RULE 98 PAZ GARCIA vda. de MAPA, * SEGUNDO MAPA, PRISCILLA M.

MONZON, TERESA MAPA,

IGNACIO SALAZAR AND JOSE SALAZAR, petitioners,
G.R. No. L-43082 June 18, 1937 vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, LUIS HIDROSOLLO and TEODORO HIDROSOLLO, in their own behalf
and as Joint Administrators of the testate estate of Ludovico Hidrosollo, and
PABLO LORENZO, as trustee of the estate of Thomas Hanley, deceased, plaintiff-appellant,
VICTORIA ** HIDROSOLLO, CORAZON HIDROSOLLO, ROSARIO HIDROSOLLO and
vs.
MAGDALENA HIDROSOLLO, respondents.
JUAN POSADAS, JR., Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant-appellant.

FERNAN, J.:
LAUREL, J.:

.R. No. L-38972, September 28, 1987FACTS:

On 27 May 1922, Thomas Hanley died in Zamboanga, leaving a will and considerable amount
On January 16, 1965, the petitoners Paz Garcia Vda. de Mapa et. al. instituted acivil case
of real and personal properties. Hanley’s will provides the following: his money will be given
before the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover the properties left byConcepcion
to his nephew, Matthew Hanley, as well as the real estate owned by him. It further provided
Mapa de Hidrosollo from the estate of Ludovico Hidrosollo which is alsosubject to a special
that the property will only be given ten years after Thomas Hanley’s death. Thus, in the
proceedings in the same court. They claimed that the deceasedConcepcion Mapa de
testamentary proceedings, the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga appointed P.J.M. Moore
Hidrosollo, in her last will and testament, instituted LudovicoHidrosollo as a universal heir
as trustee of the estate. Moore took oath of office on March 10, 1924, and resigned on Feb.
with the obligation as a trustee to the residue of her estateand to hold the same in trust for
29, 1932. Pablo Lorenzo was appointed in his stead. Juan Posadas, Collector of Internal
the petitioners and the private respondents.The respondents, in their answer, denied the
Revenue, assessed inheritance tax against the estate amounting to P2,057.74 which includes
existence of trust and alleged thatLudovico Hidrosollo, as the surviving spouse of Concepcion
penalty and surcharge. He filed a motion in the testamentary proceedings so that Lorenzo
Mapa de Hidrosllo, becamethe latter's universal heir when she died without ascendants or
will be ordered to pay the amount due. Lorenzo paid the amount in protest after CFI granted
descendants, so that thecontroverted properties became part of the estate of Ludovico
Posadas’ motion. He claimed that the inheritance tax should have been assessed after 10
Hidrosollo. They furtheralleged that the civil case instituted by the petitioners was barred by
years. He asked for a refund but Posadas declined to do so. The latter counterclaimed for the
an order denying theirmotion to intervene in the special proceedings.In disposing the case,
additional amount of P1,191.27 which represents interest due on the tax and which was not
the lower court ruled that a trust was created and the denialorder of the petitioner's motion
included in the original assessment. However, CFI dismissed this counterclaim. It also denied
to intervene did not deprive them to institute a separate civilaction to recover what pertains
Lorenzo’s claim for refund against Posadas. Hence, both appealed.
to them in their own right. The respondents moved forreconsideration but the same was
denied prompting them to file an appeal before the Courtof Appeals. Their appeal to the
Issue: Whether the estate was delinquent in paying the inheritance tax and therefore liable
appellate court proved fruitful as the Court of Appealsreversed the decision of the lower
for the P1,191.27 that Posadas is asking for?
court and ruled that there is no trust nor fideicommissarysubstition created in the will of
Concepcion Mapa de Hidrosollo.
Held: Yes. It was delinquent because according to Sec. 1544 (b) of the Revised Administrative
ISSUE:
Code, payment of the inheritance tax shall be made before delivering to each beneficiary his
1. Whether or not a trust was created.2. Whether or not the denial order constitutes a bar to
share. This payment should have been made before March 10, 1924, the date when P.J.M.
the civil case instituted.
Moore formally assumed the function of trustee.
HELD:
Although the property was only to be given after 10 years from the death of Hanley, the
The Supreme Court ruled that there was a trust created. Although the word "trust"itself
court considered that delivery to the trustee is delivery to cestui que trust, the beneficiary
does not appear in the will, the testatrix intent to create one is nonethelessdemonstrated by
within the meaning of Sec. 1544 (b).
the stipulations in her will.In designating her husband Ludovico Hidrosollo as a sole and
Even though there was no express mention of the word “trust” in the will, the court of first
universal heir withthe obligation to deliver the properties to the petitioners and private
instance was correct in appointing a trustee because no particular or technical words are
respondents, sheintended that the legal title should vest in him and in significantly referring
required to create a testamentary trust (69 C.J.,p. 711). The requisites of a valid testamentary
to petitionersand private respondents as beneficiarios, she intended that the beneficial or
trust are: 1) sufficient words to raise a trust, 2) a definite subject, 3) a certain or ascertained
equitableinterest over the properties should repose in them.Article 1443 of the Civil Code
object. There is no doubt that Hanley intended to create a trust since he ordered in his will
also provides that No particular words are requiredfor the creation of an express trust, it
that certain of his properties be kept together undisposed during a fixed period or for a
being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended.However, the trust created by Concepcion
stated purpose.
should be limited only to the free portionof her estate.

G.R. No. L-38972 September 28, 1987 As to the second issue, the Supreme Court ruled that since the denial order wasanchored
primarily on the non-existence of or the ineffectivity of the fidecommissarysubstitution and
did not resolve the issue on trust alleged by the petitioners, such ordercannot be considered
as an adjudication on the merits of petitioner's claim against theestate. Hence it is not
barred.Even assuming that a fideicommissary substitution was created, such
substitutioncannot be give effect because Article 863 of the Civil Code requires that such
substitutionmust not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted. The
petitioners and private respondents are merely sobrinos of the fiduciary or first heir.
'reated by the parties, or by the intention of the trustor. *press trusts do not
prescribeunless repudiated.
Implied
- 'reated by operation of law. The rule on implied trusts regarding prescription isconfusing.
n general, resulting trusts do not prescribe, but constructive trusts do

G.R. No. L-17809 December 29, 1962

G.R. No. L-26699 March 16, 1976
RESURRECCION DE LEON, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees,
BENITA SALAO, assisted by her husband, GREGORIO MARCELO; ALMARIO ALCURIZA, vs.
ARTURO ALCURIZA, OSCAR ALCURIZA and ANITA ALCURIZA, the latter two being minors EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON, ET AL., respondents-appellants.
are represented by guardian ad litem, ARTURO ALCURIZA, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs. Cornelio R. Magsarili for plaintiffs-appellees.
JUAN S. SALAO, later substituted by PABLO P. SALAO, Administrator of the Intestate of Sycip, Salazar, Luna and Associates for respondents-appellants.
JUAN S. SALAO; now MERCEDES P. VDA. DE SALAO, ROBERTO P. SALAO, MARIA SALAO
VDA. DE SANTOS, LUCIANA P. SALAO, ISABEL SALAO DE SANTOS, and PABLO P. SALAO, as
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
successors-in-interest of the late JUAN S. SALAO, together with PABLO P. SALAO,
Administrator, defendants-appellants.

AQUINO, J.:

Salao v. Salao70 SCRA 65Facts:

The plaintiffs, all relatives of the defendants, instituted action for a piece of land inBataan,
alleging it came from common funds and that there was an oral partition made earlier.They
alleged that the defendants, who became administrators of property in Malabon
inheritedfrom their grandparents, used common funds to buy property elsewhere.
Issue:
1. Who is the trustor and who is the trustee? 2. Was trust created?
Held:
1. person who establishes a trust is called the trustor! one in whom confidence is reposed
asregards property for the benefit of another person is "nown as the trustee! and the person
forwhose benefit the trust has been created is referred to as the beneficiary# $ rt. 1%%&,
'ivil 'ode(.There is a fiduciary relation between the trustee and the
cestui que trust
as regards certain property, real, personal, money or choses in action.2. The court ruled that
it was not proven that a trust had been created. )o documentary evidencewas presented to
prove an e*press trust, and rt. 1%%+ says parol evidence cannot be used to prove an
e*press trust concerning realty.
Art. 1443. No express trusts co cer ! " a !##ova$le or a % ! terest t&ere! #a% $eproved $% parol ev!de ce.
)either can the evidence prove an implied trust. While an implied trust may be proven by
oralevidence, it must be trustworthy. )either was it proven that there was fraud or mista"e,
enoughto create a constructive trust.
'() *IN+S )F 'R,S'
Express-