Tongoy V. Ca Essay Example

Tongoy V. Ca Essay Facts: This is an action for reconveyance respecting two (2) parcels of land in Bacolod City. The first is Lot No. 397 of the Cadastral Survey of Bacolod, otherwise known as Hacienda Pulo, containing an area of 727,650 square meters and originally registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 2947 in the names of Francisco Tongoy, Jose Tongoy, Ana Tongoy, Teresa Tongoy and Jovita Tongoy in pro-indiviso equal shares. Said co-owners were all children of the late Juan Aniceto Tongoy. The second is Lot No. 1395 of the Cadastral Survey of Bacolod, briefly referred to as Cuaycong property, containing an area of 163,754 square meters, and formerly covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 674 in the name of Basilisa Cuaycong. Of the original registered co-owners of Hacienda Pulo, three died without issue, namely: Jose Tongoy, who died a widower on March 11, 1961; Ama Tongoy, who also died single on February 6, 1957, and Teresa Tongoy who also died single on November 3, 1949. The oth er two registered co-owners, namely, Francisco Tongoy and Jovita Tongoy, were survived by children. Francisco Tongoy, who died on September 15, 1926, had six children; Patricio D. Tongoy and Luis D. Tongoy by the first marriage; Amado P.Tongoy, Ricardo P. Tongoy; Cresenciano P. Tongoy and Norberto P. Tongoy by his second wife Antonina Pabello whom he subsequently married sometime after the birth of their children. For her part, Jovita Tongoy (Jovita Tongoy de Sonora), who died on May 14, 1915, had four children: Mercedes T. Sonora, Juan T. Sonora, Jesus T. Sonora and Trinidad T. Sonora. By the time this case was commenced, the late Francisco Tongoys aforesaid two children by his first marriage, Patricio D. Tongoy and Luis D. Tongoy, have themselves died.It is claimed that Patricio D. Tongoy left three acknowledged natural children named Fernando, Estrella and Salvacion, all surnamed Tongoy. On the other hand, there is no question that Luis D. Tongoy left behind a son, Francisco A. T ongoy, and a surviving spouse, Ma. Rosario Araneta Vda. de Tongoy. On October 15, 1968 finding the existence of an implied trust in favor of plaintiffs, but at the same time holding their action for reconveyance barred by prescription, except in the case of Amado P. Tongoy, Ricardo P.Tongoy, Cresenciano P. Tongoy, and Norberto P. Tongoy, who were adjudged entitled to reconveyance of their corresponding shares in the property left by their father Francisco Tongoy having been excluded therefrom in the partition had during their minority, and not having otherwise signed any deed of transfer over such shares. Issue: Whether or not the conveyance respecting the questioned lots made in favor of Luis D. Tongoy in 1934 and 1935 were conceived pursuant to a trust agreement among the parties Held:The Court considers the evidence of execution of express trust agreement insufficient. Express trust agreement was never mentioned in the plaintiffs pleadings nor its existence asserted during the pr e-trial hearings. The Court finds that there is preponderance of evidence in support of the existence of constructive, implied or tacit trust. The hacienda could have been leased to third persons and the rentals would have been sufficient to liquidate the outstanding obligation in favor of the Philippine National Bank.But the co-owners agreed to give the administration of the property to Atty. Luis D. Tongoy, so that the latter can continue giving support to the Tongoy-Sonora family and at the same time, pay the amortization in favor of the Philippine National Bank, in the same manner that Jose Tongoy did. When the mortgages were constituted, respondents Cresenciano Tongoy and Norberto Tongoy were still minors, while respondent Amado Tongoy became of age on August 19, 1931, and Ricardo Tongoy attained majority age on August 12, 1935.Still, considering that such transfer of the properties in the name of Luis D. Tongoy was made in pursuance of the master plan to save them from foreclo sure, the said respondents were precluded from doing anything to assert their rights. It was only upon failure of the herein petitioner, as administrator and/or successor-in-interest of Luis D. Tongoy, to return the properties that the prescriptive period should begin to run.