Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abellana v. Sps. Ponce
Abellana v. Sps. Ponce
160488 September 3, 2004 RTC: rendered a decision holding that an implied trust existed between
FELOMINA ABELLANA, petitioner, Felomina and Lucila, such that the latter is merely holding the lot for the benefit
vs. of the former. It thus ordered the conveyance of the subject lot in favor of
SPOUSES ROMEO PONCE and LUCILA PONCE and the REGISTER OF Felomina.
DEEDS of BUTUAN CITY, respondents.
CA: set aside the decision that Felomina failed to prove the existence of an
FACTS: implied trust and upheld respondent spouses’ ownership over the litigated
lot. It further held that even assuming that Felomina paid the purchase
On July 15, 1981, Felomina, a spinster, pharmacist and aunt of private price of the lot, the situation falls within the exception stated in Article
respondent Lucila Ponce, purchased from the late Estela Caldoza- 1448 of the Civil Code which raises a disputable presumption that the
Pacres a 44,297 sqm agricultural lot with the intention of giving property was purchased by Felomina as a gift to Lucila whom she
said lot to her niece, Lucila. considered as her own daughter.
Thus, in the deed of sale, Lucila was designated as the buyer of Lot Felomina filed a MR but it was denied. Hence, this petition.
3, covered by OCT No. P-27, Homestead Patent No. V-1551 located
at Los Angeles, Butuan City. The total consideration of the sale was ISSUES/RULING:
P16,500.00, but only P4,500.00 was stated upon the request of the
seller. 1. Who, as between Felomina and respondent spouses, is the lawful
owner of the controverted lot?
Felomina applied for the issuance of title in the name of her niece. On
April 28, 1992, TCT No. 2874 over the subject lot was issued in the Felomina.
name of Lucila. Said title, however, remained in the possession
of Felomina who developed the lot through Juanario Torreon and paid We find that it was Felomina and not Lucila who truly purchased the questioned
real property taxes thereon. lot from Estela. The positive and consistent testimony of Felomina alone, that
she was the real vendee of the lot, is credible to debunk the contrary claim of
The relationship between Felomina and respondent spouses respondent spouses. Indeed, the lone testimony of a witness, if credible, is
Romeo and Lucila, however, turned sour. The latter allegedly sufficient as in the present case.
became disrespectful and ungrateful to the point of hurling her insults
and even attempting to hurt her physically. Hence, Felomina filed the o Moreover, Aquilino Caldoza, brother of the vendor and one of the
instant case for revocation of implied trust to recover legal title over witnesses to the deed of sale, categorically declared that Felomina
the property. was the buyer and the one who paid the purchase price to her
sister, Estela.
o Then too, Juanario, who was allegedly hired by Lucila to develop
Private respondent spouses claimed that the purchase price of the lot
the lot, vehemently denied that he approached and convinced
was only P4,500.00 and that it was them who paid the same. The
Lucila to let him till the land. According to Juanario, he had never
payment and signing of the deed of sale allegedly took place in the
spoken to Lucila about the lot and it was Felomina who recruited
office of Atty. Teodoro Emboy in the presence of the seller and her
him to be the caretaker of the litigated property.
siblings namely, Aquilino Caldoza and the late Lilia Caldoza.
A year later, Juanario approached Lucila and volunteered to till the lot, The fact that it was Felomina who bought the lot was further bolstered by her
to which she agreed. In 1987, the spouses consented to Felomina’s possession of the following documents from the time of their issuance up to
proposal to develop and lease the lot. They, however, shouldered the the present, to wit: (1) the transfer certificate of title and tax declaration in
real property taxes on the lot, which was paid through Felomina. In the name of Lucila; (2) the receipts of real property taxes in the name of
1990, the spouses demanded rental from Felomina but she refused to Felomina Abellana for the years 1982-1984, 1992-1994 and 1995; and (3)
pay because her agricultural endeavor was allegedly not profitable. the survey plan of the lot.
In declaring Lucila as the owner of the disputed lot, the CA applied, among
others, the second sentence of Article 1448 which states –
"x x x However, if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate
or illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by
law, it being disputably presumed that there is a gift in favor of the child."
Said presumption also arises where the property is given to a person to whom
the person paying the price stands in loco parentis or as a substitute parent.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. RTC decision
REINSTATED with the following MODIFICATIONS: