Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1933 > December 1933 Decisions > G.R. No. 37090 December 23, 1933 - CRISANTA SUAREZ, ET AL. v. PRUDENCIO TIRAMBULO, ET AL.

059 Phil 303:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 37090. December 23, 1933.]

CRISANTA SUAREZ ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PRUDENCIO TIRAMBULO ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Raymundo I. Villanueva for Appellants.

Manuel Trinidad and Gullas, Lopez & Tuaño for Appellees.

Natalio M. Balboa, Dominador J. Endriga and Rufino C. Manaloto for appellee National Bank.

SYLLABUS


1. TRUST AND TRUSTEE; ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUST BY PAROL EVIDENCE; CERTAINTY OF PROOF. — Where a trust is to be established by oral proof, the testimony supporting it must be sufficiently strong to prove the right of the alleged beneficiary with as much certainty as if a document proving the trust were shown. A trust cannot be established, contrary to the recitals of a Torrens title, upon vague and inconclusive proof.


D E C I S I O N


STREET, J.:


This action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Oriental Negros by Crisanta, Raymunda, and Guillerma, of the surname Suarez, the first two being assisted by their husbands. The defendants are Prudencio Tirambulo and his wife, Elisea Buntigao, with whom are joined Policarpia Mogillo and the Philippine National Bank. The purpose of the complaint is, in effect, to obtain a judicial decree declaring the plaintiffs of the surname Suarez entitled to certain portions of two pieces of property located in the municipality of Guihulngan, Oriental Negros, and to compel Tirambulo to transfer to them the undivided portions of which they claim to be owners, with other relief. Upon hearing the cause the trial court dismissed the complaint, without express pronouncement as to costs, and the plaintiffs appealed.

On September 16, 1914, Prudencio Tirambulo filed an application in the Court of Land Registration of the Province of Oriental Negros for the registration of two parcels of land. In this proceeding default was taken and no one appeared to contest the proceedings. Accordingly, when the cause was heard, on January 18, 1915, the property was adjudicated to him and his wife; and on April 19, 1915, the original certificate of title No. 62 was issued to the applicant. That decree has never been questioned in any proceeding for review, and no contention even now is made to the effect that there was anything wrong with the title other than hereinafter explained. The certificate referred to includes over one hundred hectares, and the plaintiffs, as well as the defendant Tirambulo and wife, have all lived thereon for a long period of time.

Since Tirambulo acquired the Torrens certificate to this property, he — and he alone — has exercised the power of ownership in various ways. Thus, on March 30, 1917, he mortgaged the property to the Philippine National Bank for P2,500. On August 8, 1923, he again mortgaged it to the Philippine National Bank; and after the mortgage was paid off, he sold it under pacto de retro to Jose Garcia for P2,952. On January 11, 1926, he again sold the property to the same Garcia, with pacto de retro, for P5,800. In March, 1927, he mortgaged the property a second time to the Philippine National Bank, and on December 12, 1928, through his attorney in fact, E. Villanueva, he again mortgaged it to the same bank. During these years his right as absolute owner of the property has not been questioned by any, and, although, when the property was first mortgaged to the bank, an inspector for the bank visited the property and investigated it to discover any adverse claim. The last mortgage to the bank was made to secure a debt for P35,000, and there was included in this mortgage property belonging to others, but nothing appears as to the relative value of properties so mortgaged. In the end the mortgage debt has not been paid, and we take judicial knowledge of the fact that judgment has been rendered in favor of the bank in an action for foreclosure brought against the defendant Tirambulo. The decision of the Court of First Instance in that case was brought to this court by appeal, but that appeal has been dismissed and the cause remanded for execution. It is obvious that the mortgage made by Tirambulo was valid, and it is undeniable that the bank was an innocent purchaser for value. The result will therefore undoubtedly be, unless the property has been or will be redeemed from the bank’s mortgage, that a sale will be made which will vest a valid title in the purchaser.

This action was begun on February 16, 1931, and an amended complaint was filed on May 26 of the same year. The principal basis of the action consists in the allegation that the female plaintiffs of the name Suarez are coheirs of Elisea Buntigao, who is their half sister, and that they all are owners in common of the property covered by the Torrens title. In this connection it is claimed that, before Prudencio Tirambulo procured the Torrens title above-mentioned, he had agreed with the plaintiffs to represent them and to act for them as well as for himself and wife in the procurance of the Torrens title, and that, in violation of this promise, he took the title exclusively in his own name. It is further asserted that until the year 1930 the plaintiffs did not know that the Torrens title had been thus taken exclusively in the name of Tirambulo.

As a legal proposition a contention of this kind is tenable, for, if a person acts for another in procuring a Torrens title, he will not be permitted, in breach of faith, to deprive his principals of their interest and to claim the whole for himself. But the point where this case fails is in the proof. It is a well settled rule of law that, where a trust is to be established by oral proof, the testimony supporting it must be sufficiently strong to prove the right of the alleged beneficiary with as much certainty as if a document were shown. To understand this feature of the case, it is necessary to take account of the relations of the parties and of the history of the title.

Back in Spanish times, a generation before the advent of the Americans, there lived in Guihulngan one Casimiro Suarez. His wife was Policarpia Mogillo, and they had three children who have survived, namely, the plaintiffs Crisanta, Raymunda, and Guillerma. Casimiro died long ago and Policarpia Mogillo married, as her second husband, one Mateo Buntigao. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the land now sued for was acquired during the first marriage, with the result that the plaintiffs inherited from their deceased father his half in the conjugal property.

Elisea Buntigao, wife of Prudencio Tirambulo, is a daughter of Policarpia Mogillo by her second marriage, and it is the theory of the defense that the property which is the subject of this contention was acquired by Policarpia Mogillo during her second marriage. This accords with the finding of the court from the proof submitted in the land registration case, and the truth of this finding is indicated by the proof in this case. One of the things that has given trouble is that, on November 9, 1911, Policarpia Mogillo, by document acknowledged before a notary public, assigned in partition to her four children of first and second marriages certain specific portions of her property, and the plaintiffs have, since that date, been actually occupying the portions so assigned to them, and this document is relied upon as proof of their ownership of such parcels. But this document, the execution of which is unquestioned, contains in its last paragraph a statement that this division was intended to be definitive so long as the grantor should not otherwise dispose (va en carcter de definitivo interin no disponga otra cosa). This clearly indicates that the grantor intended to reserve a power of absolute disposition.

Finally, on May 13, 1914, or shortly before the registration proceeding was begun by Prudencio Tirambulo, Policarpia Mogillo sold and conveyed to him the two parcels of land which were presently the subject of registration proceedings, and that transfer supplied the basis upon which registration was effected. At that time Policarpia Mogillo was living with one of the plaintiffs, though later she has been living with the Tirambulos.

As to how and when Policarpia Mogillo acquired the property which she thus conveyed to Tirambulo, the court of registration found that she acquired it during her second marriage by purchase from one Nicolas Planas, and the proof showing such acquisition is at least more convincing than the proof that she acquired it during the first marriage. It is evident that the long occupation of portions of the property by the plaintiffs has tended to engender in their mind in late days the belief that they ought, any way, to be owners of the parcels so held by them. But the decree of the Court of Land Registration refutes this, and there is no proof before us which would justify any court in annulling the title, or holding Tirambulo to the obligations of a trustee with respect to the property. We note that the only witness whose testimony tends to show an agreement on the part of Tirambulo to procure the Torrens title in behalf of the three plaintiffs, as well as in behalf of his own life, is Marcelino Buntigao. But he is a highly interested party, being the husband of Crisanta Suarez. His testimony is denied by the defendant Tirambulo and wife, and we are of the opinion that the trial judge was correct in finding the issue of fact in favor of the defendants.

The long lapse of time during which the plaintiffs have made no move looking towards the assertion of their claim, when it is absolutely certain that they knew the state of the title, and acquiesced in the claim of the defendants, is convincing that the agreement was not made. Upon this point it is proved that, after the property was registered in the name of Tirambulo, the tax assessor appeared among these plaintiffs and they voluntarily signed the transfers authorizing the assessment of the property thereafter in the name of Tirambulo. Since that time he has uniformly paid the taxes; and although the plaintiffs claim that they have accounted to him for their share of the taxes, the trial judge found that this pretense was not supported by the evidence, and we think that he committed no error in so holding.

The judgment appealed from will be affirmed, and it is so ordered, without pronouncement as to costs.

Abad Santos, Vickers, Butte, and Diaz, JJ., concur.




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






December-1933 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 38989 December 1, 1933 - ALEJO BASCO v. MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALEZ

    059 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 39298 December 1, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SANTIAGO RAMOS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 38499 December 6, 1933 - FAUSTINA UDARBE, ET AL. v. MARCIANA JURADO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 38572 December 6, 1933 - EUSEBIO RIVERO v. MARIANO RIVERO

    059 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. 37792 December 7, 1933 - QUINTIN DE BORJA v. FRANCISCO DE BORJA

    059 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 38097 December 7, 1933 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO., LTD. v. ORLANES & BANAAG TRANS. CO.

    059 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 38552 December 7, 1933 - ENRIQUE SOMES v. VICENTE SOMES, ET AL.

