8/11/2019 114 Julio v. Dalandan
1/1
114 VICTORIA JULIO, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
EMILIANO DALANDAN and MARIA DALANDAN,
defendants-appellees.
[G.R. No. L-19012 October 30, 1967]
TOPIC:PONENTE: SANCHEZ, J.
AUTHOR:NOTES: Sorry panget digest, sobrang labo ng case.
Sobransama ng pagkakasulat.
FACTS:
1.)
Clemente Dalandan, deceased father of defendants Emiliano and
Maria Dalandan, got a loan and used thland owned by Victoriana
Dalanadan, mother of the plaintiff Victoria Julio, as security for
the said
obligation.
2.)
Clemente failed to pay the obligation which led to the
foreclosure of the said land.
3.)
Clemente executed a Salaysay stating that because of the
foreclosure, and as agreed upon by Clement
and Victoriana, Clemente held himself liable to Victoria Julio
for the foreclosure of her said land, an
promised her that he would replace her aforesaid land which was
foreclosedbwith another farm of mor
than four; (4) hectares.
4.)
The replacement land was in the possession of the defendants and
the said salaysay stated that they may no
be forced to give up the harvest of the said replacement land.
It was also stipulated that the land whic
was exchanged for the farm with four cavanes of seedlingsmay not
be demanded immediately.
5.) Victoria Julio agreed to the Salaysay.
6.)
Plaintiff is now seeking to have the possession of the
replacement land from the defendants.
ISSUE(S):Is the relationship produced by the Salaysay an express
trust?HELD: YES
RATIO:The express trust imposed upon defendants by their
predecessor appears in the document itself. For, while it is true
thasaid deed did not in definitive words institute defendants as
trustees, a duty is therein imposed upon them when th
proper time comesto turn over both the fruits and the possession
of the property to Victoria Julio. Not that this view iwithout
statutory support. Article 1444 of the Civil Code states that: "No
particular words are required for the creation o
an express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly
intended." In reality, the development of the trust as a method
odisposition of property, so jurisprudence teaches, "seems in large
part due to its freedom from formal requirements."5 Thi
principle perhaps accounts for the provisions in Article 1444
just quoted. For, "technical or particular forms of words o
phrases are not essential to the manifestation of intention to
create a trust or to the establishment thereof."6 Nor would thuse
of some such words as "trust" or "trustee" essential to the
constitution of a trust as we have held in Lorenzo vsPosadas, 64
Phil. 353, 368. Conversely, the mere fact that the word "trust" or
"trustee" was employed would no
necessarily prove an intention to create a trust. What is
important is whether the trustor manifested an intention to
creatthe kind of relationship which in law is known as a trust. It
is unimportant that the trustor should know that the
relationshi
"which he intends to create is called a trust, and whether or
not he knows the precise characteristics of the relationshiwhich is
called a trust."7 Here, that trust is effective as against
defendants and in favor of the beneficiary thereof,
plaintifVictoria Julio, who accepted it in the document itself.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
