Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Alejandro B. Ty v. Sylvia S. Ty, G.R. No.

165696 | April 30, 2008

FACTS:
Alexander Ty, son of Alejandro Ty and husband of Sylvia Ty, dies of cancer at the age of
34. Sylvia files petition for the settlement of Alexanders intestate estate. She also asks
court to sell or mortgage properties in order to pay the estate tax amounting to
P4,714,560.02 assessed by the BIR. The properties include a parcel of land in EDSA
Greenhills, a residential land in Wack Wack, and the Meridien condo unit in Annapolis,
Greenhills.
Alejandro Ty opposed the move and filed for recovery of the property with prayer for
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. Plaintiff Alejandro claims that
he owns the EDSA, Wack Wack and Meridien condo unit because he paid for them. The
property was supposedly registered in trust for Alexanders brothers and sisters in case
plaintiff dies. Plaintiff also claimed that Alex had no financial capacity to purchase the
disputed property, as the latter was only dependent on the former.
Sylvia countered that Alexander had purchased the property with his money. Alexander
was financially capable of purchasing it because he had been managing the family
corporations since he was 18 years old and was also engage in other profitable
businesses.
The RTC granted the application for preliminary injunction and decides in favor of
plaintiff regarding the recovery of the property. CA reversed the RTC stating that the
implication created by law under Art. 1448 does not apply if the property was in the
name of the purchasers child. They agreed that plaintiff partly paid for the EDSA
property. Plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE:
whether there was an implied trust under Art. 1448 of the Civil Code?

RULING:
No, there was no implied trust created in relation to the EDSA property. If the person to
whom the title is conveyed is the child of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is
implied by law under Art. 1448, the so-called purchase money resulting trust. The said
article provides an exception: 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 disputable presumed that there is a gift in favor of the child. The Court
also noted that plaintiff failed to prove that he did not intend a donation.
Regarding the Meridien Condo and Wack Wack property, the court said that plaintiff
failed to prove that purchase money came from him. They also said that Alexander was
capable of purchasing the property as he had been working for nine years, had a car
care business, and was actively engaged in the business dealings of several family

corporations from which he received emoluments and other benefits. Hence, no implied
trust created because there was no proof that plaintiff had paid for said properties.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai