Trust
Content
GR No. 175428 April 15, 2013
RICARDO CHU, JR. and DY KOKENG, Petitioners,
vs
MELANIA CAPARAS and SPOUSES RUEL and HERMENEGILDA PEREZ, Respondents
FACTS:
A certain parcel of land with an area of 51,151 sq. meters located in Silang, Cavite was originally
owned by Miguela Reyes. Part of this land with an area of 25,000 sq. meters located at the eastern portion
was sold to Caparas.
Later, Caparas caused the preparation of a consolidated survey plan under his name for her
several properties in Cavite with a total land area of 40,697 sq. meters. Under this plan, the parcel of land
retained by Miguela was erroneously transferred to the eastern portion of the original 51,151 sq. meters
land, hence, the property was included in the parcels of land owned by Caparas.
During 1991, Caparas sold to spouses Perez the total consolidated parcels of land. In 1994,
Miguela likewise sold her remaining parcel of land to Chu, Jr. and Dy Kokeng.
Considering the alleged error in the Caparas survey plan, Chu Jr. and Dy Kokeng filed a
complaint with the RTC, to recover possession of the subject property with a prayer to annul the sale
made by Caparas to spouses Perez alleging that they are the successors-in-interest of Miguela on the
subject property, erroneously included in the survey and whom Caparas held in trust thereby making only
the spouses Perez as trustee to said property.
The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, and held that they have no sufficient cause of
action for reconveyance, for the property sold to them was different from the property under the
possession of respondents.
Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to C.A, of which it also dismissed and affirmed the RTC’s
decision. Hence, a petition for review on certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not a trust relationship exist between Caparas and Miguela thereby making the
subsequent parties as successors-in-interst to the said trust and whether or not, reconveyance of said
property in the instant case is proper?
RULINGS:
The court sees no trust, express or implied, created between the petitioners and the spouses Perez
over the subject property. A trust by operation of law is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of a property
whose legal title is vested in another. A trust presumes the existence of a conflict involving one and the
same property between two parties, one having the rightful ownership and the other holding the legal title.
There is no trust when the property owned by one party is separate and distinct from that which has been
registered in another’s name. In this case, the Caparas survey plan and the deed of sale between the
petitioners and Miguela showed that the parcel of land sold to the petitioners is distinct from the
consolidated parcels of land sold by Caparas to the spouses Perez.
On the action for reconveyance, the court ruled that, an action for reconveyance is a legal and
equitable remedy that seeks to transfers to or reconvey property, wrongfully registered in another person’s
name, to its rightful owner. To warrant reconveyance of land, the plaintiff must allege and prove, among
others, ownership of the land in dispute and the defendant’s erroneous, fraudulent or wrongful registration
of the property. In the present case, Chu, Jr. and Dy Kokeng failed to prove that the parcel of land they
owned was the subject property. Logically, there is nothing to reconvey as what the spouses Perez
registered in their names did not include the parcel of land which the petitioners, by their evidence, own.
RICARDO CHU, JR. and DY KOKENG, Petitioners,
vs
MELANIA CAPARAS and SPOUSES RUEL and HERMENEGILDA PEREZ, Respondents
FACTS:
A certain parcel of land with an area of 51,151 sq. meters located in Silang, Cavite was originally
owned by Miguela Reyes. Part of this land with an area of 25,000 sq. meters located at the eastern portion
was sold to Caparas.
Later, Caparas caused the preparation of a consolidated survey plan under his name for her
several properties in Cavite with a total land area of 40,697 sq. meters. Under this plan, the parcel of land
retained by Miguela was erroneously transferred to the eastern portion of the original 51,151 sq. meters
land, hence, the property was included in the parcels of land owned by Caparas.
During 1991, Caparas sold to spouses Perez the total consolidated parcels of land. In 1994,
Miguela likewise sold her remaining parcel of land to Chu, Jr. and Dy Kokeng.
Considering the alleged error in the Caparas survey plan, Chu Jr. and Dy Kokeng filed a
complaint with the RTC, to recover possession of the subject property with a prayer to annul the sale
made by Caparas to spouses Perez alleging that they are the successors-in-interest of Miguela on the
subject property, erroneously included in the survey and whom Caparas held in trust thereby making only
the spouses Perez as trustee to said property.
The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, and held that they have no sufficient cause of
action for reconveyance, for the property sold to them was different from the property under the
possession of respondents.
Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to C.A, of which it also dismissed and affirmed the RTC’s
decision. Hence, a petition for review on certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not a trust relationship exist between Caparas and Miguela thereby making the
subsequent parties as successors-in-interst to the said trust and whether or not, reconveyance of said
property in the instant case is proper?
RULINGS:
The court sees no trust, express or implied, created between the petitioners and the spouses Perez
over the subject property. A trust by operation of law is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of a property
whose legal title is vested in another. A trust presumes the existence of a conflict involving one and the
same property between two parties, one having the rightful ownership and the other holding the legal title.
There is no trust when the property owned by one party is separate and distinct from that which has been
registered in another’s name. In this case, the Caparas survey plan and the deed of sale between the
petitioners and Miguela showed that the parcel of land sold to the petitioners is distinct from the
consolidated parcels of land sold by Caparas to the spouses Perez.
On the action for reconveyance, the court ruled that, an action for reconveyance is a legal and
equitable remedy that seeks to transfers to or reconvey property, wrongfully registered in another person’s
name, to its rightful owner. To warrant reconveyance of land, the plaintiff must allege and prove, among
others, ownership of the land in dispute and the defendant’s erroneous, fraudulent or wrongful registration
of the property. In the present case, Chu, Jr. and Dy Kokeng failed to prove that the parcel of land they
owned was the subject property. Logically, there is nothing to reconvey as what the spouses Perez
registered in their names did not include the parcel of land which the petitioners, by their evidence, own.
