Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RULE 92 (SEC 7-9) : Section 7: Appraisal. Compensation of Trustee
RULE 92 (SEC 7-9) : Section 7: Appraisal. Compensation of Trustee
NOTE:
The compensation of the trustee is that which is provided by the instrument
creating the trust. Otherwise, it shall be fixed by the court.
NOTE:
Note:
The Rules on Sale and Encumbrance of Trust Estate shall conform as nearly
as may be to the provisions on Sale and Encumbrance by Guardians.
SYLLABUS
DECISION
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J : p
This is a petition for review of the order dated October 29, 1976, of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 48546 entitled, "Restituto Ceniza, et al. vs. Magno
Dabon, et al.," dismissing the petitioners' complaint for reconveyance of their
shares in co-ownership property and reversing the decision of the trial court in
their favor.
On June 14, 1967, the petitioners filed against private respondents, an action in
the Court of First Instance of Cebu for recovery of their title to Lots Nos. 627-B
and 627-C (being portions of Lot No. 627 with an area of approximately 5,306
square meters) situated in Casuntingan, Mandaue, Cebu (now Mandaue City),
which originally formed part of "Hacienda de Mandaue" of the Seminario de San
Carlos de Cebu. The property is covered by reconstituted Original Certificate of
Title No. RO-10996 issued on February 8, 1939 (formerly Decree No. 694438
issued on February 27, 1934) in the name of "Vicente Dabon married to Marcela
[or Marcelina] Ceniza." (pp. 7 and 19, Record on Appeal).
Petitioners are the descendants of Manuel Ceniza while the private respondents
are the descendants of his sister, Sofia Ceniza. Sofia Ceniza was childless but she
had an adopted daughter named Flaviana Ceniza, who begot a daughter named
Marced Ceniza and who in turn had a daughter named Marcelina (or Marcela)
Ceniza who married Vicente Dabon. Private respondents are the children of this
marriage and they are the great-great-grandchildren of Sofia Ceniza. prcd
On the other hand, Manuel Ceniza had an only son, Pablo, who had two sons,
Santiago and Jose Ceniza. Petitioners Restituto and Jesus Ceniza and a certain
Nemesia Ceniza-Albina are their children and the great-grandchildren of Manuel
Ceniza.
The records disclose that when Hacienda de Mandaue was subdivided for resale
to the occupants in 1929, Jose Ceniza and Vicente Dabon, who were residing in
the hacienda, jointly purchased Lot 627 on installment basis and they agreed, for
convenience, to have the land registered in the name of Dabon. Since then, Jose
Ceniza, Vicente Dabon, and their heirs have possessed their respective portions
of the land, declared the same for taxation, paid real estate taxes on their
respective shares, and made their respective installment payments to the
Seminario de San Carlos de Cebu.
After Dabon died in 1954, his seven (7) children, named Magno, Jacinta, Tomas,
Flaviana, Soledad, Teresita and Eugenia, succeeded to his possession of a
portion of the land.
(1)Lot No. 627-A with 3,538 square meters for Marcela Ceniza;
(2)Lot No. 627-B with 884 square meters for Restituto Ceniza; and
(3)Lot No. 627-C with 834 square meters for Nemesia Ceniza-Albina, who later
bequeathed her share to her brother, Jesus Ceniza. (p. 19, Record on Appeal).
Petitioners replied that Vicente Dabon held the land in trust for them, as co-
owners, hence, their action for reconveyance was imprescriptible.
On August 31, 1970, the trial court rendered judgment for the petitioners.
Finding that there existed a co-ownership among the parties, it ordered the
private respondents to execute deeds of conveyance of Lots Nos. 627-B and 627-
C in favor of the plaintiffs, Restituto and Jesus Ceniza, respectively (p. 35,
Record on Appeal). llcd
The petitioners have appealed to this Court by a petition for review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court.
The legal issue presented by the petition is whether the registration of the title of
the land in the name of one of the co-owners constituted a repudiation of the co-
ownership for purposes of acquisitive prescription.
The trial court correctly ruled that since a trust relation and co-ownership were
proven to exist between the predecessors-in-interest of both petitioners and
private respondents, prescription did not run in favor of Dabon's heirs except
from the time that they repudiated the co-ownership and made the repudiation
known to the other co-owners, Restituto and Jesus Ceniza (Cortes vs. Oliva, 33
Phil. 480).
