AGENCY,

 PARTNERSHIP  AND  TRUSTS  DIGESTS  (2013  –  2014)                      ATTY.  JOAQUIN  OBIETA  

 
G.R.  No.  149844                              October  13,  2004    
  BACKGROUND  
PETITIONER:  MIGUEL  CUENCO,  Substituted  by  MARIETTA  C.    
CUYEGKENG   On   September   19,   1970,   respondent   Concepcion   filed   for   specific  
  performance   against   her   uncle,   petitioner   Miguel   which   averred   that  
RESPONDENT:  CONCEPCION  CUENCO  Vda.  DE  MANGUERRA   her   father,   the   late   Don   Mariano   Jesus   Cuenco   and   petitioner   Miguel  
  formed  the  Cuenco  and  Cuenco  Law  Offices.  
PONENTE:  J.  Panganiban    
  It  further  averred  that  around  August  of  1931,  Miguel  and  the  late  Don  
CASE   SUMMARY:     Respondent   Concepcion   filed   for   specific   performance   Mariano  served  as  lawyers  in  two  cases  (Valeriano  Solon  v.  Zoilo  Solon  
against   her   uncle,   petitioner   Miguel,   averring   that   her   father,   the   late   and   Valeriano   Solon   v.   Apolonia   Solon)   involving   a   dispute   among  
Don  Mariano  and  his  brother,  herein  petitioner,  formed  the  Cuenco  and   relatives  over  ownership  of  Lot  903  of  the  Banilad  Estate  in  Cebu.    
Cuenco   Law   Offices.     After   successfully   winning   3   cases   involving   a    
property   dispute   over   Lot   903,   the   brothers   were   each   awarded   a   The   records   of   the   cases   indicate   the   name   of   petitioner   Miguel   Cuenco  
portion   of   the   said   lot,   measuring   5000   sq.   meters   each.     Don   Mariano’s   alone   as   counsel   of   record,   but   in   truth,   the   real   lawyer   behind   the  
was  Lot  903-­‐A,  and  Miguel’s  was  Lot  903-­‐B.    At  the  time  of  the  partition,   success   of   the   cases   was   Don   Mariano   himself.     After   winning   the   3  
Don  Mariano  was  actively  working  in  Manila  so  he  entrusted  his  share  to   cases,  the  awardees  of  Lot  903  subdivided  the  lot  into  three  parts:  
Miguel,  who  held  it  in  trust  for  Don  Mariano’s  children  by  first  marriage.      
Later   on,   the   Cuenco   family   partitioned   Lot   903-­‐A   into   6   sublots   for   each   1. Lot  903-­‐A:  5,000  sq.:  Mariano  Cuenco’s  attorney’s  fees  
of  Don  Mariano’s  children,  but  only  5  deeds  of  donation  were  executed,   2. Lot  903-­‐B:  5,000  sq.:  Miguel  Cuenco’s  attorney’s  fees  
thus   leaving   out   respondent   Concepcion.     She   later   on   occupied   and   3. Lot  903-­‐C:  54,000  sq:  Solon’s  retention  (the  client)  
fenced   the   6th   portion   (Lot   903-­‐A-­‐6)   of   Don   Mariano’s   property   for    
taxation  purposes,  and  before  the  latter  died,  he  bequeathed  to  her  such   At   the   time   of   the   distribution   of   the   three,   Don   Mariano   was   actively  
portion   in   his   last   will   and   testament.     Miguel   later   on   adversely   claimed   working   in   Manila,   and   so   he   entrusted   his   share   (Lot   903-­‐A)   to   his  
such   portion   of   land.     In   his   counterclaim   to   respondent’s   instant   brother   law   partner,   herein   petitioner   Miguel.     He   was   under   the  
complaint,   he   alleged   that   he   was   the   absolute   owner   of   Lot   903-­‐A-­‐6,   obligation   to   hold   the   title   in   trust   for   his   brother   Don   Mariano’s  
among   others.       The   first   issue   was   WON   there   was   an   implied   trust   children   by   first   marriage.     Later,   the   Cuenco   family   partitioned   Lot   903-­‐
between   Miguel   and   Don   Mariano,   in   which   the   Court   ruled   in   the   A  into  6  sublots  to  correspond  to  the  6  children  of  Don  Mariano’s  first  
affirmative,   as   evidenced   by   the   records   in   the   case,   and   that   the   marriage   (Teresita,   Manuel,   Lourdes,   Carmen,   Consuelo,   and   herein  
petitioner,  through  his  actions,  was  estopped  for  asserting  the  contrary.     respondent  Concepcion).  
The   second   issue   was   WON   the   respondent   was   barred   by   laches,   in    
which   the   Court   ruled   in   the   negative,   as   she   persistently   asserted   her   Miguel   did   not   oppose   the   partition   plan.     All   5   deeds   of   donation   left  
rights   over   Lot   903-­‐A-­‐6   against   the   petitioner.     The   petition   was   thus   out  Don  Mariano’s  6th  child,  who  later  on  became  the  respondent  in  this  
denied.   case.  
   

