October 31, 1978
Ponente: Guerrero, J.
FACTS:
On June 13, 1967, the herein private respondents filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against petitioner Marcelo Sotto, as administrator of the intestate estate of Filemon Sotto, for the recovery of possession and ownership of the 5 parcels of land described in the complaint, with damages. The complaint was based mainly upon the theory that a trust relation was established and created with respect to the said properties, with Atty. Filemon Sotto as trustee and as cestuis que trust, his mother-in-law, Maria Fadullon Vda. de Rallos; his wife, Carmen Rallos; and his sister-in-law, Concepcion Rallos (predecessor in interest of herein private respondents); and that in gross violation of the trust reposed upon him by Concepcion Rallos and after her death, by her heirs, the said Atty. Filemon Sotto, through sheer manipulation, fraudulent acts and means, non-existent and void decrees, fictitious sales and transfers, succeeded in causing the transfer of the ownership of the properties to the name of his wife Carmen Rallos, and finally to his name alone.
Answering the complaint, petitioner Marcelo Sotto as administrator of the estate of Atty. Filemon Sotto, denied that there was any trust relation between Don Filemon Sotto on one hand and Maria Fadullon Vda. de Rallos, Carmen Rallos and Concepcion Rallos on the other; that granting that such relationship existed between Don Filemon Sotto and Concepcion Rallos, such a relationship could not have endured until the death of Don Filemon Sotto; that the decree of Lot No. 7547 was issued in the name of Carmen Rallos pursuant to an agreement among the heirs of Florentino Rallos that this parcel of land, together with the other parcels of land involved in this case, be adjudicated to Carmen Rallos as her share in the estate of Florentino Rallos, in the same manner that several parcels of land were likewise adjudicated to, and decrees issued in the name of Concepcion Rallos, as her share in the estate of Florentino Rallos; that the partition agreement adjudicating Lots No. 7547 and 1/2 each of Lots Nos. 842, 2179-A and Lots Nos. 123 and 1370 were adjudicated to Carmen Rallos and the other halves of Lot Nos. 842 and 2179 were adjudicated to Maria Fadullon Vda. de Rallos and decrees were accordingly issued later on by the Cadastral Court relative to the said properties of land in pursuance to said partition agreement; that more than 1 year having elapsed from their issuance, the decrees had become indefeasible; that the parcels of land, having been transferred to the purchasers for value and in good faith, the present action for reconveyance will not prosper; that the plaintiffs have no cause of action as the same is barred by prescription, laches and estoppel; and assuming that there was any trust relation between Atty. Sotto and Concepcion Rallos, the trust was repudiated by Atty. Filemon Sotto a long time ago as shown by the series of transfers of these lots made by him personally. A counterclaim for exemplary damages, moral damages and attorney's fees were also set up.
RTC RULING: The issues having been joined and trial concluded, the
Court of First Instance of Cebu rendered its decision 5 dismissing the complaint, holding that no express trust relation existed between Atty. Filemon Sotto on one hand and Maria Fadullon Vda. de Rallos, Carmen Rallos and Concepcion Rallos on the other with respect to the lots in question; that there was no implied trust subsisting between Atty. Sotto and the said heirs and that there was actual partition between them whereby the 5 lots were given to Carmen Rallos as her share; that Carmen Rallos exercised acts of ownership over the 5 city lots in question to the exclusion of Concepcion Rallos and Maria Fadullon Vda. de Rallos, registering them in her name under the Torrens system; that Concepcion Rallos and her children after her death were thus notified constructively and actually by Carmen Rallos de Sotto's raising the flag of exclusive ownership and repudiation of the trust relation, if there was any, and since then the period of prescription of 10 years for bringing the action tolled against an implied trust. Laches or inaction on the part of Concepcion Rallos and her heirs have thus rendered their demand sale or no longer enforceable.
CA RULING: The heirs of Concepcion Rallos appealed to the Court of Appeals, In the Decision 6 promulgated Nov. 25, 1972, the Court of Appeals, Eighth Division, affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The appellate court agreed with the conclusion of the lower court that no express trust was created between Atty. Filemon Sotto and the heirs of Florentino Rallos by the mere signing of the Mocion in behalf of the heirs of Florentino Rallos.
