Vda.

de Esconde vs CA FACTS: Petitioners Constancia, Benjamin and Elenita, and private respondent Pedro, are the children of the late Eulogio Esconde and petitioner Catalina Buan. Eulogio Esconde was one of the children and heirs of Andres Esconde. Andres is the brother of Estanislao Esconde, the original owner of the disputed lot who died without issue on April 1 !". #urvived b$ his onl$ brother, Andres, Estanislao left an estate consisting of four %!& parcels of land in #amal, Bataan. Eulogio died in April, 1 !! survived b$ petitioners and private respondent. At that time, 'a(ara andCiriaca, Eulogio)s sisters, had alread$ died without having partitioned the estate of the late Estanislao Esconde. *n +ecember ,, 1 !-, the heirs of 'a(ara, Ciriaca and Eulogio e.ecuted adeed of e.trajudicial partition. #ince the children of Eulogio, with the e.ception of Constancia, were then all minors, the$ were represented b$ their mother and judicial guardian, petitioner Catalina Buan vda. de Esconde who renounced and waived her usufructuar$ rights over the parcels of land in favor of her children in the same deed. #ometime in +ecember of 1 /", Benjamin discovered that 'ot 0o. 1122 was registered in the name of his brother, private respondent. Believing that the lot was co3owned b$ all the children of Eulogio Esconde, Benjamin demanded his share of the lot from private respondent. 4owever, private respondent asserted e.clusive ownership thereof pursuant to the deed of e.trajudicial partition. 4ence, on 5une " , 1 /1, petitioners herein filed a complaint before the 67C of Bataan against private respondent for the annulment of 7C7 0o. 8 !. 9n its decision of 5ul$ 81,1 / , the lower court ruled that the action had been barred b$ both prescription and laches. 4ence, petitioners elevated the case to the CA which affirmed the lower court)s decision. ISSUE: 7he applicabilit$ of the laches doctrine to implied trust is the issue in this petition. DECISION: 7rust is the legal relationship between one person having an e:uitable ownership in propert$ and another person owning the legal title to such propert$, the e:uitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the e.ercise of certain powers b$ the latter. 9n the case at bench, petitioner Catalina Buan vda. de Esconde, as mother and legal guardian of her children, appears to have favored her elder son, private respondent, in allowing that he be given 'ot 0o. 1122 in its entiret$ in the e.trajudicial partition of the Esconde estate to the prejudice of her other children. After the 7C7 0o. 8 ! was handed to him b$ his mother, private respondent e.ercised e.clusive rights of ownership therein to the e.tent of even mortgaging the lot when he needed mone$. 9f, as petitioners insist, a mista;e was committed in allotting 'ot 0o. 1122 to private respondent, then a trust relationship was created between them and private respondent. 4owever, private respondent never considered himself a trustee. 9f he allowed his brother Benjamin to construct or ma;e improvements thereon, it appears to have been out of tolerance to a brother. Conse:uentl$, if indeed, b$ mista;e, private respondent was given the entiret$ of 'ot 0o. 1122, the trust relationship between him and petitioners was a constructive, not resulting, implied trust. Petitioners, therefore, correctl$ :uestioned private respondent<s e.ercise of absolute ownership over the propert$. =nfortunatel$, however, petitioners assailed it long after their right to do so have prescribed. 7he rule that a trustee cannot ac:uire b$ prescription ownership over propert$ entrusted to him until and unless he repudiates the trust, applies to e.press trusts and resulting implied trusts. 4owever, in constructive implied trusts, prescription ma$ supervene even if the trustee does not repudiate the relationship. 0ecessaril$, repudiation of the said trust is not a condition precedent t o t h e r u n n i n g o f t h e p r e s c r i p t i v e pe r i o d .