THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, vs. ANASTASIA ABADILLA, ET AL.,
claimants. THE MUNICIPALITY OF TAYABAS, ET AL., claimants-appellees, MARIA PALAD, ET AL.,
claimants-appellants.
**Facts:**
1. The case involves a cadastral and land registration dispute over lots numbered 3464, 3469, and 3470
in Tayabas, Philippines.
2. The claimants are the municipality of Tayabas, the governor of the province, Maria, Eufemio, Eugenia,
Felix, Caridad, Segunda, and Emilia Palad, and Dorotea Lopez.
3. Luis Palad, an original owner of the lands, executed a holographic will in 1892, partly in Spanish and
Tagalog, stating that the coconut land should be used by his wife, Dorotea Lopez, until her marriage or
death. Afterward, the land should be donated to a secondary college in Tayabas.
4. Dorotea Lopez, after the death of Luis Palad, married Calixto Dolendo. A legal dispute ensued in 1903
when collateral heirs of Luis Palad contested Dorotea's possession, leading to an agreement where some
land was given to the municipality, and Dorotea retained possession of Lot No. 3470.
5. The lower court ordered the registration of all three lots in the name of the governor for the purpose
of establishing a secondary school.
**Issue:**
1. Whether the clause in Luis Palad's will, creating a trust for the benefit of a secondary school, is valid
and enforceable.
2. Whether the possession of the municipality of Tayabas over lots 3464 and 3469 can be considered
adverse within the meaning of section 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Whether the governor of the Province of Tayabas can act as a trustee in the absence of an
ayuntamiento (municipal corporation).
**Ruling:**
1. The court affirmed the lower court's decision regarding lots 3464 and 3469, stating that the clause in
Luis Palad's will, despite being unskillfully drawn, is valid. It creates a trust for the benefit of a secondary
school to be established in Tayabas, with the governor of the province as the trustee.
2. The court did not directly address the adverse possession issue for lots 3464 and 3469 but noted that
the case primarily turns on the construction and validity of the will's clause, rather than the question of
prescription of title.
3. The court held that the governor of the Province of Tayabas, as the successor of the civil governor,
can act as a trustee in the absence of an ayuntamiento, and the clause in the will does not violate any
provisions of the Civil Code.
4. As for Lot No. 3470, the court reversed the lower court's decision, stating that Dorotea Lopez had
acquired title by prescription through adverse possession since 1904. The judgment ordered the
registration of Lot No. 3470 in Dorotea Lopez's name. No costs were allowed.
G.R. No. 108121 May 10, 1994 HERMINIA L. RAMOS and HEIRS OF HERMINIO RAMOS, petitioners, vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES HILARIO CELESTINO and LYDIA CELESTINO, respondents. Leven S.
Puno for petitioners. Fernandez & Olivas for private respondents.
**Facts:**
1. Lydia Celestino, a Central Bank employee, acquired the rights to buy a parcel of land designated as Lot
25, Block 86, through an award by the People's Homesite & Housing Corporation (PHHC).
2. Herminio Ramos, also a Central Bank employee, was initially awarded the rights but sold and
transferred them to Lydia Celestino for the price of P3,800. Lydia assumed the obligation to pay the
PHHC for the property.
3. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 204173 was issued in the name of Herminio Ramos, but an
irrevocable special power of attorney was executed, empowering Lydia Celestino to sell, mortgage, or
lease the property.
4. The RTC issued an order in 1985 canceling the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 204173, and a new
owner's duplicate copy was issued to Herminia Ramos, the widow of Herminio.
5. Lydia Celestino filed a petition to declare the order null and void, asserting that Herminia secured the
new duplicate copy through fraud.
6. Lydia Celestino, together with her spouse, filed a complaint for reconveyance against Herminia Ramos
and heirs, claiming ownership of the property based on an implied or resulting trust.
**Issue:**
Whether an implied or resulting trust was created, and if Lydia Celestino is entitled to reconveyance of
the property.
**Ruling:**
The Court ruled against Lydia Celestino, stating that no trust was established due to her disqualification
to acquire the property under the agreement between PHHC and Central Bank employees. Lydia's
attempt to acquire the property indirectly, knowing her disqualification, was deemed an improper
purpose against public policy. The Court ordered the dismissal of the cases but granted Lydia Celestino
the right to recover the amount she paid for the land and installments to PHHC with legal interest.
ROSARIO GAYONDATO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.,
defendants-appellant.
**Facts:**
1. The plaintiff, Rosario Gayondato, is seeking to recover damages amounting to P30,000 for the
erroneous registration of three parcels of land in the name of the defendant, Adela Gasataya.
2. The three parcels of land were originally owned by Domingo Gayondato, inherited from his mother,
Ramona Granada, in 1896.
3. Domingo Gayondato married Adela Gasataya in 1899, and upon his death in 1902, Adela's father,
Gabino Gasataya, took charge of the land.
4. In 1908, Adela married Domingo Cuachon, and Gabino Gasataya turned over possession of the land to
them.
