Digest Author: Alyssa Rodriguez

CAEZO v ROJAS (2007)

Petitioner: SOLEDAD CAEZO, substituted by WILLIAM CAEZO and
VICTORIANO CAEZO
Respondent: CONCEPCION ROJAS
Ponencia: J. NACHURA
DOCTRINE:
Although no particular words are required for the creation of an
express trust, a clear intention to create a trust must be shown, and
the proof of fiduciary relationship must be clear and convincing.

A trustee cannot, by prescription, acquire ownership over property

entrusted to him until and unless he repudiates the trust, applies to
express trust and resulting implied trusts, However, in constructive
trusts, prescription may supervene even if the trustee does not
repudiate the relationship.
FACTS:
1. Soledad Caezo is the daughter of Cripulo Rojas. Concepcion Rojas
is the second-wife of Cripulo Rojas. Subject land is in Naval, Biliran.
2. On one side, we have the daughter saying she bought a parcel of
land from one Crisogono Limpiado in 1939 she alleges that she
entrusted this said land to her father as she moved to Mindanao
after 49 years of uninterrupted possession by her father and his
second family she now seeks the recovery of the land.
3. The second-wife avers that the land was in fact bought by her
husband, Cripulo, from Limpiado in 1948 the tax declaration is
under Cripulos name and they have been the ones paying the taxes
4. When Cripulo died, this parcel of land was included in his estate,
which the daughter failed to contest, and now the second-wife with
her children claim ownership thereof.
5. The daughter now seeks to recover the land asserting that the
subject land was only being held by her father, in trust, for her
benefit.
6. The second-wife contends this saying her right of action has
prescribed but the daughter seeks to recover the property under
the claim that there existed between her and her father, an express
trust or a resulting trust, both of which do not prescribe.
ISSUES: W/N Soledads right to recover is barred by prescription

RULING + RATIO: YES. This case involves a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST,

which is subject to prescription.
It is NOT an express trust: Express trusts are those which are
created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing
or deed, or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a trust.
What is important in the creation of a trust is the intention to do so.
However, the existence of express trusts concernin real property may
not be established by parol evidence.
-Soledad only has her own self-serving testimony as her evidence. She did
not discharge the burden of proof that was upon her to prove the existence of
such trust.

It is NOT a resulting trust (kind of implied trust): A resulting trust

is a species of implied trust that is presumed always to have been
contemplated by the parties, the intention as to which can be found
in the nature of their transaction although not expressed in a deed or
instrument of conveyance. A resulting trust is based on the equitable
doctrine that it is the more valuable consideration than the legal title
that determines the equitable interest in property.
-In the present case, there was no evidence of any transaction between the
petitioner and her father from which it can be inferred that a resulting trust
was intended. An implied trust, in fine, cannot be established upon vague and
inconclusive proof.

IT IS A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (kind of implied trust): A

constructive trust is one created not by any word or phrase, either
expressly or impliedly, evincing a direct intention to create a trust, but
one which arises in order to satisfy the demands of justice. It does
not come about by agreement or intention but in the main by
operation of law, construed against one who, by fraud, duress or
abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property
which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.
-Assuming that any such trust relation existed, it terminated upon Crispulos
death in 1978. A trust terminates upon the death of the trustee where the
trust is personal to the trustee in the sense that the trustor intended no other
person to administer it. Hence, after Crispulos death, the second-wife had no
right to retain possession of the property. At such point, a constructive
trust would be created over the property by operation of law . Where one
mistakenly retains property which rightfully belongs to another, a constructive
trust is the proper remedial device to correct the situation.
We can only conclude that Crispulos uninterrupted possession of the
subject property for 49 years, coupled with the performance of acts of
ownership, such as payment of real estate taxes, ripened into ownership.
DISPOSITION: Petition denied.