Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 331 views

    Heirs of Candelaria V Romero

    Uploaded by

    moniquehadjirul
    1. Emilio Candelaria and his brother Lucas bought land together, but Lucas became sick and sold his interest in the land to Emilio, who continued making payments until it was fully paid. 2. In 1918, the title was issued in Lucas's name, but Emilio's heirs alleged that Lucas held the title in implied trust for Emilio. 3. The court found an implied trust existed because Emilio intended to obtain a beneficial interest in the land by paying for it, and remanded the case for further proceedings, as continuous recognition of an implied trust precludes the defense of laches.

    Copyright:

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

    Heirs of Candelaria V Romero

    Uploaded by

    moniquehadjirul
    331 views2 pages
    1. Emilio Candelaria and his brother Lucas bought land together, but Lucas became sick and sold his interest in the land to Emilio, who continued making payments until it was fully paid. 2. In 1918, the title was issued in Lucas's name, but Emilio's heirs alleged that Lucas held the title in implied trust for Emilio. 3. The court found an implied trust existed because Emilio intended to obtain a beneficial interest in the land by paying for it, and remanded the case for further proceedings, as continuous recognition of an implied trust precludes the defense of laches.

    Original Title

    2. Heirs of Candelaria v Romero

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Emilio Candelaria and his brother Lucas bought land together, but Lucas became sick and sold his interest in the land to Emilio, who continued making payments until it was fully paid. 2. In 1918, the title was issued in Lucas's name, but Emilio's heirs alleged that Lucas held the title in implied trust for Emilio. 3. The court found an implied trust existed because Emilio intended to obtain a beneficial interest in the land by paying for it, and remanded the case for further proceedings, as continuous recognition of an implied trust precludes the defense of laches.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    331 views2 pages

    Heirs of Candelaria V Romero

    Uploaded by

    moniquehadjirul
    1. Emilio Candelaria and his brother Lucas bought land together, but Lucas became sick and sold his interest in the land to Emilio, who continued making payments until it was fully paid. 2. In 1918, the title was issued in Lucas's name, but Emilio's heirs alleged that Lucas held the title in implied trust for Emilio. 3. The court found an implied trust existed because Emilio intended to obtain a beneficial interest in the land by paying for it, and remanded the case for further proceedings, as continuous recognition of an implied trust precludes the defense of laches.

    Copyright:

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

    2. Heirs of Candelaria v Romero  Lucas died in August, 1942.

    Said defendants are still in possession of the lot,


    GR No. L-12149 having refused to reconvey it to plaintiff despite repeated demands.
    September 30, 1960  Defendants filed MTD which lower court granted, holding that an express and
    Topic: Implied Trust not an implied trust was created as may be gleaned from the facts alleged in
    Plaintiff-appellant: HEIRS OF EMILIO CANDELARIA, ETC. the complaint, which is unenforceable without any writing. It also ruled that
    Defendants-appellees: LUISA ROMERO, ET AL. action has prescribed since TCT was issued to Lucas 38 years before filing of
    Ponente: Gutierrez David, J. complaint.
    Doctrine: Where property is taken by a person under an agreement to hold it for, or
    convey it to another or the grantor, a resulting or implied trust arises in favor of the Issues/Ruling:
    person for whose benefit the property was intended. (Martinez v Guaño) 1. W/N the trust alleged to have been created is express - NO. The trust is
    an implied trust.
    Continuous recognition of a resulting trust precludes any defense of laches in a suit  In the present case, the complaint expressly alleges that "although Lucas
    to declare and enforce the trust. Candelaria had no more interest over the lot, the subsequent payments made
    by Emilio Candelaria until fully paid were made in the name of Lucas
    Facts: Candelaria, with the understanding that the necessary documents of transfer
     Sometime prior to 1917 the Emilio Candelaria and his brother Lucas will be made later, the reason that the transaction being brother to brother."
    Candelaria bought each a lot on the installment basis. Lucas paid the first two  From this allegation, it is apparent that Emilio Candelaria who furnished the
    installments corresponding to his lot, but faced with the inability of meeting consideration intended to obtain a beneficial interest in the property in
    the subsequent installments because of sickness which caused him to be question. Having supplied the purchase money, it may naturally be presumed
    bedridden. He sold his interest therein to his brother Emilio, who then that he intended the purchase for his own benefit. Indeed, it is evident from
    reimbursed him the amount he had already paid, and thereafter continued the above-quoted allegation in the complaint that the property in question
    payment of the remaining installments until the whole purchase, price had was acquired by Lucas Candelaria under circumstances which show that it was
    been fully satisfied. Although Lucas had no more interest over the lot, the conveyed to him on the faith of his intention to hold it for, or convey it to the
    subsequent payments made by Emilio Candelaria until fully paid were made in grantor, the plaintiff's predecessor in interest.
    the name of Lucas, with the understanding that the necessary documents of
    transfer will be made later, the reason that the transaction being from brother 2. W/N action has prescribed – NO. Case remanded.
    to brother.  Constructive or implied trusts may be barred by lapse of time. The rule in such
     In 1918 a TCT for said lot was issued by the register of deeds of Manila in the trusts is that laches constitutes a bar to actions to enforce the trust, and
    name of "Lucas Candelaria married to Luisa Romero". repudiation is not required, unless there is concealment of the facts giving rise
     Ester Candelaria, in her behalf and in respresentation of other alleged heir sof to the trust.
    Emilio Candelaria filed a complaint alleging that Lucas held the title to said lot  Continuous recognition of a resulting trust, however, precludes any defense of
    merely in trust for Emilio and that this fact was acknowledged not only by him laches in a suit to declare and enforce the trust. The beneficiary of a resulting
    but also by the defendants (his heirs) on several occasions. Lucas' possession trust may, therefore, without prejudice to his right to enforce the trust, prefer
    of the lot was merely tolerated by Emilio and his heirs. From the time Emilio the trust to persist and demand no conveyance from the trustee. It being
    bought the lot from his brother, Lucas had been collecting all its rents for his alleged in the complaint that Lucas held the title to the lot in question merely
    own use as financial aid to him as a brother in view of the fact that he was in trust for Emilio and that this fact was acknowledged not only by him but
    bedridden without any means of livelihood and with several children to also by his heirs, herein defendants — which allegation is hypothetically
    support, although from 1926, when Emilio was confined at the Culion Leper admitted — we are not prepared to rule that plaintiff's action is already barred
    Colony up to his death in 1936, Lucas had been giving part of the rents to by lapse of time. On the contrary, we think the interest of justice would be
    Fortunata Bautista, the second wife of Emilio, in accordance with the latter's better served if she and her alleged co-heirs were to be given an opportunity
    wishes. to be heard and allowed to present proof in support of their claim.
    Wherefore, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby reversed and the case
    remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings.

    You might also like