Scribd
Upload
261 views1 page

Sinaon vs. Soroñgon, 136 SCRA 407 (1985)

1. The Sinaons had been registered owners of the disputed lot for over 40 years and their ownership could not be disturbed, as their title had become indefeasible through possession. 2. No express trust was proven since the Civil Code prohibits proving real property trusts through oral evidence alone. 3. Even if an implied trust had existed, prescription would have operated in favor of the Sinaons, as the period is reckoned from the title issuance which serves as constructive notice.

Uploaded by

Mis Dee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
261 views1 page

Sinaon vs. Soroñgon, 136 SCRA 407 (1985)

1. The Sinaons had been registered owners of the disputed lot for over 40 years and their ownership could not be disturbed, as their title had become indefeasible through possession. 2. No express trust was proven since the Civil Code prohibits proving real property trusts through oral evidence alone. 3. Even if an implied trust had existed, prescription would have operated in favor of the Sinaons, as the period is reckoned from the title issuance which serves as constructive notice.

Uploaded by

Mis Dee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Sinaon vs.

Sorogon, 136 SCRA 407 (1985)


Held/Ratio:

Aquino, J

No.
Facts
1. Canuta Soblingo on of the 5 children of
Domingo Soblingo (the alleged owner of
the lot in litigation when it was not yet
registered)
2. 4 March 1916 Judge Carlos Imperial
adjudicated to Canuta Soblingo Lot No
4781 of the Sta Barbara, Iloilo cadastre
with an area of 5.5 hectares. OCT No
6178-A was issued in 1917 to Canuta
3. 1923- Canuta sold the lot to spouses
Patricio
Sinaon
and
Julia
Sualibio
(granddaughter of Canuta)
a. Canutas were registered owners for
more than 40years and had
possession of the lot during that
period
4. 1968 Sorongon (et al) amended their
complaint filed in 1964 that Canuta and
the Sinaons were TRUSTEES of the lot in
litigation. As such the heirs of Domingos
four heirs are entitled to 4/5 share.
5. Trial Court sustained the Trustee
theory of Sorongon, and ordered the
Sinaons to convey 4/5 of Lot No 4781 to
Sorongon et al.
Issue:
WON Canuta and the Sinaons were mere trustees
via an implied or express trust of the lot in
litigation?

1. Sinaons were registered owners for more


than 40 years had become indefeasible
and possession could not be disturbed.
Any pretension as to the existence of an
implied trust should not be countenanced.
Sorongon used unreliable oral evidence to
prove the trust to which The Court said
that title and possession cannot be
defeated by oral evidence that can be
easily fabricated and contradicted.
2. The Court said that there was no express
trust because Express trusts concerning
real property cannot be proven by parol
evidence (Art 1443, Civil Code). Citing
Suarez vs Tirambulo where it was held
that An implied trust cannot be
established contrary to the recitals of a
Torrens Title, upon vague and inconclusive
proof. No
3. The supposed trust in this case is a
constructive trust arising by operation of
law. (Art 1465, Civil Code). It is not a trust
in the technical sense.
Note: Even assuming that there was an
implied trust, prescription would have worked
in favor of the Sinaons. In Gerona vs de
Guzman, the Court said that an action for
reconveyance of realty, based upon a
constructive or implied trust resulting from
fraud, may be barred by prescription. The
prescriptive period is reckoned from the
issuance of the title which operates as a
constructive notice.

You might also like