Petitioner operated a hardware store that she rented from the property owner Maria Mendoza. In 1984, Mendoza put the property up for sale. Petitioner did not have funds to buy it, so she claims she entered a verbal agreement with respondents where respondents would buy the property on her behalf using earnings from the store. Respondents later took over management of the store again and refused petitioner's demand to reconvey the title, claiming they owned it. The court ruled there was no valid express trust agreement since petitioner's claim was only supported by her and her son's testimonies. A difference in inventory alone also did not prove the funds were used to buy the property.
Petitioner operated a hardware store that she rented from the property owner Maria Mendoza. In 1984, Mendoza put the property up for sale. Petitioner did not have funds to buy it, so she claims she entered a verbal agreement with respondents where respondents would buy the property on her behalf using earnings from the store. Respondents later took over management of the store again and refused petitioner's demand to reconvey the title, claiming they owned it. The court ruled there was no valid express trust agreement since petitioner's claim was only supported by her and her son's testimonies. A difference in inventory alone also did not prove the funds were used to buy the property.
Direitos autorais:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formatos disponíveis
Baixe no formato DOC, PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
Petitioner operated a hardware store that she rented from the property owner Maria Mendoza. In 1984, Mendoza put the property up for sale. Petitioner did not have funds to buy it, so she claims she entered a verbal agreement with respondents where respondents would buy the property on her behalf using earnings from the store. Respondents later took over management of the store again and refused petitioner's demand to reconvey the title, claiming they owned it. The court ruled there was no valid express trust agreement since petitioner's claim was only supported by her and her son's testimonies. A difference in inventory alone also did not prove the funds were used to buy the property.
Direitos autorais:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formatos disponíveis
Baixe no formato DOC, PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
G.R. No. 178645. January 30, 2009 Facts: Petitioner operated a hardware store in a building along Bonifacio St., Tuguegarao, Cagayan, which stood in a commercial lot owned by Maria Mendoza, from whom the petitioner rented the same. In 1982, petitioner allowed respondents to manage the store. In 1984, Mendoza put the Bonifacio property for sale. Having no funds, Petitioner allegedly entered into a verbal agreement with respondents stipulating that the latter shall buy the property in behalf of the petitioner and the consideration for the lot shall be paid from the accumulated earnings of the store. On September 20, 1984, respondents returned the management of the store to the petitioner with an inventory showing a difference of P116,946.15. The petitioner then demanded from the respondents the reconveyance title of the property but the latter refused. Petitioner argues that the respondents are mere trustees of the property and thus, are under moral and legal obligation to reconvey the property to her. Petitioner further argues that the difference in the inventory proves that such amount was used to pay for the purchase price of the property. Respondents, on the other hand, contend that they have the full ownership of the property because they paid for it out of their own funds. The petitioner filed a case before the RTC which rendered a judgment in favor of the petitioner, which was later on reversed by the Court of Appeals.
Issue: Whether there is a valid and enforceable trust.
Held: No, the Court ruled that petitioner’s allegations as to the
existence of an express trust agreement with respondent spouses Ramos, supported only by her own and her son Johnson’s testimonies, do not hold water. A resulting difference of P116,946.15 in the beginning inventory of the stocks of the hardware store and the second inventory thereof, by itself, is not conclusive proof that the said amount was used to pay the purchase price of the Bonifacio property, such as would make it the property of petitioner held merely in trust by respondent spouses Ramos.