trustee, the minor child is the beneficiary. A: Express trust is one created by the
Can a minor be a trustor? intention of the trustor or of the parties.
So you mean to say that a trustor should
possess a legal capacity? If it is an implied trust, it is merely deductible
Can a trustee be a minor? from the nature of the transaction.
Can a juridical person be a trustee? YES!
Can a juridical person be constituted as a Q: What is a resulting trust?
beneficiary?
Q: How about a constructive trust?
Take note that a juridical person can be a
beneficiary because if you are a beneficiary Q: How do you distinguish a resulting trust
what is important in a trust relationship is from a constructive trust?
your capacity to receive gratuitously the
property from the trustor. Q: What is the proof required to establish an
express trust?
So the general premise now is that a trustor A: if it is an express trust involving
and a trustee should have the legal immovable property, they should be in
capacity. Why? writing. It cannot be proved by parol or oral
evidence. If it is movable property, then
Is a trust relationship a contractual parol evidence may be used.
obligation between the parties?
Q: As a review of your evidence, what is
Take note if it is implied trust it is created by parol evidence?
operation of law because the basis is equity. A: So in other words if it is under the parol
In your opinion is a trust relationship a evidence rule, if you have a contract, you
contractual obligation or does it give rise to cannot make use of extraneouse evidence
contractual obligations between the trustor to change or modify the terms of the
and the trustee? contract. That is why bawalang oral
evidence.
- It gives rise to a contractual
obligation and because of that Q: So how do you establish an express trust
capacity is required because unless under art. 1444?
the parties are incapacitated their A: under art. 1444, it is based on the
acts cannot legally bind the others. It intention of the parties.
gives rise to a contractual
obligations between the trustor and The leading case there is Vda. De Ezconde
the trustee that is why legal capacity v. CA 253 SCRA 66, here the SC held that
of the trustor and the trustee is express trusts sometimes referred to as
necessary. direct trusts are intentionally created by the
direct and positive acts of the trustor, by
Q: Can a trustor become at the same time a some writing, deed or will or oral declaration
trustee? unless required by a statutory provision
A: So a trustor can become at the same such as statute of frauds, a writing is not
time a trustee. required.
Q: Why should the trust not fail if the trustee Q: What is the exception to the rule based
declines? on art. 1446?
A: The court will now to appoint another A: his acceptance is presumed if he
trustee. imposes no onerous condition, meaning, it
is purely gratuitous.
Q: Apart from that, what is the intention of
the law? Q: We are talking about express trusts, so
A: you cannot expect the trustee to accept what are the grounds for extinguishing
the trust. Apart from that because the law express trusts?
expects the intention of the trustor to create A:
the trust relationship. That is why it is clear (1) By the destruction of the object of
in art 1445 that No trust shall fail because the trust;
the trustee appointed declines the *take note that there must be total
designation. Pls take note of that. destruction of the object of the trust.
(2) Revocation by the trustor;
Q: What happens if no beneficiary can be (3) Achievement of the objective
found? Here in art. 1445, the trustee provided for in the trust instrument;
declines his appointment, now what if there (4) The confusion or merger of the
is no beneficiary in the said trust beneficial title and legal title in the
relationship? same person;
A: the trust relationship should fail. So if (5) Breach of trust; and
there is no beneficiary, then the trust (6) Death of the trustee
relationship must necessary fail.
Q: How about prescription, is that a mode of
In one case, Cabanas v. Pilapil 58 SCRA acquiring ownership?
95, the SC stated that as between the A: as a general rule, prescription is not a
mother and the uncle, the mother is mode of acquiring ownership because the
preferred to be trustee of the insurance possession of the trustee is not adverse
policy in the absence of any showing that unless there is repudiation. So from the time
she is incompetent. Pls take note of this that it is repudiated, saka pa magtakboyung
case. period of prescription.