Trusts: Heirs of Labiste vs Heirs of Labiste G.R. No. 162033

Facts: Epifanio is an heir of Jose Labiste, purchased a land. Before the execution of the deed of conveyance, Epifanio executed an affidavit affirming that he and his uncle Tranquilino co-owned the lot because the money came from them both. Later on it was divided and the heirs of Tranquilino bought half interest. After the World War, the properties were destroyed and squatters lived on the land. Petitioner learned that an heir of the respondent filed for reconstitution.

Issue: Whether the petitioner's cause of action prescribed.

Held: The court of appeals erred in applying the principle of Laches because was is involved in this case is an express trust. The affidavit of Epifanio is in the nature of a trust agreement. The only act that can be construed as repudiation was when the respondent filed the petition for reconstitution in 1993 and since petitioners files their complaint in 1995, their cause has not yet prescribed. However, to recover half of the property covered by a private document to execute a public deed of sale.

Trusts: Cañezo vs Soledad G.R. No. 148788

Facts: Petitioner alleges she bought the land and only entrusted to her father for she left and went to Mindanao. In 1948 she found out that her step mother was in possession of the land. She filed for recovery and damages against defendant. It reached the court of appeals where the land was awarded to the defendant because there has been a satisfaction that the father of the petitioner was the owner.

Issue: Whether or not the action of the respondent filed out of time.

Held: Resolution of the issue hinges on the determination of trust - express or implied - by the petitioner and her father. Intention to create a trust cannot be inferred from the petitioner's testimony; the petitioner only testified to the effect that her agreement with her father was that she will be given a share in the produce of the property. Petitioner should not have made an issue in the declaration of taxes in her father's name if there really was trust. There was no trust that was established. Petitioner is estopped from asserting ownership by her failure to protest in the decision of the estate of her father. Her action is barred by laches.

Voidable Contracts: Teves vs PHHC G.R. No. L-21498

Facts: The complaint alleges that since October, 1950 plaintiff and her husband had been occupying Lot 9, Block K-70 of the Diliman Estate Subdivision (formerly known as the Quezon Memorial Grove), and they had built thereon their residential house with an assessed value of P3,250.00; that upon due investigation conducted sometime before August, 1951 the Chief of the Sales Division of the PHHC found plaintiff's husband to be the actual occupant of said land and having been found to be qualified to acquire said land by purchase it was recommended that the lot be sold to plaintiff's husband; that plaintiff's husband died on March 17, 1957, before the lot was actually sold to him, and so plaintiff, as successor in interest of her husband, filed an application in her own name to purchase the lot in question; that thereafter plaintiff made repeated and insistent requests and representations with the officials and personnel of the Sales Division of the PHHC to process and forward her application to the Board of Directors of the PHHC for approval, but said officials and personnel ignored the requests and representations of the plaintiff; that instead of respecting plaintiff's preferential right, and in spite of the fact that the officials and personnel of the PHHC knew that plaintiff was the actual occupant of the lot, and without giving notice to the plaintiff that a party was applying to purchase the same lot, the PHHC sold the same lot to defendant Melisenda L. Santos who applied for it only on February 23, 1961 through an agent; that on January 12, 1962, a deed of sale of the lot — with the full balance actually paid — was executed, and shortly thereafter, or on January 23, 1962, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 95976 covering the lot was issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City in favor of said defendant. The complaint contains allegations that the plaintiff was fraudulently deprived of her preferential right to buy the lot in question, and that defendant Melisenda L. Santos was able to secure the approval of her application to purchase the lot and the execution of the deed of sale in her favor through the help of an influential politician.

Issue: Whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action to annul the contract.

Held: A perusal of the complaint would elicit the position of the plaintiff in her case against the defendants, to wit: she had a right which she had acquired pursuant to the very policy promulgated by the defendant PHHC; she was deprived of the enjoyment of right when defendant PHHC sold the lot in question to defendant Melisenda L. Santos who was never an occupant of the lot and who applied to purchase said lot through an agent much later; the sale of the lot to the defendant Melisenda L. Santos was made without her knowledge, much less with her consent, and was in violation of the policy of the PHHC, so that the sale should not be given effect. the plaintiff is seeking the declaration of the nullity of the deed of sale not as a party in the deed, or because she is obliged principally or subsidiarily under the deed, but because she has an interest that is affected by the deed. This Court has held that a person who is not a party obliged principally or subsidiarily in a contract may exercise an action for nullity of the contract if he is prejudice in his rights with respect to one of the contracting parties, and can show the detriment which would positively result to him from the contract in which he had no intervention.

