Ramos v. Ramos
G.R. No. L-19872
December 3, 1974
FACTS
Plaintiff Emiliano Ramos was one of the 7 natural children of their father, Martin
Ramos while defendant Gregoria is the widow of Jose Ramos, one of the 3
legitimate children of Martin Ramos and Candida Tanate. During and after the
death of their father, all children whether legitimate or acknowledged natural
children lived in Hacienda Ilaya under the care of their father. After the death of
their father in 1906, a special proceeding was instituted to settle the intestate
estate of spouses Martin and Candida and Rafael Ramos , younger brother of
Martin was appointed administrator of the estate for 6 years.
FACTS
Thereafter, a partition was submitted in 1913 indicating the legal shares of the
legitimate children as well as the 7 natural children of Martin Ramos.. It was
signed by the three legitimate children, Jose, Agustin and Granada and by the
two natural children, Atanacia and Timoteo, and by Timoteo Zayco as guardian
of the other five natural children who were allegedly minors. The partition and
guardianship were approved by Judge Richard Campbell. Further, in 1914, a
manifestation signed by Jose, Agustin, Granada, Atanacia and Timoteo, all
surnamed Ramos, and by Timoteo Zayco, the guardian, was submitted by the
administrator in compliance to the order issued by Judge Nepomuceno ordering
the distribution of the shares of the heirs.
FACTS
In 1957, an action for reconveyance was filed by the then alleged minor natural
children in their favor was filed against defendants Gregoria and daughter
Candida in whose names the 8 lots are now registered which amounts to the 1/6
portion of his legally acknowledged natural children under Art. 840 of the old
Civil Code. It is predicated on the theory that plaintiffs’ shares were held in trust
by the defendants.
FACTS
The defendants denied the existence of a trust. They pleaded the defenses of (a)
release of claim as shown in the project of partition, the decision and the receipt
of shares forming part of the expediente of Civil Case No. 217, (b) lack of cause
of action, (c) res judicata and (d) prescription.
The lower court dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata. The
plaintiffs as well as the defendants appealed.
ISSUE
Whether there is an existence of
trust.
No. There is no existence of trust.
HELD
Under Art. 1441, Civil Code, trusts are
either express or implied. Express trusts
are created by the intention of the trustor
or of the parties. Implied trusts come into
being by operation of law. Further, under
Arts. 1443 and 1457, no express trusts
concerning an immovable or any interest
therein may be proven by oral evidence. An
implied trust may be proven by oral
evidence.
HELD
In this case, the plaintiffs did not prove any
express trust in this case. The expediente of the
intestate proceeding, Civil Case No. 217,
particularly the project of partition, the decision
and the manifestation as to the receipt of shares
negatives the existence of an express trust.
Those public documents prove that the estate of
Martin Ramos was settled in that proceeding and
that adjudications were made to his seven
natural children. A trust must be proven by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence. It cannot
rest on vague and uncertain evidence or on
loose, equivocal or indefinite declarations. As
already noted, an express trust cannot be proven
by parol evidence.
HELD
Neither have the plaintiffs specified the kind of
implied trust contemplated in their action.
Therefore, it can be concluded that there is no
existence of trust in the case at hand.