Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 302 views

    Ungab-Valeroso VS Ungab-Grado

    Uploaded by

    johnvalrodominguez
    The case involved a dispute over a 14.3375 hectare parcel of land owned by Timoteo Ungab before his death. The petitioner, Timoteo's only direct heir, claimed sole ownership while the respondents, heirs of Timoteo's brothers and sisters, claimed co-ownership. The lower courts ruled that there was co-ownership based on an affidavit signed by the petitioner and her mother acknowledging the rights of Timoteo's siblings, as well as a compromise agreement establishing a trust with the petitioner holding the land. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, finding that the documents created an express trust between the parties and that express trusts do not prescribe unless repudiated by the trustee.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ungab-Valeroso VS Ungab-Grado

    Uploaded by

    johnvalrodominguez
    302 views1 page
    The case involved a dispute over a 14.3375 hectare parcel of land owned by Timoteo Ungab before his death. The petitioner, Timoteo's only direct heir, claimed sole ownership while the respondents, heirs of Timoteo's brothers and sisters, claimed co-ownership. The lower courts ruled that there was co-ownership based on an affidavit signed by the petitioner and her mother acknowledging the rights of Timoteo's siblings, as well as a compromise agreement establishing a trust with the petitioner holding the land. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, finding that the documents created an express trust between the parties and that express trusts do not prescribe unless repudiated by the trustee.

    Original Description:

    Ungab-Valeroso VS Ungab-Grado establishment of trust

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a dispute over a 14.3375 hectare parcel of land owned by Timoteo Ungab before his death. The petitioner, Timoteo's only direct heir, claimed sole ownership while the respondents, heirs of Timoteo's brothers and sisters, claimed co-ownership. The lower courts ruled that there was co-ownership based on an affidavit signed by the petitioner and her mother acknowledging the rights of Timoteo's siblings, as well as a compromise agreement establishing a trust with the petitioner holding the land. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, finding that the documents created an express trust between the parties and that express trusts do not prescribe unless repudiated by the trustee.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    302 views1 page

    Ungab-Valeroso VS Ungab-Grado

    Uploaded by

    johnvalrodominguez
    The case involved a dispute over a 14.3375 hectare parcel of land owned by Timoteo Ungab before his death. The petitioner, Timoteo's only direct heir, claimed sole ownership while the respondents, heirs of Timoteo's brothers and sisters, claimed co-ownership. The lower courts ruled that there was co-ownership based on an affidavit signed by the petitioner and her mother acknowledging the rights of Timoteo's siblings, as well as a compromise agreement establishing a trust with the petitioner holding the land. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, finding that the documents created an express trust between the parties and that express trusts do not prescribe unless repudiated by the trustee.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    UNGAB-VALERO vs. UNGAB-GRADO G. R. No.

    163081, June 15, 2007


    FACTS: Timoteo Ungab, deceased, owned a parcel of land 14.3375 hectares in Binuni,
    Bacolod, Lanao Del Norte. Petitioner is the only direct heir while respondents are heirs of the
    brothers and sisters of Timoteo except one named Felix. There is a showing that petitioner and
    her mother signed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment recognizing the rights of the brothers and
    sisters of Timoteo. In addition to that a compromise agreement was entered into by the parties
    showing that a trust was given to petitioner to hold the land subject of the controversy. When
    respondents asked for their share of the proceeds of the land, petitioner refused to grant the
    same on the ground that there exists no co-ownership between the parties and that the latter is
    the sole heir of the deceased Timoteo. The lower and appellate courts, however, ruled that
    there is co-ownership between the parties and that respondents are entitled to a share of the
    proceeds of the land. Hence, this petition.
    ISSUE: Whether or not there was an intent to create a trust despite the lack of the technical
    nomenclature to express such.
    RULING: When the parties started sharing the proceeds of the land, they had in effect partially
    executed the compromise agreement. Such partial execution weighs heavily as evidence that
    they agreed on the co-ownership arrangement. Note also that the judgment did not explicitly
    order the partition of the land itself, but merely identified the rights to and respective shares of
    the parties in said land.
    Petitioners argue that the co-ownership was already extinguished because the Civil Code
    provides that an agreement to keep a thing undivided shall not exceed ten years. Indeed, the
    law limits the term of a co-ownership to ten years, but this term limit may nevertheless be
    extended. 14 The action to reconvey does not prescribe so long as the property stands in the
    name of the trustee. To allow prescription would be tantamount to allowing a trustee to acquire
    title against his principal and true owner. 15
    Moreover, the execution of the Affidavit of Acknowledgment and the compromise agreement
    established an express trust wherein the respondents, as trustors, reposed their confidence on
    petitioner Anita and her mother, as trustees, that they will hold the land subject of the coownership. There are no particular words required in the creation of an express trust, it being
    sufficient that a trust is clearly intended. 16 This express trust is shown in the two documents.
    Express trusts do not prescribe except when the trustee repudiates the trust. 17

    You might also like