Morales vs. CA (1997) (Beauty shop) Doctrine: 1.

A trust is the legal relationship between one person having an equitable ownership in property and another person owning the legal title to such property, the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain powers by the latter. The characteristics of a trust are: a. It is a relationship; b. It is a relationship of fiduciary character; c. It is a relationship with respect to property, not one involving merely personal duties; d. It involves the existence of equitable duties imposed upon the holder of the title to the property to deal with it for the benefit of another; and e. It arises as a result of a manifestation of intention to create the relationship. 2. Art. 1448. There is an implied trust when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. However, if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being disputably presumed that there is a gift in favor of the child. Facts: Cast of Characters: Celso Avelino Owner of the premises in question Priscilla Morales Sister of Celso Avelino, claims ownership of the land Rodolfo Morales Son of Priscilla, built beauty shop on premises in question Ranulfo and Erlinda Ortiz Purchased premises in question from Celso Avelino Aurea Avelino Sister of Celso, caretaker of the premises in question Rosendo Avelino and Juana Ricaforte Parents of Celso, Aurea and Priscilla Ranulfo and Erlinda Ortiz claim that they are the absolute and exclusive owners of the premises in question (318 sq.m. land located at corner Umbria St. and Rosales Blvd. Brgy. Central, Calbayog City) through their purchase of the said property from Celso Avelino and stated the following: The property was purchased by Celso Avelino (the Ortiz's predecessor in interest) when he was still a bachelor and a city fiscal of Calbayog city from Alejandra Mendiola and Celita Bartolome through an "Escritura de Venta." After the purchase, he caused the transfer of the title as well as the tax declarations in his name. He faithfully paid the taxes and kept the receipts thereof. He also caused a survey of the premises in question with the Bureau of Lands and built a residential house thereon. He took his parents Rosendo Avelino and Juana Ricaforte and his sister Aurea to live in his property until their death. Celso Avelino then became an Immigration Officer and later a Judge of the Court of First Instance in Cebu so he left his property under the care of his sister, Aurea. Without his knowledge, his nephew Rodolfo Morales (a son of his other sister, Priscilla) constructed a beauty shop on the premises in question. Celso thereafter sold the property to Ranulfo and Erlinda Ortiz (Celso's neighbors), they paid the purchase price and a deed of absolute sale was executed. Rodolfo Morales, however, refused to vacate the premises unless he is reimbursed P35,000. He also occupied the residential building on the property, took in paying boarders and even claimed ownership of the premises in question. Rodolfo Morales contends that his grandparents Rosendo Avelino and Juana Ricaforte originally owned the premises in question. The property was allegedly bought by Celso Avelino who was entrusted by Rosendo with the money to buy it. They caused the name of the property to be under Celso Avelino being the only son. When Rosendo Avelino and Juana Ricaforte died, their children: Celso Avelino, Trinidad Cruz, Concepcion Peralta, Priscilla Morales and Aurea Avelino succeeded as owners thereof. Issues:

1. W/N Celso Avelino acquired the property as a mere trustee. 2. W/N Rodolfo Morales a builder in good faith that would entitle him to reimbursement. Held: 1. NO. 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, either through implication of an intention to create a trust as a matter of law or through the imposition of the trust irrespective of and even contrary to, any such intention. Implied trusts are either resulting or constructive trusts. Constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest and are presumed always to have been contemplated by the parties. They arise from the nature of circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person becomes invested with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of another. A resulting trust in exemplified by Article 1448 of the Civil Code: "There is an implied trust when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. However, if the person to whom title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being disputable presumed that there is gift in favor of a child. The last sentence of Article 1448 gives one of the recognized exceptions to the establishment of an implied resulting trust. (The other two would be: when actual contrary intention is proved and when purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision.) As a rule the burden of proving the existence of trust is on the party asserting its existence, and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the existence of trust. While implied trusts may be proved by oral evidence, evidence must be trustworthy and received by the courts wth extreme caution. On this basis alone, Rodolfo and Priscilla Morales' claim must fail. Rodolfo and Priscilla relied merely on testimonial evidences which are self-serving. Proof of Ranulfo and Erlinda Ortiz's lawful acquisition of the property through Celso Avelinos ownership on the other hand was supported by documentary evidences such as the deed of absolute sale and tax declarations. Even testimonies of Celso's other sisters prove that they believe that he is the true owner of the property. The fact that the other siblings did not intervene in this case to protect their right and that upon the death of their parents no extra-judicial partition occurred further strengthens Celso's ownership. Moreover, assuming that their claim that Celso was a mere trustee is true, it still falls under the exemption under the last sentence of Article 1448 which states that if the person to whom the title conveyed is a child, there is a presumption that it is a gift in favor of the child. 2. NO. Article 448 (This is on builders in good faith, look it up nalang if you want) only applies when a builder thinks he owns the land or believes himself to have a claim of title. From the evidences adduced, Rodolfo Morales knew from the beginning that he was not the owner of the land. Rodolfo is not entitled to reimbursement.