5. The three parcels were included in cadastral case No. 11 in 1916, with Domingo Cuachon appearing
on behalf of his wife and stepdaughter (plaintiff Rosario Gayondato).
6. Despite Cuachon's claim that the lots belonged to Adela Gasataya and her daughter, the court
erroneously decreed the registration in Adela Gasataya's name alone.
7. Adela later mortgaged and sold the land to Francisco Rodriguez in 1920.
**Issue:**
Whether the Insular Treasurer is liable for damages arising from the erroneous registration of the land in
Adela Gasataya's name, and whether the trust relationship between Adela Gasataya and Domingo
Cuachon affects the plaintiff's claim.
**Ruling:**
1. The court agrees with the appellant that the Insular Treasurer should not be absolved from the
complaint, as the assurance fund's liability is not confined to cases of negligence on the part of
registration court employees.
2. The court rejects the Attorney-General's argument that the trust relationship between Adela
Gasataya and Domingo Cuachon exempts the assurance fund from liability, stating that the term "trust"
in this context must be understood in its technical and more restricted sense.
3. It is clarified that the plaintiff, being a minor at the time of registration, is not negligent, and the
assurance fund is secondarily liable for damages suffered through wrongful registration.
4. The court notes errors in the judgment, including the personal liability of Adela Gasataya, who died
before the trial, and the incorrect measure of damages applied by the lower court.
5. The damages awarded are reduced from P30,000 to P25,000, considering the life estate of Adela
Gasataya and the property's actual sale value.
6. The judgment orders Domingo Cuachon and the estate of Adela Gasataya to jointly and severally pay
the plaintiff P25,000 with interest. If the execution is unsatisfied, the court may order the Treasurer of
the Philippine Archipelago to pay from the assurance fund. The complaint against Francisco Rodriguez is
dismissed, and no costs are allowed.
DOLORES PACHECO, in her capacity as guardian of the minors Concepcion, Alicia, and Herminia Yulo,
Petitioner, v. SANTIAGO ARRO ET AL., Respondents. DEMETRIA FIRMEZA, accompanied by her
husband, Basilio Rivera, respondentmovant. Vicente Hilado for Petitioner. Rodolfo R. Reyes for
Respondents.
**Facts:**
- On 31 January 1941, Dolores Pacheco filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on behalf of minors
Concepción, Alicia, and Herminia Yulo. The petition sought a review of a judgment by the Court of
Appeals that affirmed a decision by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros.
- The original case involved a dispute over lots in Zamora and Quennon Streets in the municipality of
Isabela. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of specific lots, and the Court of Appeals decision listed these
lots along with corresponding claimants.
- The defendant, Jose Yulo y Regalado, argued that the plaintiffs' allegations were not grounds for
action, and the time limit for the action had elapsed. The defendant counterclaimed for the plaintiffs to
vacate their lots.
- After Jose Yulo y Regalado's death, the complaint was amended to replace him with his minor children,
represented by guardian Dolores Pacheco.
- The court decided in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant or his heirs to grant a deed of
assignment for each claimed lot.
**Issue:**
- The main issue revolves around the promise made by Jose Yulo y Regalado, in open court, to donate or
assign the lots to the claimants after the names of the streets were changed. The defendant's heirs
argued, among other things, that the statute of limitations applied, and the defendant had fulfilled part
of the agreement by granting deeds for some lots.
**Ruling:**
- The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, affirming the decision of the lower court. The court held that
the defendant, by promising to donate or assign lots to the claimants, had created a fiduciary
relationship or trust. As a trustee, the defendant or his heirs could not use the statute of limitations as a
defense.
- The court rejected arguments about technicalities raised by the defense, emphasizing that the
plaintiffs, as beneficiaries of the trust, had the right to enforce the agreement. The court ordered the
defendant or his heirs to execute deeds of assignment for the lots claimed by the plaintiffs.
RODOLFO MORALES v. CA , GR No. 117228, 1997-06-19
**Facts:**
1. Civil Case No. 265 involved a recovery of possession of land and damages filed by spouses Ranulfo
Ortiz, Jr. and Erlinda Ortiz against Rodolfo Morales. The complaint sought to declare the plaintiffs as
lawful owners of a parcel of land and a two-story residential building and requested the removal of any
improvements by Morales, along with damages.
2. Priscila Morales, one of the daughters of Rosendo Avelino and Juana Ricaforte, filed a motion to
intervene in the case on February 2, 1988.
3. Rodolfo Morales passed away on November 30, 1988, and the trial court allowed his substitution by
his heirs.
4. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them as absolute and exclusive
owners of the property, which they purchased from Celso Avelino. The court also noted that Celso
Avelino had the property's tax declaration transferred to the female plaintiff's name and paid realty
taxes.
5. Celso Avelino purchased the land from Alejandra Mendiola and Celita Bartolome through an
"Escritura de Venta" while he was still a bachelor and the City Fiscal of Calbayog City.
6. The plaintiffs claimed that Celso Avelino built his residential house on the land, and after being urged
by the defendant, they purchased the property from Celso. However, the defendant later refused to
vacate the premises.
