Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > April 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19397 April 30, 1966 TEODORA MATIAS DE BUENCAMINO, ET AL. v. MARIA DIZON DE MATIAS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19397. April 30, 1966.]

TEODORA MATIAS DE BUENCAMINO, ET AL., Petitioners, v. MARIA DIZON DE MATIAS, ET AL., Respondents.

Dominador A. Alafriz & Associates, for Petitioners.

Fausto D. Lagman for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEALS; DECISION MAY BE BASED UPON OTHER POINTS IGNORED BY THE TRIAL COURT. — It is not incumbent on an appellee who occupies a purely defensive position and is seeking no affirmative relief, to make assignments. Therefore, when the case occurs, as not infrequently happens, that a trial judge decides a case in favor of one of the parties on a certain ground, it is entirely proper for this Court, upon affirming the judgment, to base its decision upon some other points which may have been ignored by the trial court, or in respect to which that court may have been entirely in error. (Garcia Valdez v. Soteraña Tuazon, 40 Phil. 943.)

2. TRUSTEESHIP; ACTION TO ENFORCE TRUST; CONTINUOUS RECOGNITION OF TRUST PRECLUDES DEFENSE OF LACHES. — While implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years, the rule does not apply where a fiduciary relation exists and the trustee recognizes the trust. Continuous recognition of a resulting trust precludes any defense of laches in a suit to declare and enforce the trust.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals in (CA-G. R. No. 24629-R) affirming with modification the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga (in Civil Case No. 752), declaring the three parcel of land originally registered in the name of Hilaria Dizon Matias (presently registered in the names of the spouses Teodora Matias and Roque Buencamino, Jr.) canceled, upon payment of the mortgage indebtedness of P5,000.00, and the issuance of another title in the names of Modesta, Teodora, Segundo, Jacinto, Vicente, Jesus and Mamerto Matias.

The facts of the case are briefly stated in the decision of the Court of Appeals, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The deceased Hilaria Dizon Matias, married to Fulgencio Matias (also deceased), was the registered owner of three parcels of farmlands with a total area of more than 30 hectares, situated in the barrio of San Pablo, Sta. Ana, Pampanga, and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 2235 of the Register of Deeds of said province. The aforenamed spouses who died in 1945 and 1949, respectively, had only one son, Luis, who died in 1948. Luis had with his lawful wife Maria Dizon Matias, several children, seven of whom are living, namely: 1. Modesta, 2. Segundo, 3. Jacinto, 4. Vicente, 5. Jesus, 6. Teodora, and 7. Mamerto, all surnamed Matias. The first five, together with their mother, are the plaintiffs, and the last two with their respective spouses, and two others, are the defendants.

"Luis also kept a mistress with whom he had five children. He maintained the latter family in a house he constructed for them in the same compound where his parents were living, and found it more convenient and comfortable to spend most of his time with his common- law wife and his illegitimate children. And although Luis attended to the immediate needs of his legitimate children, who were then residing with their grandparents (deceased spouses), Luis did not lavish upon them as much care and attention as he did the other family. This peculiar behavior and conduct on the part of Luis, led his parents to fear that should their properties pass on to him upon their death, Luis might dispose of the same in favor of his illegitimate children, to the prejudice of his legitimate children. And because of this, the deceased spouses decided to transfer their properties in the name of one of their legitimate grandchildren, for the latter to hold the same in trust for the other brothers and sisters. After a family council held in 1938, the grandchild Teodora was chosen as the transferee because the deceased spouses felt that Teodora, being married to a rich man, Roque Buencamino, would not find any interest in retaining the properties for herself, and that she would solemnly keep her promises to give to each and every one of her brothers and sisters their corresponding shares in the properties in question at the proper time. This transfer was kept a secret from the son Luis.

"However, as these oft-repeated three parcels of land were previously mortgaged to Serafin and Encarnacion Lazatin to secure an obligation of P4,500.00, provided she secure the same with a mortgage over the properties in question. The necessary papers were then prepared. First, the mortgage to the Lazatins were released upon the payment of the P4,500.00, plus interests. An Escritura de Venta con Arrendamiento was then executed by the deceased spouses in favor of Teodora and Roque Buencamino on March 4, 1938. On the same date also, a mortgage in favor of Felipe Buencamino, Jr. for the sum of P5,000.00 was executed by the new transferees Teodora and Roque Buencamino.

