G.R. No.

197728, September 16, 2015 with her approval, vacate the premises and pay her arrears; respondent
ignored petitioners' demand letter; petitioners tried to settle the case
SPOUSES ARMANDO AND LORNA amicably but no agreement was reached.
TRINIDAD, Petitioners, v. DONA* MARIE GLENN
IMSON, Respondent. In her Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims,8 respondent countered
that: she, indeed, entered into a contract of lease with the original owners
DECISION of the disputed condominium unit which was to commence on April 1,
2002 and would end on March 1, 2003; sometime in June 2002, she
decided to purchase the unit; however, since she was then undergoing
PERALTA, J.:
proceedings to annul her previous marriage and thinking that her purchase
of the subject property would disrupt the property arrangements already
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the agreed upon, she thought it best not to have the condominium unit
Rules of Court seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision1 and registered yet in her name; instead, she requested Armando Trinidad, who
Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated December 22, 2010 and was her confidante, to purchase the unit and register it under his name with
June 23, 2011,2 respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 110357. The assailed CA the understanding that the said property would actually be owned by
Decision reversed and set aside the Decision3 dated June 19, 2009 of the respondent; Armando agreed without objection, which led to the execution
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 155, while the of the Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights in his name; payments
questioned CA Resolution denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. for the purchase price were made by respondent through cash and checks
paid to the original owners who acknowledged said payments; aside from
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as paying the purchase price, respondent also paid the real property taxes due
follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary on the condominium unit as well as the association dues, water bills,
common area real estate tax, building insurance and other charges billed by
On August 17, 2007, herein petitioners filed with the Metropolitan Trial the developer; having full trust in Armando, coupled with her hectic
Court (MeTC) of Pasig City a Complaint4 for ejectment against herein schedule, respondent did not bother to transfer ownership of the subject
respondent. In their Position Paper,5 petitioners alleged that: they are the unit in her name; since April 2002 up to the time of filing her Answer,
owners of a condominium unit, denominated as Unit 2203, which is respondent has been in open and public possession of the subject property;
located at AIC Gold Tower, Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City; in 2007, while respondent was out of the country, Armando, without
they purchased the condominum unit from three (3) Indian nationals who respondent's knowledge, annotated his claim on the condominium
originally contracted to buy the said property from the developer, AIC certificate of title; he also executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in his favor on
Realty Corporation (AIC), but had not fully paid for it yet; petitioners' July 13, 2007; as a result, respondent was surprised to receive a copy of
purchase was evidenced by a Deed of Assignment and Transfer of petitioners' demand letter and complaint.
Rights6 dated June 13, 2002 and, later on, a Deed of Absolute Sale7 dated
July 13, 2007 in the name of petitioner Armando; at the time of petitioners' On August 8, 2008, the MeTC of Pasig City, Branch 70, rendered its
purchase of the subject condominium unit, the same was being leased by Decision9 dismissing petitioners' complaint and ordering them to pay
respondent from the original owners; the period of lease was from April 1, respondent the amount of P250,000.00 as attorney's fees and cost of suit.
2002 to March 1, 2003; petitioners respected the contract of lease between
respondent and the original owners; however, since June 2002 up to the The MeTC found that respondent is the true owner of the subject property
time of the filing of the complaint for ejectment, respondent neither and that the true intention of the parties is for Armando to hold the
remitted nor consigned the monthly rentals due to petitioners for her condominium unit in behalf of respondent until the property could be
continued use of the condominium unit; the rental arrears amounted to a placed in the latter's name.
total of P2,130,000.00; petitioners sent a letter of demand to respondent
requiring that she, together with any and all persons using the said unit Petitioners filed an appeal with the RTC of Pasig City.

Parol Evidence Rule

On June 19, 2009, the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 155, rendered its Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari, raising the following
Decision which reversed the MeTC Decision. The dispositive portion of issues, to wit:
the RTC judgment reads, thus: Do the pieces of evidence shown by the Respondent suffice to
provisionally declare her as owner of the subject condomunium unit?12
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated August 8, 2008
rendered by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 70, Pasig City is hereby Does the evidence of the Respondent suffice to make an impression that it
ordered REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one was the Respondent who paid the consideration for the Deed of
ENTERED ordering the defendant-appellee [herein respondent] and all Assignment and Transfer of Rights?13
persons claiming rights under her to vacate Unit 2203, AIC Gold Tower,
Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City and to pay rental arrearages [Was there] an implied trust?14
from July 13, 2007, at the rate of P30,000.00 per month, until such The petition should be denied.
arrearages shall have been fully paid and the premises vacated and
possession thereof restored to plaintiffs-appellants. At the outset, the Court notes that both parties anchor their right to possess
the disputed property on their supposed ownership of the same. Thus, the
SO ORDERED.10 courts are left with no recourse but to resolve the issue of ownership for
The RTC held that, by preponderance of evidence, the question of the sole purpose of determining as to who between the parties is entitled to
ownership is resolved in favor of petitioners. The RTC held that the possess the subject condominium unit. However, as held by the CA, where
subject Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights and the Deed of the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to that of possession,
Absolute Sale in the name of Armando is superior to the evidence adjudication of the ownership issue is not final and binding, but only for
presented by respondent, which merely consisted of bills of payments of the purpose of resolving the issue of possession.15 The adjudication of the
association dues, utility bills, real estate tax on the common areas and issue of ownership is only provisional, and not a bar to an action between
building insurance. the same parties involving title to the property.16

Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, respondent filed a petition for review The resolution of the issue of ownership, however, would entail going into
with the CA. factual matters. Settled is the rule that questions of fact are not reviewable
in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
On December 22, 2010, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision setting Court.17 Section 1 of Rule 45 states that petitions for review
aside the RTC judgment and ordering petitioners to return possession of on certiorari shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set
the subject condominium unit to respondent. forth. Doubtless, in the instant case, the issue of whether respondent
possesses the subject property as owner, or whether she occupies the same
The CA ratiocinated that, based on the evidence adduced by the parties, as a lessee, is a question of fact. Thus, as a rule, it is not reviewable.
respondent's claim of ownership deserves more credence. The CA ruled
that records of payment of the purchase price of the subject property, Nonetheless, the Court has, at times, allowed exceptions from the
through respondent's personal checks, acknowledgment of these payments abovementioned restriction. Among the recognized exceptions are the
by the former owners by way of receipt and affidavit, and respondent's following:
exercise of acts of ownership prove that she is the owner of the disputed (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or
condominium unit and, thus, is entitled to the possession thereof. conjectures;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,11 but the CA denied it in its (b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
Resolution dated June 23, 2011. impossible;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Parol Evidence Rule

 property. Having been notarized, they contend that these documents
(c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary outweigh all the pieces of evidence presented by respondent.

(d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of The Court is not persuaded.
facts;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It is true that the subject Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights and
(e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary Deed of Absolute Sale are notarized. It is well settled that a document
acknowledged before a notary public is a public document that enjoys the
(f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, presumption of regularity.19 It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the
or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due
appellee;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary execution.20However, the CA correctly held that the existence and due
execution of these documents are not in issue. Moreover, the presumption
(g) When the CA's findings are contrary to those of the trial of truth of the facts stated in notarized documents is merely prima facie,
court;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary which means that this presumption can be overcome by clear and
convincing evidence.21 Hence, the truth of the facts stated in the disputed
(h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights as well as the Deed of
on which they are based;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary Absolute Sale may be rebutted by evidence.

(i) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main In the present case, what is being asserted by respondent is that the above
and reply briefs are not disputed by the documents do not embody the true intent and agreement of the parties. To
respondent;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary this end, respondent submitted sufficient proof to refute the contents of the
aforementioned documents and to establish the real intent of the parties, to
(j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of wit: (1) nine [9] checks drawn from the personal account of respondent,
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and variously dated from October 11, 2002 to June 11, 2003, each of which
amounts to P416,666.67 and paid to the order of Amarnath Hinduja;22(2)
(k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed Acknowledgment Receipt recognizing the various payments made by
by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different respondent to the former owners of the subject property;23(3) Real Property
conclusion.18 Tax Receipts evidencing respondent's payment of the real estate taxes due
In the present case, the findings of fact of the MeTC and the CA are in on the property;24 (4) Certification issued by AIC Golden Tower
conflict with those of the RTC. It thus behooves this Court to look into the Condominium acknowledging respondent's regular payment of association
factual findings of the lower courts to determine the nature of respondent's dues, water bills, common area real estate tax, building insurance and other
possession of the disputed property. charges billed by AIC;25 (5) Affidavit executed by the former owners
acknowledging the supposed agreement of the parties that the
After a careful review of the records at hand, the Court finds that the condominium unit shall be purchased in the name of Armando with the
petition must fail as it finds no error in the findings of fact and conclusions understanding that he will hold it in behalf of respondent until the same
of law of the CA and the MeTC that respondent is, indeed, entitled to the could be placed in her name.26
possession of the subject property.
The MeTC and the CA were one in holding that the foregoing pieces of
As earlier stated, petitioners relied heavily on the Deed of Assignment and evidence submitted by respondent, coupled with the surrounding
Transfer of Rights as well as the Deed of Absolute Sale, which were circumstances in this case, are sufficient to overcome the prima
executed in Armando's favor, to prove their ownership of the subject faciepresumption of the truth of the facts stated in the questioned Deed of
Assignment and Transfer of Rights and Deed of Absolute Sale. The Court

