Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    RAMOS v. RAMOS

    Uploaded by

    King
    The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs' action was not barred by prescription, laches, or res judicata. The Court found that while no express deed of trust was alleged or proven, the partition of the estate implied a trust relationship between the defendants and plaintiffs regarding the plaintiffs' shares. Under the Civil Code, a trustee cannot acquire ownership of property held in trust through prescription, and the beneficiaries can recover the property regardless of lapse of time. Therefore, the plaintiffs could still recover their shares of the estate held in the defendants' names.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    RAMOS v. RAMOS

    Uploaded by

    King
    2K views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs' action was not barred by prescription, laches, or res judicata. The Court found that while no express deed of trust was alleged or proven, the partition of the estate implied a trust relationship between the defendants and plaintiffs regarding the plaintiffs' shares. Under the Civil Code, a trustee cannot acquire ownership of property held in trust through prescription, and the beneficiaries can recover the property regardless of lapse of time. Therefore, the plaintiffs could still recover their shares of the estate held in the defendants' names.

    Original Title

    RAMOS v. RAMOS.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs' action was not barred by prescription, laches, or res judicata. The Court found that while no express deed of trust was alleged or proven, the partition of the estate implied a trust relationship between the defendants and plaintiffs regarding the plaintiffs' shares. Under the Civil Code, a trustee cannot acquire ownership of property held in trust through prescription, and the beneficiaries can recover the property regardless of lapse of time. Therefore, the plaintiffs could still recover their shares of the estate held in the defendants' names.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    RAMOS v. RAMOS

    Uploaded by

    King
    The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs' action was not barred by prescription, laches, or res judicata. The Court found that while no express deed of trust was alleged or proven, the partition of the estate implied a trust relationship between the defendants and plaintiffs regarding the plaintiffs' shares. Under the Civil Code, a trustee cannot acquire ownership of property held in trust through prescription, and the beneficiaries can recover the property regardless of lapse of time. Therefore, the plaintiffs could still recover their shares of the estate held in the defendants' names.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    RAMOS v.

    RAMOS
    PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS OF ACTION TO ENFORCE IMPLIED TRUSTS

    G.R. No. L-19872. December 3, 1974

    FACTS: Spouses Martin Ramos and Candida Tanate died on October 4, 1906 and October 26, 1880, respectively.
    They were survived by their 3 children. Moreover, Martin was survived by his 7 natural children. In December
    1906, a special proceeding for the settlement of the intestate estate of said spouses was conducted. Rafael
    Ramos, a brother of Martin, administered the estate for more than 6 years. Eventually, a partition project was
    submitted which was signed by the 3 legitimate children and 2 of the 7 natural children. A certain Timoteo
    Zayco signed in representation of the other 5 natural children who were minors. The partition was sworn to
    before a justice of peace.

    The conjugal hereditary estate was appraised at P74,984.93, consisting of 18 parcels of land, some head of
    cattle and the advances to the legitimate children. ½ thereof represented the estate of Martin. 1/3 thereof was
    the free portion or P12,497.98. The shares of the 7 natural children were to be taken from that 1/3 free portion.
    Indeed, the partition was made in accordance with the Old Civil code. Thereafter, Judge Richard Campbell
    approved the partition project. The court declared that the proceeding will be considered closed and the record
    should be archived as soon as proof was submitted that each heir had received the portion adjudicated to him.
    On February 3, 1914, Judge Nepumoceno asked the administrator to submit a report showing that the shares
    of the heirs had been delivered to them as required by the previous decision. Nevertheless, the manifestation
    was not in strict conformity with the terms of the judge’s order and with the partition project itself. 8 lots of
    the Himamaylan Cadastre were registered in equal shares in the names of Gregoria (widow of Jose Ramos) and
    her daughter, when in fact the administrator was supposed to pay the cash adjudications to each of them as
    enshrined in the partition project. Plaintiffs were then constrained to bring the suit before the court seeking
    for the reconveyance in their favor their corresponding participations in said parcels of land in accordance with
    Article 840 of the old Civil Code. Note that 1/6 of the subject lots represents the 1/3 free portion of martin’s
    shares which will eventually redound to the shares of his 7 legally acknowledged natural children. The
    petitioners’ action was predicated on the theory that their shares were merely held in trust by defendants.
    Nonetheless, no Deed of Trust was alleged and proven. Ultimately, the lower court dismissed the complaint on
    the grounds of res judicata, prescription and laches.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the plaintiffs’ action was barred by prescription, laches and res judicata to the effect
    that they were denied of their right to share in their father’s estate.

    RULING: There is a rule that a trustee cannot acquire by prescription the ownership of property entrusted to
    him, or that an action to compel a trustee to convey property registered in his name in trust for the benefit of
    the cestui qui trust does not prescribed or that the defense of prescription cannot be set up in an action to
    recover property held by a person in trust for the benefit of another, or that property held in trust can be
    recovered by the beneficiary regardless of the lapse of time.

    That rule applies squarely to express trusts. The basis of the rule is that the possession of a trustee is not
    adverse. Not being adverse, he does not acquire by prescription the property held in trust. Thus, section 38 of
    Act 190 provides that the law of prescription does not apply in the case of a continuing and subsisting trust.

    You might also like