    059 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 38398 December 8, 1933 - PHIL. TRUST CO., ET AL. v. L. P. MITCHELL, ET AL.

    059 Phil 30

  • G.R. No. 39864 December 8, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARCELINO VALENCIA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 40492 December 8, 1933 - TIMOTEO EVANGELISTA v. CFI OF BULACAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 40494 December 8, 1933 - GREGORIO PASCUA, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 37105 December 9, 1933 - GUI PING HUI v. ACTING INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 38298 December 9, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JESUS TOLENTINO

    059 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 37467 December 11, 1933 - SAN CARLOS MILLING CO. v. BPI, ET AL.

    059 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 38850 December 11, 1933 - ANTONIO ESTIVA, ET AL. v. GONZALO CAWIL, ET AL.

    059 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 39034 December 11, 1933 - INT’L. BANKING CORP. v. GEORGE A. YARED

    059 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 39456 December 11, 1933 - PASTOR V. VALERA v. RURAL TRANSIT CO.

    059 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 39470 December 11, 1933 - NORTH LUZON TRANS. CO., INC., ET AL. v. PASTOR V. VALERA

    059 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 39008 December 12, 1933 - NIEVES E. SAÑGA v. SEGUNDO ZABALLERO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. 37185 December 13, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CHUA BUAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 38332 December 14, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. VALERIANO DUCOSIN

    059 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 38709 December 14, 1933 - SY TIANGCO v. HIPOLITO PABLO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 119

  • In the matter of the complaint against Attorney Gregorio O. Santos. December 16, 1933 - INES VENTURA v. GREGORIO O. SANTOS

    059 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 38256 December 16, 1933 - PHIL. COOP. LIVESTOCK ASSO. v. TOMAS EARNSHAW, ET AL.

    059 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 38417 December 16, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARCIANO MEDINA

    059 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 39003 December 16, 1933 - LAUREANO ELEGADO, ET AL. v. NICANOR TAVORA

    059 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 39403 December 16, 1933 - LEE SING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 38773 December 19, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GINES S. ALBURQUERQUE

    059 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 39913 December 19, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RICARDO N. MELENDREZ

    059 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 39181 December 20, 1933 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. M. P. TRANCO, INC.

    059 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 39217 December 20, 1933 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. M. P. TRANCO, INC.

    059 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 39275 December 20, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RICARDO MENDOZA

    059 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 40637 December 20, 1933 - M.P. TRANS. CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM., ET AL.

    059 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. 40759 December 20, 1933 - LIME CORP. OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. MANUEL V. MORAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 36890 December 21, 1933 - BPI v. PASCUAL ACUÑA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 37590 December 21, 1933 - JOSE FERNANDO RODRIGO v. CONCEPCION CABIGAO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 37640 December 21, 1933 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EL AHORRO INSULAR

    059 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. 38010 December 21, 1933 - PATRICK HENRY FRANK, ET AL. v. G. KOSUYAMA

    059 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 38084 December 21, 1933 - DOLORES M. VIUDA DE BARRETTO ET AL. v. LA PREVISORA FILIPINA

    059 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. 38131 December 21, 1933 - BEHN, MEYER & CO., ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    059 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 38684 December 21, 1933 - CYRUS PADGETT v. BABCOCK & TEMPLETON, INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 232

  • G.R. Nos. 38215 & 38216 December 22, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FAUSTINO RIVERA

    059 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 38375 December 22, 1933 - JOSE SY JONG CHUY v. PABLO C. REYES

    059 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 39078 December 22, 1933 - NICASIA BATALLONES v. PUBLEO BATALLONES, ET AL.

    059 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. 39839 December 22, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GABRIEL HERNANDEZ

    059 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 40659 December 22, 1933 - PASAY TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    059 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 40889 December 22, 1933 - ISIDORO YBOLEON v. PEDRO MA. SISON, ET AL.

    059 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 35694 December 23, 1933 - ALLISON D. GIBBS v. GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    059 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 37090 December 23, 1933 - CRISANTA SUAREZ, ET AL. v. PRUDENCIO TIRAMBULO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 37345 December 23, 1933 - ALEJANDRA REPOLLO, ET AL. v. BERNABE BALECHA

    059 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 37452 December 23, 1933 - FERMIN SUPIA, ET AL. v. JOSE M. QUINTERO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 38052 December 23, 1933 - CONCEPCION ABELLA DE DIAZ v. ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 38434 December 23, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARCIANO D. MEDINA

    059 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 38774 December 23, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ALEKO LILIUS

    059 Phil 339

  • G.R. Nos. 39840 & 39841 December 23, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GABRIEL HERNANDEZ

    059 Phil 343