"In the Escritura de Venta mentioned above, it was stated that the deceased spouses would remain as lessees of the properties in question. In return they would pay an annual rent of P300.00 , plus the obligation of paying the corresponding real estate taxes. Thus, it was the deceased spouses who retained possession of the farm lands until 1949 when Fulgencio Matias died. While the taxes thereon were religiously paid by them, there is no evidence to show that they ever paid the annual rent of P300.00 to either Teodora or her husband Roque. Upon the death of Fulgencio in 1949, Maria D. Matias the widow of Luis took over the possession and administration of the farm lands. However, in May 1954, Teodora took material possession of the same from her mother and has, since then, administered them to the exclusion of her other brothers and sisters."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the basis of these facts, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of Court of First Instance, holding that the Escritura de Venta executed by the deceased Hilaria Dizon in favor of defendants Buencaminos was only an equitable mortgage, but modified it in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In its decision, the trial court declared the Escritura de Venta con Arrendamiento to be an equitable mortgage in favor of the plaintiffs. And while it is true that plaintiffs-appellees did not question such pronouncement, for the obvious reason that the appealed judgment was favorable to them, nevertheless, this Court in its jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or reverse a judgment brought before it for review, can make further pronouncement in favor of an appellee who is not required to make assignments of error on appeal. . . .

"Conformably with our foregoing conclusions, we hereby declare that the three parcels of land originally registered in the name of Hilaria Dizon Matias, and presently in the name of Teodora and Roque Buencamino are held by the latter in trust for the benefit of Teodora’s legitimate brothers and sisters. Upon payment, therefore, of the mortgage debt of P5,000.00, with 6% interest thereon from March 4, 1938, until the date of actual payment, which date shall not be later than 30 days from the date of the finality of this decision, to the estate of the late Felipe Buencamino, Jr., the mortgage shall be canceled, and, immediately thereafter, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11036 in the name of Teodora and Roque Buencamino shall be surrendered to the Register of Deeds of Pampanga, who shall issue another title in the names of:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Modesta Matias, Filipino, of legal age, widow.

2. Teodora Matias, married to Roque Buencamino, both Filipinos and of legal age.

3. Segundo Matias, married to Lucina Taay, both Filipinos and of legal age.

4. Jacinto Matias, married to Anselma de Matias, both Filipinos and of legal age.

5. Vicente Matias, married to Anselma de Matias, both Filipinos and of legal age.

6. Jesus Matias, single, and of legal age.

7. Mamerto Matias, married to Belen Tan Garcia, both Filipinos, and of legal age.

"x       x       x"

In this proceeding instituted by the spouses Teodora and Roque Buencamino for the review of the foregoing decision of the Court of Appeals, it is claimed, among others, that the said court erred: (1) in deciding the case on a certain ground in favor of appellees, other than the error assigned in the brief for appellants; (2) in not finding the action barred by extinctive prescription; (3) in concluding that the "Escritura de Venta" (Exh. A) and the deed of mortgage (Exh. C-2) resulted to an implied trust; and (4) in finding that the deed of donation (Exh. B) vested on Teodora Matias de Buencamino only the beneficial use of the residential lot owned by Fulgencio Matias.

It is true that the court a quo rendered its judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, on the ground that the purported deed of sale was in reality an equitable mortgage, which ruling was not assailed by said plaintiffs in the appellate court. This, however, does not preclude the latter court, before which the whole appealed decision has been opened and presented for its review, to pass upon and decide the litigated issues on different grounds. Thus, as this Court had said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is not incumbent on an appellee, who occupies a purely defensive position and is seeking no affirmative relief, to make assignments of error. Only an appellant is required to make such assignments. Therefore, when the case occurs, as not infrequently happens, that a trial judge decides a case in favor of one of the parties on a certain ground, it is entirely proper for this Court, upon affirming the judgment, to base its decision upon some other point which may have been ignored by the trial court, or in respect to which that court may have been entirely in error." (Garcia Valdez v. Soterana Tuazon, 40 Phil. 943.)