Parol Evidence Rule

agrees. However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the
terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
Indeed, petitioners failed to offer any credible explanation why payments (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
of the purchase price were made by respondent by using her personal agreement;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
checks if she is not, in fact, the buyer of the property. Neither was there
any justification why respondent paid the real property taxes due on the (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
property, as well as the utility bills, association dues, common area real agreement of the parties thereto;
estate tax and building insurance. More importantly, petitioners also fell
short in advancing a plausible refutation why the former owners would (c) The validity of the written agreement; or
execute an affidavit indicating therein that the agreement among the parties
is that the subject property shall be purchased in the name of Armando (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors
with the understanding between the latter and respondent that Armando in interest after the execution of the written agreement.
would hold the property in respondent's behalf until it will be placed in her
name, thus exposing themselves to possible perjury charges, if such The term "agreement" includes wills.30
agreement is not really true. As observed by the CA, respondent squarely put in issue in her
Answer31 that the Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights did not
In addition, if petitioners are the real owners of the subject condominium express the true intent of the parties. Hence, the exception applies.
unit, why did they wait until February 19, 2007,27 or almost four (4) years
after the supposed expiration of respondent's lease contract, to demand that The Court is neither convinced by petitioners' argument that when ley
she vacate the disputed premises and pay rentals. Moreover, as the MeTC bought the subject property from its former owners, they stepped into the
has noted, it was only in 2007 that Armando annotated his claim on the shoes of the latter who were the lessors of respondent and that, as lessee,
condominium certificate of title, executed the subject Deed of Absolute respondent is barred from contesting the title of her lessor or her lessor's
Sale and requested certification of his ownership from the developer. sjuccessor-in-interest, who are herein petitioners.
Petitioners argue that under the Parole Evidence Rule, when the terms of Article 1436 of the Civil Code provides that "[a] lessee or bailee is
an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing estopped from asserting title to the thing leased or received, as against the
all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as between the parties, no lpssor or bailor." In addition, the conclusive presumption found in Section
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written 2(b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court known as estoppel against tenants
agreement.28 Based on this rule, petitioners contend that since the former provides as follows:
owners, as well as respondent, are all parties to the Deed of Assignment Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of
and Transfer of Rights, they are bound by the said Deed and they cannot conclusive presumptions:
allege terms which are not found within the said agreement. xxxx
The Court is not convinced. (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time
of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
The fact that the Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights was put in
writing and notarized does not accord it the quality of incontrovertibility
otherwise provided by the Parole Evidence Rule.29 The rule on parole It is clear from the above-quoted provision that what a tenant is stopped
evidence is not, as it were, ironclad. Thus, the second paragraph of Section from denying is the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement
9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides the exceptions, to wit: of the landlord-tenant relation.32 If the title asserted is one that is alleged to
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. - x x x have been acquired subsequent to the commencement of that relation, the
presumption will not apply.33 Hence, the tenant may show that the

Parol Evidence Rule

landlord's title has expired or been conveyed to another or himself; and he created in her favor.
is not estopped to deny a claim for rent, if he has been ousted or evicted by
title paramount.34 In the present case, what respondent is claiming is her Finally, a trust, which derives its strength from the confidence one reposes
title to the subject property which she acquired subsequent to the on another, does not lose that character simply because of what appears in
commencement of the landlord-tenant relation between her and the former a legal document.42 Applying this principle to the present case, petitioner
owners of the questioned condominium unit. Thus, the presumption under Armando, as trustee, cannot repudiate the trust by simply relying on the
Section 2 (b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court does not apply and questioned Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights and the Deed of
respondent is not estopped from asserting title over the disputed property. Absolute Sale.

As to whether or not an implied trust was created in respondent's favor, the WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision and
first sentence of Article 1448 of the Civil Code provides that "[t]here is an Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated December 22, 2010 and June 23,
implied trust when property is sold and the legal estate is granted to one 2011, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 110357, are AFFIRMED.
party but the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the
beneficial interest of the property." This is sometimes referred to as a SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
purchase money resulting trust, the elements of which are: (a) an actual
payment of money, property or services, or an equivalent, constituting
valuable consideration; and (b) such consideration must be furnished by
the alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust.35 The principle of a resulting
trust is based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration, and not
legal title, determines the equitable title or interest and are presumed
always to have been contemplated by the parties.36 They arise from the
nature or circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction
whereby one person thereby becomes invested with legal title but is
obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of another.37

Intention - although only presumed, implied or supposed by law from the

nature of the transaction or from the facts and circumstances
accompanying the transaction, particularly the source of the consideration -
is always an element of a resulting trust and may be inferred from the acts
or conduct of the parties rather than from direct expression of
conduct.38 Certainly, intent as an indispensable element, is a matter that
necessarily lies in the evidence, that is, by evidence, even circumstantial,
of statements made by the parties at or before the time title
passes.39 Because an implied trust is neither dependent upon an express
agreement nor required to be evidenced by writing, Article 1457 of our
Civil Code authorizes the admission of parole evidence to prove their
existence.40 Parole evidence that is required to establish the existence of an
implied trust necessarily has to be trustworthy and it cannot rest on loose,
equivocal or Indefinite declarations.41 In the instant petition, the Court
finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the MeTC and the
CA that, under the circumstances of the case, the parole evidence
presented by respondent sufficiently proves that an implied trust was

Parol Evidence Rule