Sinaon vs.

Soroñgon, 136 SCRA 407 (1985)

FACTS:

Canuta Soblingo was one of the 5 children of Domingo Soblingo (the alleged owner of the lot in litigation
when it was not yet registered). In 1916 Judge Carlos Imperial adjudicated to Canuta Soblingo Lot No
4781 of the Sta Barbara, Iloilo Cadastre with an area of 5.5 hectares. OCT No 6178-A was issued in 1917
to Canuta. In 1923, Canuta sold the lot to spouses Patricio Sinaon and Julia Sualibio (granddaughter of
Canuta). TCT No. 2542 was issued to the Sinaon spouses. It is still existing and uncancelled up to this
time; Julia was the granddaughter of Canuta. The lot was declared for tax purposes in Sinaon's name.
The Sinaon spouses and their children paid the realty taxes due thereon. They have possessed the land
as owners from 1923 up to this time or for more than half a century.

In 1968 Sorongon (et al) amended their complaint filed in 1964 that Canuta and the Sinaons were
TRUSTEES of the lot in litigation. As such the heirs of Domingo’s four heirs are entitled to 4/5 share.

The trial court sustained the Trustee theory of Sorongon, and ordered the Sinaons to convey 4/5 of Lot
No 4781 to Sorongon et al.

ISSUE:

Whether an action for reconveyance of a registered five-hectare land, based on implied trust, would lie
after the supposed trustees had held the land for more than forty years.

HELD:

Sinaons were registered owners for more than 40 years. Their title had become indefeasible and
possession could not be disturbed. Any pretension as to the existence of an implied trust should not be
countenanced. Sorongon used unreliable oral evidence to prove the trust to which the Court said that
title and possession cannot be defeated by oral evidence that can be easily fabricated and contradicted.

The Court said that there was no express trust because express trusts concerning real property cannot
be proven by parol evidence (Art 1443, Civil Code). Citing Suarez vs Tirambulo where it was held that an
implied trust cannot be established contrary to the recitals of a Torrens Title, upon vague and
inconclusive proof.

The supposed trust in this case is a constructive trust arising by operation of law. (Art 1465, Civil Code). It
is not a trust in the technical sense.

Note: Even assuming that there was an implied trust, prescription would have worked in favor of the
Sinaons. In Gerona vs de Guzman, the Court said that an action for reconveyance of realty, based upon a
constructive or implied trust resulting from fraud, may be barred by prescription. The prescriptive period
is reckoned from the issuance of the title which operates as a constructive notice.