
under his name. Later, he had these 2 tax declarations consolidated into
one, still under his name. He also built the residential building therein.
3. He then took in his parents, Rosendo Avelino and Juana Ricaforte, as
well as his sister, Aurea, to live until the formers deaths. This residential
house was also declared in his tax declaration.
4. Celso then, after being City Fiscal of Calbayog, he became immigration
officer, then a Judge of the CFI in Cebu. His sister remained the
caretaker of the residential building
5. While Celso was in Cebu, Rodolfo Morales constructed a small beauty
ship within the premises in question without the knowledge and consent
of Celso
6. After the Ortiz spouses were offered by Celso to buy the premises, they
examined the same. They talked to Rodolfo Morales about that fact, and
Morales encouraged them to buy the lot rather than it going to somebody
else and that he will vacate the lot once he is notified by his uncle

Averment by Defendant-Intervenor Priscilla Morales

11. The lot was purchased by Rosendo Avelino and Juana Ricaforte from the
Mendiolas, with Celso Avelino carrying out the purchase by instruction
from Rosendo. The property is in the name of Celso and Rosendo told
their children about it
12. Rosendo secured a gratuitous license and built the two-storey house
13. In 1979, Rodolfo constructed the beauty shop next to the house for his
wife with the consent of Celso and his sisters
14. Priscila Morales was aware that the premises in question was surveyed
in the name of Celso but she did not make any attempt, not even her
father, to change the muniment of title to Rosendo Avelino
15. Priscila Morales was aware that the premises in question was surveyed
in the name of Celso but she did not make any attempt, not even her
father, to change the muniment of title to Rosendo Avelino
16.

Celso Avelino kept the receipts for the realty tax payments of the
premises

17.

RTC ruled in favor of spouses Ortiz

18.

CA affirmed the RTC decision

ISSUES:
1. W/N Celso Avelino purchased the land from the Mendiolas as a mere
trustee for his parents and siblings
2. W/N Rodolfo Morales was a builder in good faith

7. Thus, the purchase was made by the spouses Ortiz

PROVISION:
Article 1448 of the Civil Code

8. Despite due notice from his uncle to vacate the premises, Rodolfo
Morales refused to vacate or demolish the beauty shop (demanded
reimbursement for P35K, though it is valued at P5K)

RULING + RATIO:
1. NO

Trust is legal relationship between one person having equitable

ownership and another person owning the legal title
o Equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the
performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain
powers by the latter
Characteristics of trust
o Relationship
o Fiduciary
o With respect to property
o Existence of equitable duties imposed upon the holder of
the title to the property to deal with it for the benefit of
another
o Arises as a result of a manifestation of intention to create
the relationship
Essential requisites of implied trust
o Actual payment of money, property or services, or an
equivalent, constituting valuable consideration
o Such consideration must be furnished by the alleged
beneficiary of a resulting trust
Burden of proving the existence of a trust lies with the one
asserting its existence
Title to the property was still conveyed to Celso
Laches has set in
Petitioners were not able to prove the existence of a trust
o Last paragraph of Article 1448 on trusts constituted in
the name of children are presumed to be gifts in their
favor

o
o
o
o
o

Celso had the tax declarations

Celso caused the survey of the property with the Bureau
of Lands
Paid the realty tax
Sold property to the Ortiz spouses
Petitioners and their parents did not do anything during
the 30 year period of Celsos absence
Implied recognition that Celso was the absolute
owner of the property

2. NO
- Petitioner knew from the start that he was not the owner of the
property, and so he cannot be deemed to have been in good
faith
- Respondent could not have consented to the building of the
beauty shop because he was gone for 30 years (averment
inconsistent with testimony)
DISPOSITION: Petition denied.
- CA decision affirmed
o Award of moral damages, attorneys fees, and litigation
expenses deleted