Rescissible Contracts: Ke Hong Cheng vs CA G.R. No 144169 No.

Facts: Petitioner is the owner of Butuan Shipping Line. In one the vessels owned by the petitioner, Philippine Agricultural Trading Corporation boarded 3,400 bags of copra to be shipped from Masbate to Dipolog City and which said shipment of copra was insured by PhilAm. While on board, the ship sank amounting to total loss of the shipments. Because of the loss, the insurer paid the damages to the consignee. Having subrogated the rights of the consignee, PhilAm instituted a civil case to recover the money paid to the consignee based on breach of contract of carriage. While the case was pending, petitioner executed deeds of donations of parcels of land to his children. The trial court rendered judgment against the petitioner Ke Hong Cheng in the civil case on December 29, 1993. After the decision became final a writ of execution was issued but it was not served, Therefore an alias writ was was applied for which was granted. The sheriff did not found any property under Butuan Shipping Lines and/or Ke Hong Cheng. In 1997, PhilAm filed complaint for annulling the deeds of donation made by herein petitioner to his children and alleged the donation was to defraud his creditors including PhilAm. Petitioner filed an answer stating that the action had already prescribed.

Issue: Whether or not the action to rescind the donation had already prescribed.

Held: According to the trial court, the period began from December 29, 1993 when the civil case was resolved. Thus, The CA maintained that, that the four year period began only on January 1997, the time when it first learned that the judgment award could not be satisfied because the Ke Hong Cheng had no more properties in his name. Article 1389 of the Civil Code simply provide that "The action to claim rescission must be commenced within four years." When the law is silent as to when the prescriptive shall commence, general rule must apply that it will commence when the moment the action accrues. An action for rescission must be the last resort of the creditors and can only be availed after the creditor had exhausted all the properties. The herein respondent came to know only in January 1997 about the unlawful conveyances of the petitioner when together with the sheriff and counsel were to attach the property of the petitioner and it was then only when they found out it is no longer in the name of the petitioner. Since the respondent filed accion pauliana on February 1997, a month after the discovery that petitioner had no property in his name to satisfy the judgment, action for rescission of subject deeds had not yet prescribed.

Rescissible Contracts: Oria vs McMicking G.R. No. L-7003

Facts: Gutierrez Hermanos filed an action for recovery of a sum of money against Oria Hermanos & Co. and herein plaintiff filed an action for recovery also for the same defendant. Before the institution of the suits, members of the Company dissolved their relations and entered into a liquidation. Tomas Oria y Balbas acting in behalf of his co-owners entered into a contract with the herein plaintiff for the purpose of transferring and selling all the property which the Oria Hermanos & Co. owned and among the goods stated on that instrument was the steamship Serpantes and which the subject of this litigation. When the Trail Court resolved the action for recovery filed by Gutierrez Hermanos and jugdment was in his favor, The sheriff demanded to Tomas Oria y Balbas to make payment but the latter said there were no funds to pay the same. The sheriff then levied on the steamer, took possession of the same and announced it for public auction. Herein plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of the steamer by virtue of the selling of all the properties of the said Company.

Issue(s): 1. Whether or not there was a valid sale between Oria Hermanos & Co. to Manuel Oria y Gonzales as against the creditors of the company.

2. Whether or not the sale was fraudulent.

Held: At the time of said sale the value of the assets of Oria Hermanos & Co., as stated by the partners themselves, was P274,000. The vendee of said sale was a son of Tomas Oria y Balbas and a nephew of the other two persons heretofore mentioned which said three brothers together constituted all of the members of said company.The plaintiff is a young man of 25 years old and has no property before the said selling. The court had laid down the rules in determining whether a there has been fraud prejudicing creditors: 1) consideration of conveyance is fictitious; 2) transfer was made while the suit against him (Tomas Oria y Balbas) was pending; 3) sale by insolvent debtor; 4) evidence of insolvency; 5) transfer of all properties; 6) the sale was made between father and son; 7) and the failure of the vendee to take exclusive possession of the property. The case at bar shows every one of the badges of fraud.