 
Castelo  Chan-­‐Gonzaga  Evardone  Gana  Gutierrez  Lao  Lopez  Miclat  Mercado  Sales  Tan  Valdez  Varela  
AGENCY,  PARTNERSHIP  AND  TRUSTS  DIGESTS  (2013  –  2014)                      ATTY.  JOAQUIN  OBIETA  
 
In   1949,   Concepcion   occupied   and   fenced   a   portion   of   Lot   903-­‐A-­‐6   for   Petitioner   Miguel   died  before   he   was   able   to   submit   himself   for   cross-­‐
taxation   purposes,   saying   that   she   also   paid   the   taxes   thereon.     Her   examination   and   so   only   surviving   daughter,   Marietta   Cuyegkeng,   stood  
father,   Don   Mariano,   died   on   February   25,   1964   with   a   Last   Will   and   as  the  substitute  in  this  case.  
Testament,  bequeathing  to  her  the  lot.    
  She   testified   that   she   purchased   Lot   903-­‐A-­‐6   from   her   late   father   in  
In   June   1966,   Miguel   wrote   to   the   Register   of   Deeds   of   Cebu   to   transfer   1990   and   constructed   a   house   thereon   in   the   same   year,   and   that   she  
Lot   903-­‐A-­‐6   to   his   name.     Later,   Concepcion   requested   the   Register   of   became  aware  of  this  case  because  her  late  father  used  to  commute  to  
Deeds  to  annotate  an  affidavit  of  adverse  claim  against  Miguel’s  adverse   Cebu  City  to  attend  to  this  case;  and  that  Lot  903-­‐A-­‐6  is  in  her  name  per  
claim   on   Lot   903-­‐A.     Eventually,   the   Register   of   Deeds   issued   a   TCT   a  TCT  of  the  Registry  of  Deeds  for  Cebu.  
covering   Lot   903-­‐A-­‐6   in   the   name   of   Miguel,   but   carrying   the   earlier    
annotation  of  adverse  claim.    
  ISSUE/S  TO  BE  RESOLVED  
In   1969,   Miguel   tore   down   the   wire   fence   which   Concepcion   earlier    
constructed  on  Lot  903-­‐A-­‐6,  which  compelled  the  latter  to  institute  the   1. WON  there  is  an  implied  trust  that  exists  between  the  paries  à  YES  
instant  complaint.   2. WON  the  respondent’s  action  is  barred  by  laches  à  NO  
   
On   December   5,   1970,   petitioner   Miguel   Cuenco   filed   a   counterclaim    
where  he  alleged  that:    
1. He  was  the  absolute  owner  of  Lot  903-­‐A-­‐6   RESOLUTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS  
2. That  his  lot  was  a  portion  of  Lot  903-­‐A  which  in  turn  was  part  of  
Lot  903  which  was  the  subject  matter  of  litigation   FIRST  ISSUE  à  Implied  Trust  
3. That  he  was  alone  in  defending  the  cases  involving  Lot  903    
4. That   he   donated   5   of   the   6   portions   of   Lot   903-­‐A   to   the   5   children   Main   Point   1:   A   review   of   the   records   shows   that   indeed   there   is   an  
of  the  latter  out  of  gratitude  for  the  love  and  care  they  exhibited  
implied  trust  between  the  parties.  
to  him  (Miguel)  during  the  time  of  his  long  sickness  
5. That   he   did   not   give   or   donate   any   portion   of   the   lot   to  
Concepcion   because   she   never   visited   him   nor   took   care   of   him   1. That  Lot  903-­‐A  had  been  titled  in  the  name  of  Miguel  gave  rise  to  
during  his  long  sickness  when  he  was  critically  ill  and  was  confined   an  implied  trust  between  him  and  Don  Mariano.  
at   Singian’s   Clinic   in   Manila   and   then   transferred   to   Cebu   where   2. From   the   time   it   was   titled   in   his   name   in   1938,  Lot   903-­‐A  
 
he  nearly  died   remained  undivided  and  untouched by  Miguel.    
 
