Kiel vs. Estate of Sabert

Kiel vs. Estate of Sabert Facts Albert F. Kiel commenced to work on certain public lands situated in the municipality of  Parang, Cotabato, known as Parang Plantation Company. In 11!, Kiel and P. ". "abert entered into an agreement to de#elop the the plan planta tati tion on.. "abe "abert rt was was to furn furnis ish h the the capital and Kiel was to manage it. It seems that this partnership was formed so that the land and coul ould be ac$ ac$uir uired in the the name name of  "abert, Kiel being a %erman citi&en and not deemed eligible to ac$uire public lands in the Philippines. 'urin 'uring g the (orld orld (ar, ar, Kiel Kiel was deport deported ed from the Philippines. Fi#e persons, including P. ". "abert, organi&ed the )ituan Plantation Company, to which "abert transferred all the rights and interests of the Parang Plantation Comp Compan any y. Kiel Kiel appe appear ars s to ha#e ha#e trie tried d to secur ecure e a sett ettleme lemen nt from from "abe "aberrt. *ut "aber "abert+s t+s death death came came befor before e any amicab amicable le arrangement arrangement could be reached and before an act action ion by Kiel Kiel aga agains nstt "ab "abert ert could uld be decided. decided. "o these these proceed proceedings ings against the estate of "abert.

Issue (hat is the nature of the proceeding Is this an action to establish a resulting trust in the land of "abert NO

Held  -he court held that a ruling on the issue of  establishing trust is not needed. )ote that the complaint as framed asks for a straight money money udgment udgment against an estate. estate.  In no part of the complaint did plainti allege

any interest in land claim any interest in land or pretend to establish a result resulting ing trust trust in land land. -his is not an action to establish trust in the land, because a trust !ill not be created !hen for the purpose of evading the la! prohibiting one from ta"ing or holding real property he ta"es a conveyance thereof  in the name of a third person. Also, no partne Also, partners rship hip agreem agreement ent in writi writing ng was entered into by Kiel and "abert. -hus the real eal issu issue e is whet whethe herr or not not the the alle allege ged d #erb #erbal al copa copart rtne ners rshi hip p form formed ed by Kiel Kiel and and "abert has been pro#ed. -he court held that declarations of one partner, not made in the presence presence of his copartner, are not competent to pro# pro#e e the the e/ist /isten ence ce of a part partne ners rshi hip p between them, and that the e/istence of a partnership partnership cannot be established by general reputation, rumor, or hearsay. Although Although we feel that competent competent e#idence e#idence e/is e/ists ts esta establ blis ishi hing ng the the part partne ners rshi hip, p, Kiel under the facts had no standing in court to as" for any part part of the land land and and in fact he does not do so. His only legal right is to as" for !hat is in eect an accounting !ith reference to its improvem improvements ents and income income when "abert "abert became the trustee of the estate on behalf of  Kiel. Kiel is not entitled to any share in the land itself, but he has clearly shown his right to one0ha one0half lf of the #alue #alue of the impro impro#em #ement ents s and personal property on the land. -he #alue of these impro#ements and of the personal prop proper erty ty cann cannot ot be asce ascert rtai aine ned d from from the the recor ecord d and and the the case case must must ther theref efor ore e be remanded for further proceedings.