The Court finds it erroneous for the CA to ignore the fact that the laymen's committee objected to the sale of the lot in question. The Canons require that ALL the church entities listed in Article IV(a) thereof should give its approval to the transaction. Thus, when the Supreme Bishop executed the contract of sale of petitioner's lot despite the opposition made by the laymen's committee, he acted beyond his powers. This case clearly falls under the category of unenforceable contracts mentioned in Article 1403, paragraph (1) of the Civil Code, which provides,thus:Art.1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:(1)Those entered into in the name of another person by one who has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers;In Mercado v. Allied Banking Corporation,13the Court explained that:x x x Unenforceable contracts are those which cannot be enforced by a proper action in court, unless they are ratified, because either they are entered into without or in excess of authority or they do not comply with the statute of frauds or both of the contracting parties do not possess the required legal capacity. x x x.
the Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the applicable provision of law in such cases is Article 1456 of the Civil Code which states that “[i]f property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considereda trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.” Thus, in Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Aying,19citing Vda. de Esconde,20the Court clarified the concept of trust involved in said provision, to wit
A deeper analysis of Article 1456 reveals that it is not a trust in the technical sense for in a typical trust, confidence is reposed in one person who is named a trustee for the benefit of another who is called the cestui que trust, respecting property which is held by the trustee for the benefit of the cestui quetrust. A constructive trust, unlike an express trust, does not emanate from, or generate a fiduciary relation. While in an express trust, a beneficiary and a trustee are linked by confidential or fiduciary relations, in a constructive trust, there is neither a promise nor any fiduciary relation to speak of and the so-called trustee neither accepts any trust nor intends holding the property for the beneficiary.
The concept of constructive trusts was further elucidated in the same case, as follows:. . . implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent or which are superinduced on the transaction by operation of law as matters of equity, independently of the particular intention of the parties. In turn, implied trusts are either resulting or constructive trusts. These two are differentiated from each other as follows:Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest and are presumed always to have been contemplated by the parties. They arise from the nature of circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person thereby becomes invested with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of another. On the other hand, constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise contrary to intention against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.(Italicssupplied)
In Aznar,the Court explained the basis for the prescriptive period, to wit:x x x under the
present Civil Code, we find that just as an implied or constructive trust is an offspring of
the law (Art. 1456, Civil Code), so is the corresponding obligation to reconvey the property
and the title thereto in favor of the true owner. In this context, and vis-á-vis prescription,
Article 1144 of the Civil Code is applicable.
The following actions must be brought within
ten years from the time the right of action
accrues:
(1) Upon a written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment.x x x x x x x x x
An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe
in ten years and not otherwise. A long line of decisions of this Court, and of very recent
vintage at that, illustrates this rule. Undoubtedly, it is now well-settled that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property. It has also been ruled that the ten-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate
of title over the property, x x x.
G.R. No. 179597. February 3, 2014
Iglesia Felipina Independiente Vs. Heirs
of Bernardino Taeza
No comments:
Post a Comment