JULIO v DALANDAN

FACTS
An affidavit was subscribed and sworn to by Clemente Dalandan. By the terms of
this writing, Clemente Dalandan, deceased father of defendants Emiliano and Maria
Dalandan, acknowledged that a four-hectare piece of riceland in Las Pias, Rizal
belonging to Victoriana Dalandan, whose only child and heir is plaintiff Victoria Julio,
was posted as security for an obligation which he, Clemente Dalandan, assumed
but, however, failed to fulfill. The result was that Victoriana's said land was
foreclosed. The key provisions of said document are: 3. That this riceland owned by
VICTORIANA DALANDAN whose sole heir is VICTORIA JULIO was posted as security
for an obligation assumed by me even before the outbreak of the last war and
because I failed to fulfill the obligation secured by her said farm the same was
foreclosed; 4. That because of this, and as agreed upon between us, I accordingly
held myself liable to Victoria Julio for the foreclosure of her said land, and I promised
her that I would replace her aforesaid land which was foreclosed because of my
obligation with another farm of more than four; (4) hectares, that is, one planted to
four cavanes of seedlings, more or less;] 5. That my children (EMILIANO AND MARIA
DALANDAN) may not be forced to give up the harvest of the farm herein above
mentioned; 6.That neither may the land which was exchanged for the farm with
four cavanes of seedlings be demanded immediately; After the death of
Clemente Dalandan, plaintiff requested from defendants to deliver the land to her,
but they refused.
ISSUE
W/N Emiliano and Maria Dalandan are trustees of Victoria Julio.
HELD / RATIO
YES. Emiliano and Maria Dalandan are usufructuaries for an undetermined length of
time. For so long as that period has not been fixed and has not elapsed, they hold
the property. Theirs is to enjoy the fruits of the land and to hold the same as
trustees of Victoria Julio. And this because, by the deed, Clemente Dalandan
divested himself of the ownership qualified solely by withholding enjoyment of
the fruits and physical possession. In consequence, Clemente Dalandan cannot
transmit to his heirs, the present defendants, such ownership. Nemo dat quod non
habet. And then, the document is a declaration by Clemente Dalandan, now
deceased, against his own proprietary interests. Such document is binding upon his
heirs. While it is true that said deed did not in definitive words institute defendants
as trustees, a duty is therein imposed upon them when the proper time comes
to turn over both the fruits and the possession of the property to Victoria Julio. Not
that this view is without statutory support. Article 1444 of the Civil Code states that:
"No particular words are required for the creation of an express trust, it being
sufficient that a trust is clearly intended." In reality, the development of the trust as

a method of disposition of property, so jurisprudence teaches, "seems in large part

due to its freedom from formal requirements." This principle perhaps accounts for
the provisions in Article 1444 just quoted. For, "technical or particular forms of
words or phrases are not essential to the manifestation of intention to create a trust
or to the establishment thereof." Nor would the use of some such words as "trust" or
"trustee" essential to the constitution of a trust. Conversely, the mere fact that the
word "trust" or "trustee" was employed would not necessarily prove an intention to
create a trust. What is important is whether the trustor manifested an intention to
create the kind of relationship which in law is known as a trust. It is unimportant
that the trustor should know that the relationship "which he intends to create is
called a trust, and whether or not he knows the precise characteristics of the
relationship which is called a trust."7 Here, that trust is effective as against
defendants and in favor of the beneficiary thereof, plaintiff Victoria Julio, who
accepted it in the document itself.
ANUNCIACION VDA. DE OUANO vs. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
Petitioners Anunciacion vda. de Ouano, Mario Ouano, Leticia Ouano Arnaiz and Cielo
Ouano Martinez (the Ouanos) seek to nullify the Decision[1] dated September 3,
2004 of the Court of Appeals(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 78027, affirming the Order
dated December 9, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court(RTC), Branch 57 in Cebu City, in
Civil Case No. CEB-20743, a suit to compel the Republic of the Philippines and/or the
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) to reconvey to the Ouanos
aparcel of land.
ISSUE:
Whether abandonment of the public use for which the subject properties were
expropriated entitles petitioners to reacquire them
RULING:
If, for example, land is expropriated for a particular purpose, with the condition that
when that purpose is ended or abandoned the property shall return to its former
owner, then of course, when the purpose is terminated or abandoned, the former
owner reacquires the property so expropriated. If, upon the contrary, however the
decree of expropriation gives to the entity a fee simple title, then, of course, the
land becomes the absolute property of the expropriator and in that case the nonuser does not have the effect of defeating the title acquired by the expropriation
proceedings
HEIRS OF DOMINGO v RAMA
FACTS

Petitioners claim that they are the heirs of Domingo Valientes who, before his death,
was the owner of a parcel of land in Zamboanga del Sur. In 1939, Domingo Valientes
mortgaged the subject property to secure his loan to the spouses Leon Belen and
Brigida Sescon (spouses Belen). In the 1950s, the Valientes family purportedly
attempted, but failed, to retrieve the subject property from the spouses Belen.
Through an allegedly forged document captioned VENTA DEFINITIVA purporting to
be a deed of sale of the subject property between Domingo Valientes and the
spouses Belen, the latter obtained Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-5, 427 in
their name. On 1970, Maria Valientes Bucoy and Vicente Valientes, legitimate
children of the late Domingo Valientes, had their Affidavit of Adverse Claim duly
entered in the Memorandum of Encumbrances at the back of TCT No. T-5, 427. Upon
the death of the spouses Belen, their surviving heirs Brigida Sescon Belen and Maria
Lina Belen executed an extra-judicial settlement with partition and sale in favor of
private respondent Vilma Valencia-Minor, the present possessor of the subject
property. On 1979, herein private respondent Minor filed with the courts a "PETITION
FOR CANCELLATION OF MEMORANDUM OF ENCUMBRANCE. Private respondent
Minor filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. 98-021 on the grounds of
forum shopping and litis pendentia.
ISSUE
W/N action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust is
imprescriptible
HELD
No. We have allowed actions for reconveyance based on implied trusts even beyond
such one-year period, for such actions respect the decree of registration as
incontrovertible. The right to seek reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust is not absolute nor is it imprescriptible. An action for
reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in
ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property. As discussed
above, Civil Case No. 98-021 was filed more than 28 years from the issuance of TCT
No. T-5,427. This period is unreasonably long for a party seeking to enforce its right
to file the appropriate case. Thus, petitioners' claim that they had not slept on their
rights is patently unconvincing