Vitasa, Alexandra J.
2014-00520
A. Case Title B. Reason for Inclusion C. Pertinent Facts D. Excerpt
With Atty. Pascua’s help, petitioners
Sumaoang were able to receive a favorable
decision from the Trial Court that declared a
homestead patent granted to the Domingos, the
buyer of their father’s homestead during his
absence, null and void. This decision became
Topic: Trusts – Property acquired final and executory.
through mistake or fraud (Art. 1456)
Atty. Pascua was not able receive
The “mistake” or “fraud” stated in compensation as the Sumaoang’s counsel. so “The "mistake" or "fraud"
the provision must be qualified. The he filed a complaint for collection of attorney’s that results in an implied
Sumaoang v.
ruling in Sumaoang clarifies which fees. The Court of First Instance of Guimba trust being impressed upon
RTC, Branch
party must make the mistake or ordered that Atty. Pascua is entitled to the the property involved, may
XXXI, Guimba,
commit the fraud for the provision equivalent of one half the value of the be the mistake or fraud of a
Nueva Ecija,
to apply. In this case, the Court says homestead and attorney’s fee of P110,000. third person, and need not
G.R. No. 78173,
that an implied trust made by The entire 21 hectares of land was levied to be a mistake or fraud
[October 26,
mistake or fraud may be made by a Atty. Pascua by the Deputy Sheriff as the sole committed directly by the
1992]
person other than the parties bidder, in consideration of the P110,000 as trustee himself under the
involved in the suit, so identity as to payment for the judgement. implied trust.”
the fraud is not as material to the
case, as the fact of the mistake or Petitioners brought this case to the SC for the
fraud thereof. nullification of this decision because the fee
was unconscionable. The SC ruled in this case
that the CFI Judge that rendered this decision
was mistaken – having greatly overestimated
the appreciation of said land and in the
conversion thereof into monetary terms.
Therefore, when Atty. Pascua acquired the
land, he must be held in implied trust for the
Sumaoang heirs. Implied trust still existed
even if the mistake was committed by a
third party.
Petitioners inherited from their mother through
testamentary succession 44 hectares of land.
Originally, it was 54 hectares, but 10 hectares
were sold. The petitioners assert that the
private respondents only own 2.57 hectares of
“While an implied trust (of
land, and not the 5.29 that they allege, making
Topic: Trusts – Proof Required real or personal property)
about 2.5 hectares of land in dispute. The
does not require the
petitioners aver that there were conflicting
This case highlights one of the most formalities of an express
interests as regards the father of the private
important requisites of implied trust over realty (which as
respondents, as overseer of the entire 54
trusts – intent. Without a certain mandated by the law cannot
Ferrer-Lopez v. hectares of land as trustee, and overseer of the
format that an implied trust must be proved by oral evidence
Court of land that his children bought as well. With this,
take, or an exhaustive list of words under Art. 1443 of the Civil
Appeals, he had pointed out to the Court Commissioner
that indicate that a trust was created, Code), still there must be
G.R. No. L- the wrong demarcation during the relocation
implied trusts must rely on proof proof that the trustor
50420, [May 29, survey of the land to benefit his children. On
that there was intent by the trustor wanted to grant one party
1987] top of that, the petitioners say that they have
that he or she wanted to create a trust only the beneficial
continuously inhabited that portion of land,
relationship. The ruling in Ferrer- ownership of a parcel of
and not the private respondents. They are
Lopez seems to point that there must land, although said
basically saying that there was an implied
be a higher standard of proof than beneficiary may have legal
trust in their occupation of the entire 54
mere possession of legal title. title in himself.” (Emphasis
hectares including the plot of land that was
supplied)
part of the private respondents’ 5 hectares.
The Court held that the evidence presented by
the petitioners inadequate to prove that there
was ill-intent on the part of the private
respondents’ father during the relocation
survey, and therefore they are the ones that the
land is entrusted to. The late mother of the
petitioners never questioned the alleged
tampering of boundaries either. Furthermore,
the lots in question had separate registered
titles of ownership and two different groups
exercised dominion over each.
Spouses Lopez obtained a real estate loan to
construct a four-story dormitory building.
While construction was ongoing, the loan
agreement was amended thrice, with Planters
Bank still releasing the loans. On the third
amendment, they even agreed on increasing “Inaction or silence may
Topic: Estoppel - Kinds (in pais)
the total loan amount, but shortened the term under some circumstances
to one year. Planters then refused to release the amount to a
Estoppel must be shown to arise
remaining P700,000 of the loan because the misrepresentation, so as to
from different situations. Actions of
Spouses violated the terms of the agreement, raise an equitable estoppel.
Planters one party do operate as an estoppel,
and Sps. Lopez had to stop the construction. When the silence is of such
Development but so does silence or inaction. Said
(They built a six-story building instead of a a character and under such
Bank v. Sps. inaction must have led the other
four-story one, and did not submit progress circumstances that it would
Lopez, G.R. No. party to believe something, on
reports). become a fraud on the other
186332, [October which the latter acts upon to his or
party to permit the party
23, 2013] her prejudice. This case shows that
The Court held that Planters Bank was who has kept silent to deny
the means to commit
estopped from assailing the Spouses’ deviation what his silence has induced
misrepresentation or fraud is not
from the loan agreement because they kept on the other to believe and act
confined to overt acts, and may also
releasing amounts of the loan even after on, it will operate as an
extend to omissions.
learning of the fact that the dormitory building estoppel.”
is now six stories. This was based on the ocular
inspections that they had while the
construction was ongoing. Planters Bank did
nothing to stop or even protest the
construction, therefore bringing up this issue
during the trial is too late and just seems like a
mere afterthought
Grijaldo obtained five loans from the Bank of
Taiwan’s branch in Negros Occidental. By
virtue of the “Trading with the Enemy” Act,
assets of the bank, including the loan, were
Topic: Extinctive Prescription – transferred to the Philippines by the
against whom/ in whose favor Government of the United States. The
“[I]t should be considered
Republic of the Philippines then demanded
that the complaint in the
This case provides for a possible payment of the loan from Grijaldo through a
present case was brought by
exception to the general rule that is letter, and then again extrajudicially. He failed
the Republic of the
that prescription does not run to pay on both occasions.
Philippines not as a nominal
against the State. If the State brought
Republic v. party but in the exercise of
the case before the Supreme Court Grijaldo contends that the loans became due on
Grijaldo, G.R. its sovereign functions, to
as a nominal party, then prescription June 1, 1944, while the action was only
No. L-20240, protect the interests of the
would apply to the State, contrary to brought before the court on January 17, 1961,
[December 31, State over a public property.
the aforementioned rule. The and so the action has prescribed. The Court
1965] Under paragraph 4 of
decision points out that it must first upholds the rule that prescription does not run
Article 1108 of the Civil
be discerned as to what capacity the against the State. However, it had to be
Code prescription, both
State is acting in to know if establish that the Republic of the
acquisitive and extinctive,
prescription may apply to it or not. Philippines was acting in its sovereign
does not run against the
The role that a State assumes is a capacity, and not as a nominal party. It was
State.”
qualifier as to whether collecting debts as an exercise of its
prescription will run or not. sovereignty over it assets, and not as a private
institution (like a bank). This implies that this
alternative may be possible – that an action
against the State may prescribe, provided that
it was not acting in its sovereign capacity.