The contention that the action for reconveyance, which was brought 17 years after the execution of the disputed document, was barred by prescription, cannot also be sustained. The Court of Appeals, based on the evidence presented in the case, made the factual finding, by which we are bound as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The evidence is likewise, clear that the true intent and understanding of the deceased spouses with Teodora and Roque Buencamino was that the latter would hold the title over the farm lands in trust for the benefit of Teodora’s brothers and sisters. Teodora herself confirmed this when, in a letter she wrote her grandfather in 1939, she reaffirmed her intention to comply with the trust and confidence reposed upon her by her grandparents. Again, when her mother asked Teodora to convey with her promise to convey the corresponding shares to her other brothers and sisters, she replied that the only obstacle to this conveyance was the payment of the mortgage account to her father-in-law Felipe Buencamino, Jr."cralaw virtua1aw library

In short, the execution of the deed, Exhibit A, and the consequent registration of the properties in the names of the petitioner spouses, created an implied trust in favor of Teodora’s legitimate brothers and sisters. And while implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years, 1 the rule does not apply where a fiduciary relation exists and the trustee recognizes the trust. 2 Continuous recognition of a resulting trust precludes any defense of laches in a suit to declare and enforce the trust. 3 As it does not appear when Teodora repudiated the existence of fiduciary relations between her and brothers and sisters, the same shall be taken to have been made only upon the filing of her answer to the complaint. The action brought by the plaintiffs to enforce such trust, therefore, has not yet prescribed.

On the matter of the fourth parcel of land, belonging to Fulgencio Matias, which petitioners claim to have been donated to Teodora, we have the finding of the Court of Appeals, supported by the document executed by the said deceased owner on January 15, 1940, that only the beneficial use thereof has been given to her, for the duration of her natural life. Accordingly, the decision of the lower court to partition the naked ownership thereof among the heirs, is proper.

Wherefore, finding no error in the decision of the Court of Appeals, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioners. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Diaz v. Gorricho, 103 Phil. 261.

2. See J. M. Tuazon & Co. v. Magdangal, 114 Phil. 42.

3. Candelaria v. Romero, 109 Phil. 500.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21752 April 25, 1966 SIMEON HIDALGO v. LA TONDEÑA, INC., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 377 April 29, 1966 CONCEPCION BOLIVAR v. ABELARDO M. SIMBOL

  • G.R. No. L-15471 April 29, 1966 BENJAMIN T. PONCE v. HQTRS., PHIL. ARMY EFFICIENCY AND SEPARATION BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-18067 April 29, 1966 PEDRO F. NACIONALES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18570 April 29, 1966 BARTOLOME GUIRAO v. EVARISTO VER

  • G.R. No. L-19161 April 29, 1966 MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. MACARIA BALLESTEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19327 April 29, 1966 AMADO BELLA JARO v. ELPIDIO VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19558 April 29, 1966 LA MALLORCA, ET AL. v. CIRILO D. MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-19576 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19609 April 29, 1966 JOSE NEGRE v. CABAHUG SHIPPING & CO.

  • G.R. No. L-19645 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA (MARUJA) P. VDA. DE YULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19647 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENEDICTO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20480 April 29, 1966 CLARA SALAZAR, ET AL. v. FILEMON Q. ORTIZANO

  • G.R. No. L-20709 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANDRONICO AUGUSTO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20710 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEREGRINA TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21072 April 29, 1966 BRUNO TORRALBA, ET AL. v. ZACARIAS ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21194 April 29, 1966 HAW LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21285 April 29, 1966 MANUFACTURER’S DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. YU SIU LIONG

