Sales Vs Sps Pasoquin

GEORGE M. SALES, petitioner, vs.
SPOUSES ALEJANDRO AND LYDIA PASOQUIN,

SPOUSES WILFREDO AND LILIA VILLASANTA, AND THE REGALIA GROUP
CORPORATION, respondents.
G.R. No. 209334. October 6, 2021.
Trustor: Digital Telecom Systems, Inc. (DTSI)

Trustee: George M. Sales (his claim as a trustee of DSTI is not supported by evidence)
Facts:
1) Petitioner, President and Chairman of the Digital Telecom Systems, Inc. (DTSI), along with
Alejandro and Wilfredo (collectively, respondents), and other members of the Board of Directors
of DTSI, agreed to purchase one condominium unit each at Regalia Park Towers using the funds
of DTSI, GMS Construction Corporation (GMSCC), and GM Sales Real Estate Corporation.
2) DTSI and GMSCC each paid P125,000.00 as initial payment for the reservation fees while
respondents paid the other half. Thereafter a Condominium Certificate of Title, both in the name
of the Regalia Group Corporation (Regalia), were issued for the subject units
3) DTSI suffered financial reverses. As a consequence, petitioner requested for a recapitalization of
DTSI and demanded that each director sign a deed of assignment declaring him as assignee of
the condominium units. The members of the Board initially refused, but they were later forced to
agree to the proposal when petitioner withheld their salaries. Despite their misgivings, Alejandro
and Wilfredo executed separate deeds of assignment in favor of petitioner covering their titles
and interests on the subject units.
4) Respondents rescinded the deeds of assignment they executed, alleging that their consent thereto
was procured under duress by petitioner. They also went to Regalia to demand the titles of the
subject units but the latter refused. Hence, respondents filed a complaint for specific performance
before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
5) The HLURB directed Regalia to execute the deeds of sale and to deliver to respondents the
corresponding titles over the subject units. Board of Commissioners and the he Office of the
President (OP) affirmed HLURB’s decision
6) The HLURB’s decision became final and executory, and an entry of judgment was thereafter
issued.
7) Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and quieting of title with the
RTC to compel respondents Alejandro and Pasoquin, as well as Wilfredo and Lilia Villasanta to
honor the deeds of assignment they executed in his favor.
8) Ruling of the RTC: The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action. It noted that the
subject units belonged to DTSI, and not to petitioner himself. Moreover, it pointed out that
except for his bare statement, petitioner's claim as trustee of the subject units was unsupported
by evidence.
9) Ruling of the CA: CA affirmed the RTC ruling in toto. The CA likewise ruled that petitioner had no
legal or equitable title or interest over the subject units considering that: first, the properties were
registered in the name of Regalia; and second, petitioner's claim that he was a trustee thereof was
not supported by evidence.
10) Hence, the petition.
The Issue
Whether or not petitioner is a trustee of DSTI (NO)
The Court's Ruling

No, petitioner's claim as trustee of the subject units was unsupported by evidence.
Consequently, his complaint for specific performance and quieting of title was validly dismissed.
The subject units are corporate properties, hence, petitioner cannot claim ownership thereof. In
fact, the stipulation that DTSI and GMSCC paid the entire purchase price of the subject units belies
petitioner's claim of ownership, whether legal or equitable. It is a universally recognized doctrine that
a stockholder, even a director and president like petitioner, has no legal or equitable title to the
corporate property
A trust, whether express or implied, is not presumed. As such, "the burden of proving the
existence of a trust is on the party asserting its existence, and such proof must be clear and
satisfactorily show the existence of the trust and its elements."
Thus, the following elements must concur:
1) a trustor or settlor who executes the instrument creating the trust;
2) a trustee, who is the person expressly designated to carry out the trust;
3) the trust res, consisting of duly identified and definite real properties; and
4) the cestui que trust, or beneficiaries whose identity must be clear."
Here, it was incumbent upon petitioner to prove the existence of the alleged trust relationship.
Lamentably, petitioner failed in this respect.
It is settled that "[t]he existence of express trusts concerning real property may not be
established by parol evidence. It must be proven by some writing or deed." Notably, in petitioner's
case, the only evidence to support his claim that a trust existed between him and Regalia was his own
self-serving testimony, which does not constitute evidence adequate to support a conclusion. On this
point, the CA correctly ruled as follows:
Plaintiff-appellant's assertion that he is a trustee of DTSI, which paid for the subject
condominium units, is not supported by evidence. x x x.
More importantly, plaintiff-appellant admitted that there was no written
agreement of such trust. He also admitted that there was no board resolution
approving or authorizing the purported trust agreement. It has been held that the
existence of express trusts concerning real property may not be established by parol
evidence. There must be some writing or deed. Without any writing to prove such
express trust, plaintiff-appellant cannot validly claim that he is a trustee of DTSI.
The official acts and decisions of the HLURB are presumed to be valid and regular unless the
party assailing them can present evidence that they are invalid or void. In the case, petitioner
miserably failed to discharge this burden
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of CA is AFFIRMED.

Sales Vs Sps Pasoquin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sales Vs Sps Pasoquin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sales Vs Sps Pasoquin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEORGE M. SALES, petitioner, vs.

SPOUSES ALEJANDRO AND LYDIA PASOQUIN,

G.R. No. 209334. October 6, 2021.

Trustor: Digital Telecom Systems, Inc. (DTSI)

The Court's Ruling

You might also like