1. The case involves a dispute over ownership of real property between family members who were heirs of their deceased parents' estate.
2. Some of the heirs claimed that a partnership existed between several of the heirs, including Antonieta Jarantilla and Federico Jarantilla Jr., and that properties purchased with partnership funds should be considered held in trust for the partnership.
3. However, the court found that Federico Jarantilla Jr. failed to prove that a trust existed over the disputed properties or that partnership funds were used to acquire the properties. Therefore, his claim of co-ownership was rejected.
1. The case involves a dispute over ownership of real property between family members who were heirs of their deceased parents' estate.
2. Some of the heirs claimed that a partnership existed between several of the heirs, including Antonieta Jarantilla and Federico Jarantilla Jr., and that properties purchased with partnership funds should be considered held in trust for the partnership.
3. However, the court found that Federico Jarantilla Jr. failed to prove that a trust existed over the disputed properties or that partnership funds were used to acquire the properties. Therefore, his claim of co-ownership was rejected.
1. The case involves a dispute over ownership of real property between family members who were heirs of their deceased parents' estate.
2. Some of the heirs claimed that a partnership existed between several of the heirs, including Antonieta Jarantilla and Federico Jarantilla Jr., and that properties purchased with partnership funds should be considered held in trust for the partnership.
3. However, the court found that Federico Jarantilla Jr. failed to prove that a trust existed over the disputed properties or that partnership funds were used to acquire the properties. Therefore, his claim of co-ownership was rejected.
REMOTIGUE, substituted by CYNTHIA REMOTIGUE, DOROTEO JARANTILLA and TOMAS JARANTILLA G.R. No. 154486 ; December 1, 2010 DOCTRINE: As a rule, 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. While implied trusts may be proved by oral evidence, the evidence must be trustworthy and received by the courts with extreme caution, and should not be made to rest on loose, equivocal or indefinite declarations. Trustworthy evidence is required because oral evidence can easily be fabricated. FACTS: 1. The spouses Andres Jarantilla and Felisa Jaleco were survived by eight children: Federico, Delfin, Benjamin, Conchita, Rosita, Pacita, Rafael and Antonieta. Petitioner Federico Jarantilla, Jr. is the grandchild of the late Jarantilla spouses by their son Federico Jarantilla, Sr. and his wife Leda Jamili. Petitioner also has two other brothers: Doroteo and Tomas Jarantilla. 2. In 1948, the Jarantilla heirs extrajudicially partitioned amongst themselves the real properties of their deceased parents. 3. Spouses Buenaventura and Conchita Remotigue executed an "Acknowledgement of Participating Capital," they stated the participating capital of their co-owners with Antonieta Jarantilla’s stated as eight thousand pesos (₱8,000.00) and Federico Jarantilla, Jr.’s as five thousand pesos (₱5,000.00). 4. The present case stems from the amended complaint filed by Antonieta Jarantilla against Buenaventura Remotigue, Conchita Remotigue, Federico Jarantilla, Jr., Doroteo Jarantilla and Tomas Jarantilla, for the accounting of the assets and income of the co-ownership, for its partition and the delivery of her share corresponding to eight percent (8%), and for damages. Antonieta claimed that in 1946, she had entered into an agreement with Conchita and Buenaventura Remotigue, Rafael Jarantilla, and Rosita and Vivencio Deocampo to engage in business. Antonieta alleged that the initial contribution of property and money came from the heirs’ inheritance, and her subsequent annual investment of seven thousand five hundred pesos (₱7,500.00) as additional capital came from the proceeds of her farm. 5. The respondents denied having formed a partnership with Antonieta. They did not deny the existence and validity of the "Acknowledgement of Participating Capital" and in fact used this as evidence to support their claim that Antonieta’s 8% share was limited to the businesses enumerated therein. 6. Petitioner Federico Jarantilla, Jr. entered into a compromise agreement with Antonieta Jarantilla wherein he supported Antonieta’s claims and asserted that he too was entitled to six percent (6%) of the supposed partnership in the same manner as Antonieta. 7. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Antonieta and Federico. On appeal, the CA set the RTC Decision. ISSUE: Whether a partner should be considered as a co-owner of the properties which were purchased using funds of the partnership based on the concept of trust. DECISION: The petitioner has failed to prove that there exists a trust over the subject real properties. Aside from his bare allegations, he has failed to show that the respondents used the partnership’s money to purchase the said properties. Even assuming arguendo that some partnership income was used to acquire these properties, the petitioner should have successfully shown that these funds came from his share in the partnership profits. After all, by his own admission, and as stated in the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital, he owned a mere 6% equity in the partnership. Petitioner’s only piece of documentary evidence is the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital, which failed to prove that the real properties he is claiming co- ownership of were acquired out of the proceeds of the businesses covered by such document. Therefore, petitioner’s theory has no factual or legal leg to stand on.