**Issue:**
Did Celso Avelino purchase the land from the Mendiolas in 1948 as a mere trustee for his parents and
siblings, and is the property considered a trust property?
**Ruling:**
The court ruled that there was no implied trust established, and Celso Avelino was the absolute and
exclusive owner of the property. The purchase money resulting trust theory presented by the
petitioners was not proven. The court emphasized that the burden of proving the existence of a trust is
on the party asserting its existence, and such proof must be clear and satisfactory. The court found that
there were positive acts by Celso Avelino indicating that he considered the property his exclusive
ownership, and the petitioners failed to establish their implied trust theory. Therefore, the decision of
the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's ruling was upheld, except for the award of moral
damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses, which were deleted.
JOSEPH GOYANKO, JR., as administrator of the Estate of Joseph Goyanko, Sr., Petitioner, vs. UNITED
COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, MANGO AVENUE BRANCH, Respondent.
**Facts:**
- In 1995, Joseph Goyanko, Sr. invested Two Million Pesos with Philippine Asia Lending Investors, Inc.
(PALII), represented by the petitioner Joseph Goyanko, Jr.
- There were conflicting claims between Goyanko's legitimate and illegitimate families regarding the
investment.
- Pending the investigation of conflicting claims, PALII deposited the investment proceeds with United
Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) on October 29, 1996, under the name "Phil Asia: ITF (In Trust For) The
Heirs of Joseph Goyanko, Sr." (ACCOUNT).
- On December 11, 1997, UCPB allowed PALII to withdraw One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,500,000.00) from the account, leaving a balance of P9,318.76.
- UCPB refused the demand to restore the withdrawn amount, leading to the petitioner filing a
complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against UCPB for recovery of the sum of money.
**Issue:**
Whether UCPB should be held liable for the amount withdrawn due to the existence of a trust
agreement between PALII and UCPB, in favor of the heirs of Joseph Goyanko, Sr.
**Ruling:**
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, denying the petition and affirming the decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) and the RTC. The Court concluded that no express trust was created between PALII and
UCPB. It emphasized that a competent trustor and trustee, along with a clear intention to create a trust,
were absent. The Court also noted that UCPB, as a mere depositary, did not have an equitable duty to
deal with the account and acted in accordance with its contractual obligations. The petitioner failed to
prove the existence of an express trust, and thus, UCPB was not liable for the amount withdrawn. The
Court also highlighted the petitioner's change in theory during the case, which was not allowed at that
stage of the proceedings.
G.R. No. L-24597 August 25, 1926 ROSARIO GAYONDATO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE TREASURER OF
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL., defendants-appellant. Arroyo and Evangelista for appellant. Office of
the Solicitor-General Reyes for the Treasurer of the Philippine Islands. No appearance for the other
appellees.
**Facts:**
- The plaintiff filed an action to recover damages of P30,000 for the erroneous registration of three
parcels of land in the name of the defendant Gasataya, which the plaintiff owned at the time of
registration.
- The land originally belonged to Domingo Gayondato, inherited from his mother in 1896. After
Domingo's death in 1902, Gabino Gasataya (father of Adela Gasataya) took charge of the land.
- In 1908, Adela married the defendant Domingo Cuachon, and Gabino Gasataya turned over the land to
them.
- The parcels were included in a cadastral case in 1916, where Domingo Cuachon claimed ownership on
behalf of his wife and stepdaughter (the plaintiff).
- The Court of First Instance erroneously decreed the registration of the lots in Adela Gasataya's name
only.
- Adela later mortgaged and sold the land to Francisco Rodriguez.
- The plaintiff filed a complaint in 1922, seeking damages from Adela Gasataya, Domingo Cuachon,
Francisco Rodriguez, and the Insular Treasurer.
**Issue:**
Whether the Insular Treasurer is liable for damages due to the erroneous registration of the land, and if
the damages should be recovered from the assurance fund.
**Ruling:**
The court ruled in favor of the appellant (plaintiff). It held that the Insular Treasurer was secondarily
liable for damages through the assurance fund, as provided in sections 101 and 102 of the Land
Registration Act. The court disagreed with the lower court's interpretation that the assurance fund's
liability was confined to cases of omission, mistake, or malfeasance by court employees. The court
emphasized that the liability of the assurance fund extends to cases of fraud or wrongful acts, even if
committed by persons other than court employees. The court also clarified that the term "trust" in
section 106 which provides that "the assurance fund shall not be liable to pay for any loss or damage or
deprivation occasioned by a breach of trust, whether express, implied, or constructive, by any registered
owner who is a trustee, or by the improper exercise of any sale in mortgage-foreclosure proceedings
should be understood in its technical sense, and in this case, no technical trust was created. The
damages awarded were reduced to P25,000, taking into account the life estate of Adela Gasataya and
the actual sale value of the land. The court ordered Domingo Cuachon and the estate of Adela Gasataya
to pay the plaintiff, and if the judgment remained unsatisfied, the assurance fund would cover the
remaining amount. The complaint against Francisco Rodriguez was dismissed.