CA RULING upon the motion for reconsideration was granted:
The above decision of the Appellate Court having been assailed on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by plaintiffs-appellants, now the herein private respondents, the Court of Appeals, Special Division of Five, reversed the said decision in its Resolution of Sept. 14, 1973. The Court, however, agreed with the ruling of the original decision declaring that the heirs of Florentino Rallos had "by manifesting to the probate court that it was their desire to preserve and maintain the ownership of the inherited properties thereby intended and created by direct and positive acts an express trust among themselves," as it was in conformity with the evidence and the law. 8 The court also noted that "(t)he parties ceased to debate the question as to whether or not an express trust was created by and among the Rallos heirs after our decision was promulgated. They came to agree that such a relationship was indeed created and that it existed. In the present motion for reconsideration, the dispute centers on the issue as to whether the express trust subsisted or it was repudiated. The parties are also in disaccord on the question as to whether Atty. Sotto should be considered a party in the express trust or should be regarded merely as a constructive trustee." 9 The respondent Court of Appeals said that upon the facts and under the law, Atty. Sotto can be regarded as the constructive trustee of his wife and of the widow and descendants of Florentino Rallos; that Atty. Sotto's special relations with the Rallos heirs inhibited him from any act or conduct that could put his interests above or in direct collision with the interests of those who had reposed their trust and confidence in him.
RULING:
Petitioner faults the Court of Appeals in finding that an express trust was created among the heirs of Florentino Rallos by virtue of the Mocion filed by Atty. Sotto, and in not finding that the legal relationship created by the Mocion was a simple co-ownership. Petitioner contends that the "motion is very clear and categorical and the only purpose of that Motion is to keep the properties in a co-ownership by the heirs of Florentino Rallos, not to create a relationship of express trust among the heirs." 11 He argues that "(s)ince the alleged source of express trust is a written document, applying therefore the document aforecited it is necessary that the document expressly state and provide for the express trust," 12 and that it is a contradiction in terms for the Court of Appeals to imply from the document an express trust. prLL Petitioner's contention is without merit. It may be true that the heirs of Florentino Rallos intended and desired to keep the properties in co-ownership pro-indiviso when they signed the Mocion filed in their behalf by Atty. Filemon Sotto in the probate proceedings to terminate the same but the legal effect of said agreement to preserve the properties in co-ownership as expressed in writing and embodied in the Mocion was to create a form of an express trust among themselves as co owners of the properties. In the case of Castrillo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 10 SCRA 549, the Supreme Court, speaking thru Chief Justice Makalintal, said that "co-ownership is a form of trust and every co-owner is a trustee for the other."
In co-ownership, the relationship of each co-owner to the other co-owners is fiduciary in character and attribute. Whether established by law or by agreement of the co-owners, the property or thing held pro-indiviso is impressed with a fiducial nature that each co-owner becomes a trustee for the benefit of his co-owners and he may not do any act prejudicial to the interest of his co-owners.
Secondly, it is also not quite correct for petitioner to claim that the respondent Court ruled that Don Filemon Sotto became a co-trustee by virtue of his subsequent marriage to Carmen Rallos. The truth of the matter is that, according to the Court, Atty. Sotto became a constructive trustee not only by reason of his marriage to Carmen Rallos but also on account of his prestige and tremendous social and political influence, also because Atty. Sotto enjoyed and exercised a personal, domestic, social, political and moral ascendancy and superiority over his wife, over Maria Fadullon, Concepcion Rallos and the latter's children, besides being the protector of the rights and interests of the Rallos family acting like a pater familias attending to their financial and medical needs, as well as the family lawyer.
When one of the five parcels in question, Lot 7547, was being claimed by a certain Manuel Ocejo, Atty. Sotto represented the Rallos family as defendants in Civil Case No. 1641 of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and the lot was adjudicated in favor of the Rallos family. The acts and conduct of the Ralloses and Atty. Sotto fostered a close and fiduciary relationship between them. Upon the facts and under the law, Atty. Sotto can be regarded as the constructive trustee of his wife and of the widow and descendants of Florentino Rallos. For the settled rule is that: 'The relation between parties, in order to be a "fiduciary relation" need not be legal, but may be moral, social, domestic or merely personal; and where by reason of kinship, business association, disparity in age or physical or mental condition or other reason, the grantee is in an especially intimate position with regard to another and the latter reposes a degree of trust and confidence in the former, confidential relationship exists which prohibits the one entrusted from seeking a selfish benefit for himself during the course of relationship, and affords a basis for imposing a constructive trust. Atty. Sotto's special relationship with the Rallos heirs inhibited him from any act or conduct that would put his interests above, or in direct collision with, the interests of those who had reposed their trust and confidence in him."