ABELLANA v. PONCE

ABELLANA v. PONCE

G.R. No. 160488; September 3, 2004

Ponente: J. Ynares-Santiago

FACTS:
On July 15, 1981, Felomina, a spinster, pharmacist and aunt of private respondent Lucila Ponce, purchased from the late Estela Caldoza-Pacres a 44,297 square meter agricultural lot with the intention of giving said lot to her niece, Lucila. Thus, in the deed of sale, the latter was designated as the buyer of Lot 3, Pcs-10-000198 located at Los Angeles, Butuan City.  The total consideration of the sale was P16,500.00, but only P4,500.00 was stated in the deed upon the request of the seller.  
Subsequently, Felomina applied for the issuance of title in the name of her niece. On April 28, 1992, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 2874 over the subject lot was issued in the name of Lucila.  Said title, however, remained in the possession of Felomina who developed the lot through Juanario Torreon and paid real property taxes thereon.  
The relationship between Felomina and respondent spouses Romeo and Lucila Ponce, however, turned sour. The latter allegedly became disrespectful and ungrateful to the point of hurling her insults and even attempting to hurt her physically. Hence, Felomina filed the instant case for revocation of implied trust to recover legal title over the property.

ISSUE:
Whether an implied trust was established


HELD:

No, an implied trust was not established.

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 1448 of the Civil Code on implied trust finds no application in the instant case. The concept of implied trusts is that from the facts and circumstances of a given case, the existence of a trust relationship is inferred in order to effect the presumed intention of the parties. Thus, one of the recognized exceptions to the establishment of an implied trust is where a contrary intention is proved, as in the present case. 

From the testimony of Felomina herself, she wanted to give the lot to Lucila as a gift. To her mind, the execution of a deed with Lucila as the buyer and the subsequent issuance of title in the latter’s name were the acts that would effectuate her generosity. In so carrying out what she conceived, Felomina evidently displayed her unequivocal intention to transfer ownership of the lot to Lucila and not merely to constitute her as a trustee thereof. It was only when their relationship soured that she sought to revoke the donation on the theory of implied trust, though as previously discussed, there is nothing to revoke because the donation was never perfected.