Considering the varying findings of the RTC and the CA, the Court deems it proper to give due course to the arguments raised by the Heirs of Ferdinand, albeit they involve factual issues.36
The Court grants the Petition.
Article 1448 of the Civil Code states:
ARTICLE 1448. There is an implied trust when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. However, if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being disputably presumed that there is a gift in favor of the child.
The implied trust under Article 1448 is called a purchase money resulting trust, which has the following elements: (a) an actual payment of money, property or services, or an equivalent, constituting valuable consideration; and (b) such consideration must be furnished by the alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust. The party alleging the existence of the trust bears the burden of proving it.37
Notably, the last sentence of Article 1448 states that if the title is conveyed to a child of the one paying the price of the sale, the disputable presumption is that there is a gift in favor of the child. There being no question that Ferdinand is the child of Melania, and that Melania paid the purchase price for the subject lot, there is a disputable presumption that Melania intended to donate the subject lot to Ferdinand.
Being a disputable presumption, it may be overturned by contrary evidence. In Tong v. Go Tiat Kun,38 the Court held that the presumption was overturned because of several factors. First, the child under whose name the property was titled did not prove that he had the means to pay for it. Second, the parent and his other children always had possession of the property. Third, the property remained undivided even though it was registered in the name of one child. The surviving heirs of the child under whose name it was titled only claimed ownership after the death of said child. Fourth, the surviving heirs of the child admitted that their predecessor-in-interest did not send any letter claiming ownership over the property and that they had their own residence. Finally, the parent paid the real property taxes.39
The Court disagrees with the CA that the Heirs of Melania successfully overturned the presumption in favor of Ferdinand.
Ferdinand admittedly did not pay for the subject lot. In addition, the subject lot was not divided. But the similarities with Tong end there.(awÞhi( It was Ferdinand and his heirs who paid for the real property taxes on the subject lot.40 Melania also consistently asked Ferdinand to permit Paul to stay in the subject lot and the house she had built. This showed that she respected Ferdinand as the owner of the subject lot. More, the Heirs of Ferdinand are in possession of TCT No. T-16657.
Melania's act of building a house on the subject lot, paying the taxes for said house,41 and renting out a portion thereof,42 do not negate her donative intent. As explained by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (Associate Justice Caguioa), "these actions pertain only to the exercise of the right to the possession, use, and fruits of the lot."43"
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 254452, November 27, 2024 ]
HEIRS OF FERDINAND ROXAS, NAMELY: ANGELA MARGARITA T. ROXAS, DYAN PAULA T. ROXAS, MICHAEL JUDE T. ROXAS, AND MARIA KATRINA T. ROXAS, PETITIONERS,
VS.
HEIRS OF MELANIA ROXAS, NAMELY: MANUEL A. ROXAS, MARIA ROSARIO ROXAS-URETA, ALEXANDER A. ROXAS, SALOME ROXAS-PANTALEON, PAUL GERARDO ROXAS, ELAINE ROXAS GAMBOA, MA. IMELDA ROXAS-CRUZ, AND DAVID ANTHONY ROXAS, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/nov2024/gr_254452_2024.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