  • G.R. No. L-21321 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-19581 April 29, 1966 IN RE: SUSANO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19847 April 29, 1966 IN RE: GUADALUPE UY SIOCO NACAGUE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19502 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEDRO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21907 April 29, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21457 and L-21461 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-23082 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21778 April 29, 1966 IN RE: CHAN PENG HIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21895 April 29, 1966 IN RE: AGUEDA GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21762 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEON C. SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21078 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANTONIO L. CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20715 April 29, 1966 IN RE: WAYNE CHANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20510 April 29, 1966 FELICIDAD TOLENTINO v. EULOGIA BIGORNIA CARDENAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20397 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20188 April 29, 1966 PETER C. SANTOS v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20159 April 29, 1966 MIGUEL GERMANO, ET AL. v. ERENEO SURITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20016 April 29, 1966 IN RE: EMMANUEL YU NAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21446 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEE TIT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21452 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENITO KO BOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21477-81 April 29, 1966 FRANCISCA VILUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21493-94 April 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO G. CAINGLET

  • G.R. No. L-21516 April 29, 1966 BUTUAN SAWMILL, INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21555 April 29, 1966 DOROTEA BALMEO v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21593 April 29, 1966 RAYMUNDA S. DIGRAN v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21695 April 29, 1966 ILDEFONSO AGREDA, ET AL. v. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21812 April 29, 1966 PAZ TORRES DE CONEJERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22117 April 29, 1966 PAMPANGA SUGAR DEV. CO., INC. v. DONATO QUIROZ

  • G.R. No. L-22120 April 29, 1966 ILUMINADO MOTUS, ET AL. v. CFI OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22220 April 29, 1966 A. D. SANTOS, INC. v. CONCHITA VDA. DE SAPON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22454 April 29, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INS. CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22594 April 29, 1966 CECILIA RAPADAZ VDA. DE RAPISURA v. NICANOR NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 241 April 30, 1966 REBECCA M. MIRANDA v. FRANCISCO FUENTES

  • G.R. No. L-16969 April 30, 1966 R. MARINO CORPUS v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-17037 April 30, 1966 EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18032 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO SERDEÑA

  • G.R. No. L-18308 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15823-26 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALBAL SIGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18867 April 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO OCTOBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19397 April 30, 1966 TEODORA MATIAS DE BUENCAMINO, ET AL. v. MARIA DIZON DE MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19613 April 30, 1966 ALFONSO G. LOPEZ v. FILIPINAS COMPANIA DE SEGUROS

  • G.R. No. L-19869 April 30, 1966 PATRICIO M. MIGUEL v. JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20018 April 30, 1966 CHIU HAP CHIU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20155 April 30, 1966 LEXAL PURE DRUG LAB. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20687 April 30, 1966 MAXIMINO VALDEPENAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20721 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALAGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21034 April 30, 1966 IN RE: THOMAS FALLON v. EMILIO CAMON

  • G.R. No. L-21139 April 30, 1966 CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21440 April 30, 1966 SUN BROS. APPLIANCES, INC. v. ANGEL AL. CALUNTAD

  • G.R. No. L-21460 April 30, 1966 AMERICAN MACHINERY & PARTS MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21471 April 30, 1966 VICENTE S. DY REYES, ET AL. v. FRUCTUOSO ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20875 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21623 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21760 April 30, 1966 SWITZERLAND GEN. INS. CO., LTD. v. JAVA PACIFIC & HOEGH LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21685 April 30, 1966 CLETO ASPREC v. VICTORIANO ITCHON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21693 April 30, 1966 PROCOPIO F. ELEAZAR v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-21810 April 30, 1966 ARMANDO ESPERANZA v. ANDRES CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-22085 April 30, 1966 IN RE: SEGUNDA VDA. DE GAMIR, ET AL. v. THELMA G. SAWAMOTO

  • G.R. No. L-22143 April 30, 1966 LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. ANTONIO TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22192 April 30, 1966 IN RE: VIRGILIO LIM TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22210 April 30, 1966 PILAR T. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22305 April 30, 1966 PRAXEDES GABRIEL, ET AL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23294 April 30, 1966 NAMARCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASS’N. v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23812 April 30, 1966 PRIMO T. OCAMPO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DUQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21191 April 30, 1966 EVERETT STEAMSHIP CORP. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20022 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO SALVACION

  • G.R. No. L-20905 April 30, 1966 MARTA A. VDA. DE CUIZON v. EMILIANO ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20028 & L-20029 April 30, 1966 GREGORIO ATIENZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18514 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO TANIA, ET AL.