Digest 07 - Palma vs Cristobal

PALMA vs CRISTOBAL FACTS:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

1909 - after registration proceedings under ACT 496, the original certificate of title was issued in the names of Palma and his wife (uisa Cristo!al"# 19$% - said certificate was cancelled !& 'irtue of C) decree, !ut was later su!stituted !& another certificate of title also in the name of Palma and his wife# 19$* - +c of his wifes death, a new certificate was issued in Palmas name onl& Palma sought at first to eect Cristo!al from a parcel of land in Tondo (TCT of w.c registered to Palma"# Cristo!al raised the /uestion of ownership and the case was dismissed# Palma filed w. C) anila pra&ing he !e declared owner of the land and for Cristo!al to !e ordered to restore its possession to him and remo'e his house therefrom# The C) dismissed the case, and when the case was !rought to the CA it was similarl& dismissed# CA concluded that the parcel of land in /uestion is a communit& propert& held !& Palma in trust for the real owners (respondent Cristo!al !eing an heir of one of them", the registration ha'ing !een made in accordance with an understanding !etween the coowners, !& reason of the confidence the& had in Palma and his wife# This confidence, close relationship, and the fact that co-owners were recei'ing their shares in the rentals, were the reasons wh& no step had !een taen to partition the propert&# +efore the death of Palmas wife, she called her hus!and and enoined him to gi'e her coowners their shares and he told her not to worr& a!out it !c he would# The CA, in dismissing the case, in'oed 2C rulings w.c declared that the registration of the propert& in the name of the trustees in possession thereof, must !e deemed to ha'e !een effected for the !enefit of the principal.cestui /ue trust# Thus this appeal !& certiorari#

ISSUE: 3hether

the CA erred in dismissing the case

5, the CA did not err# Palma contends that if he did commit fruad, Cristo!al was in fact a part of it, !ut the 2C held that the fact that Cristo!al has !een a part& to the deception which resulted in Palmas securing in his name the title to a propert& not !elonging to him, is not a 'alid reason for changing the legal relationship !etween the latter and its true owners to such an etent as to let them lose their ownership to a person tr&ing to usurp it#

HELD:

Cristo!al is not !arred !ecause his appearance as attorne& for petitioner was not a misrepresentation which would induce Palma to !elie'e that he recogni7ed Palma as the sole owner of the propert& in contro'ers&# The misrepresentation could decei'e the court and outsiders, !ecause the& were not aware of the understanding !etween the co-owners that the propert& !e registered in the name of Palma# Palma then claimed that e'en granting the propert& was owened !& se'eral co-owners he now owns it !c of prescription# This theor& holds no water !ecause, according to the pronouncement of the CA, Palma held the propert& and secured its the registration in his name in a fiduciar& capacit&, and it is elementar& that a trustee cannot ac/uire !& prescription the ownership of a propert& entrusted to him# The position of a trustee is of representati'e nature# 8is position is the position of a cestui /ue trust# )t is logical that all !enefits deri'ed !& the possession and acts of the agent, as such agent, should accrue to the !enefit of his principal#

The relations of an agent to his principal are fiduciar& and in regard to propert& forming the su!ect matter of the agenc&, he is estopped from ac/uiring or asserting a title ad'erse to that of the principal# 8is position is analogous to that of a trustee and he cannot consistentl&, with the principles of good faith, !e allowed to create in himself an interest in opposition to that of his principal or cestui /ue trust#