6. That   his   wife   Fara   Remia   had   an   operation   on   January   1951   and   3. Miguel   readily   surrendered   his   Certificate   of   Title   and did   not  
was  confined  at  the  UST  Hospital  and  John  Hopkins  Hospital  in  the   object   to   the   subdivision   and   the   allocation   of   the   property   to  
US   Mariano’s  6  children.  
7. That  2  of  his  children  died  at  the  UST  Hospital  in  1951  and  1952   4. All   of   Mariano’s   children   were   the   ones   who   shouldered   the  
8. That   his   wife   was   blind   for   many   months   due   to   malignant   expenses  incurred  for  the  subdivision  of  the  property.  
hypertension  but  Concepcion  never  remembered  her  nor  did  she   5. After   the   subdivision   of   the   property,   all   5   children   took  
commiserate  with  him  and  his  wife  in  their  long  period  of  sorrow.   possession  of  their  respective  portions.  

 
Castelo  Chan-­‐Gonzaga  Evardone  Gana  Gutierrez  Lao  Lopez  Miclat  Mercado  Sales  Tan  Valdez  Varela  
AGENCY,  PARTNERSHIP  AND  TRUSTS  DIGESTS  (2013  –  2014)                      ATTY.  JOAQUIN  OBIETA  
 
6. The  legal  titles  to  5  portions  of  the  property  were  transferred  via  a   o Concepcion  was  in  possession  as  owner  of  the  property  
gratuitous  deed  of  conveyance  to  Mariano’s  5  children.   from  1949  to  1969.  
o When   Miguel   took   steps   to   have   it   separately   titled   in  
• The  existence  of  Concepcion’s  equitable  ownership  is  not  just  by  the   his   name,   despite   the   fact   that   Concepcion   had   the  
above   circumstances,   but   also   by   the   fact   she   fenced   the   portion   owner’s   duplicate   copy   of   the   TCT   covering   the   entire  
allocated  to  her  and  planted  trees  thereon.   Lot  903-­‐A,  she  had  her  adverse  claim  annotated  on  the  
• She  also  paid  real  property  taxes  on  Lot  903-­‐A-­‐6  yearly,  from  1956   title  in  1967.  
until  1969-­‐-­‐  the  year  when  she  was  dispossessed  of  the  property.   o When  petitioner  ousted  her  from  her  possession  of  the  
• "Although   tax   declarations   or   realty   tax   payments   of   property   are   not   lot   by   tearing   down   her   wire   fence   in   1969,   she  
conclusive  evidence  of  ownership,  nevertheless,  they  are  good  indicia  of  
commenced   the   present   action   to   protect   and   assert  
possession  in  the  concept  of  owner,  for  no  one  in  his  right  mind  would  be  
paying  taxes  for  a  property  that  is  not  in  his  actual  or  at  least  constructive   her  rights  to  the  property.  
 
possession." Such   realty   tax   payments   constitute   proof   that   the   holder  
has  a  claim  of  title  over  the  property.  
 
• Tellingly,   Miguel   started   paying   real   property   taxes   on   Lot   903-­‐A-­‐6  
only   on   April   4,   1964,  after   the   death   of   Mariano.   This   fact   shows   FINAL  VERDICT  
that   it   was   only   in   that   year   that   he   was   emboldened   to   claim   the  
property   as   his   own   and   to   stop   recognizing   Mariano’s,   and   WHEREFORE,  the   Petition   is  DENIED,   and   the   assailed  
subsequently  Concepcion’s,  ownership  rights  over  it.   decision  AFFIRMED.  Costs  against  petitioner.
 
Main   Point   2:   Petitioner   is   estopped   from   asserting   the   contrary   and  
claiming  ownership  thereof.  

• From   the   time   Lot   903-­‐A   was   subdivided   and   Mariano’s   six  
children,   including   Concepcion,   no   protest   from   Miguel   was  
heard  until  1963.  By  his  acts  as  well  as  by  his  omissions,  Miguel  
led   Mariano   and   the   latter’s   heirs   to   believe   that   he   respected  
the  ownership  rights  of  respondent  over  Lot  903-­‐A-­‐6.  

SECOND  ISSUE  à  Laches  

Main  Point:  Respondent  Concepcion  cannot  be  held  guilty  of  laches,  as  
she  did  not  sleep  on  her  rights.  

• Respondent   has   persistently   asserted   her   right   to   Lot   903-­‐A-­‐6  

against  petitioner.  
 
Castelo  Chan-­‐Gonzaga  Evardone  Gana  Gutierrez  Lao  Lopez  Miclat  Mercado  Sales  Tan  Valdez  Varela