The registration of Lot No. 627 in the name of Vicente Dabon created a trust in
favor of his co-owner Jose Ceniza, and the latter's heirs. Article 1452 of the Civil
Code states:
This Court has ruled in numerous cases involving fiduciary relations that, as a
general rule, the trustee's possession is not adverse and therefore cannot ripen
into a title by prescription. Adverse possession requires the concurrence of the
following circumstances:
The above elements are not present here for the petitioners co-owners have not
been ousted from the land. They continue to possess their respective shares of
Lot 627 and they have been paying the realty taxes thereon. Restituto's house
stands on his portion of the Land. Assuming that the private respondents'
rejection of the subdivision plan for the partition of the land was an act of
repudiation of the co-ownership, prescription had not yet set in when the
petitioners instituted the present action for reconveyance. These circumstances
were overlooked by the Court of Appeals.
"Where title to land was issued in the name of a co-heir merely with the
understanding that he would act as a trustee of his sisters, and there
is no evidence that this trust relation had ever been repudiated by said
trustee, it is held that a relation of co-ownership existed between such
trustee and his sisters and the right of the successors-in-interest of said
sisters to bring the present action for recovery of their shares therein
against the successors-in-interest of said trustee cannot be barred by
prescription, despite the lapse of 25 years from the date of registration
of the land in the trustee's name." (Emphasis supplied.)
In Escobar v. Locsin, 74 Phil. 86, we affirmed the duty of the courts to shield
fiduciary relations "against every manner of chicanery or detestable design
cloaked by legal technicalities" and to guard against misuse of the Torrens
system "to foment betrayal in the performance of a trust."
In this case, since the statutory period of limitation within which to file an action
for reconveyance, after the defendants had repudiated the co-ownership in 1961,
had not yet run its course when the petitioners filed said action in 1967, the
action was not barred by prescription.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED AND SET
ASIDE and the decision dated August 31, 1970 of the then Court of First
Instance of Cebu, Branch VI, in Civil Case No. R-10030 is reinstated. Costs
against the private respondents. cdrep
SO ORDERED.
CASE DIGEST
RESTITUTO CENIZA and JESUS CENIZA vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 46345. January 30, 1990
FACTS:
Jose Ceniza and Vicente Dabon jointly purchased Lot 627 on installment basis and
they agreed, for convenience, to have the land registered in the name of Dabon.
Since then, Jose Ceniza, Vicente Dabon, and their heirs have possessed their
respective portions of the land and made their respective installment payments to
the Seminario de San Carlos de Cebu.
Thereafter, Jacinta Dabon and Restituto Ceniza, one of the children of the co-
owners Jose and Vicente, subdivided the property in question into Lot 627 A, B & C.
However, private respondents Magno, Vicenta, Teresita, Eugenia and Tomas all
surnamed Dabon, children of co-owner Vicente refused to convey Lots Nos. 627-B
and 627-C to the petitioners, children of co-owner Jose Ceniza. They claimed that
their predecessor-in-interest, Vicente Dabon, was the sole and exclusive owner of
Lot 627, by purchase from the Seminario de San Carlos de Cebu and that
petitioners' right of action had already prescribed. Therefore, case was then filed at
the Court of First Instance (now, RTC) where the trial court rendered judgment for
the petitioners on the ground of the existence of co-ownership among the parties.
However, said decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition
for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUES:
1. Whether there exists an implied trust between Vicente Dabon and Jose Ceniza.
2. Whether the registration of the title of the land in the name of one of the co-
owners constituted a repudiation of the co-ownership for purposes of acquisitive
prescription.
RULING:
1. Yes. The registration of Lot No. 627 in the name of Vicente Dabon created a trust
in favor of his co-owner Jose Ceniza, and the latter's heirs. Article 1452 of the Civil
Code states: "If two or more persons agree to purchase property and by common
consent the legal title is taken in the name of one of them for the benefit of all, a
trust is created by force of law in favor of the others in proportion to the interest of
each."
2. No. In Custodio v. Casiano, 9 SCRA 841, it has been ruled that: "Where title to
land was issued in the name of a co-heir merely with the understanding that he
would act as a trustee of his sisters, and there is no evidence that this trust relation
had ever been repudiated by said trustee, it is held that a relation of co-ownership
existed between such trustee and his sisters and the right of the successors-in-
interest of said sisters to bring the present action for recovery of their shares
therein against the successors-in-interest of said trustee cannot be barred by
prescription, despite the lapse of 25 years from the date of registration of the land
in the trustee's name."
Further, the Court has ruled in numerous cases involving fiduciary relations that, as
a general rule, the trustee's possession is not adverse and therefore cannot ripen
into a title by prescription. Adverse possession requires the concurrence of the
following circumstances: a) that the trustee has performed unequivocal acts of
repudiation amounting to the ouster of the cestui que trust; b) that such positive
acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust; and c) that the
evidence thereon should be clear and conclusive.
Apparently, the foregoing is not present in this case. Hence, respondents cannot
claim title to such property on account of acquisitive prescription.