59 Resurreccion de Leon, Et Al. vs. Emiliana Molo-Peckson, Et Al.

[59] RESURRECCION DE LEON, ET AL. vs.
EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON, ET their foster parents, which were repeatedly told to Emiliana before their death
AL. and that same should be fulfilled after their death. In fact, the acknowledgement
G.R. No. L-17809 | December 29, 1962 | states that it was "their own free act and voluntary deed."
 However, almost 6 years after, the same Emiliana and Pilar, executed another
SUMMARY document in which they revoked the Mutual Agreement, and another relating to
` Emillliana and Pilar executed a document called “Mutual Agreement” wherein they the same subject matter, stating therein that the parties, "after matured and
agreed to sell 10 lots at P1 each to Resurrection De Leon and Justa De Leon, in thorough study, realized that the above-mentioned public instruments… do not
conformity of the verbal wish of their late foster parents. However, they later on represent their true and correct interpretation of the verbal wishes of the late
revoked the Mutual Agreement, saying that it did not represent the true intention of spouses Mariano Molo and Juana Juan."
the verbal wish of their foster parents. Resurrection De Leon and Justa De Leon  The beneficiaries Resurreccion de Leon and Justa de Leon demanded the
demanded the conveyance to them of the 10 parcels lot. When Emiliana and Pilar conveyance to them of the 10 parcels of land for the consideration of P1.00 per
refused, Resurrection De Leon and Justa De Leon consigned the amount and filed parcel as stated in the “Mutual Agreement”.
an action to compel Emiliana and Pilar to convey the land.  Since Emiliana and Pilar refused to do so, Resurreccion de Leon and Justa de
Leon consigned the amount of P10.00 as the consideration of the ten parcels of
CFI and SC held that an express trust has been created by the Mutual Agreement in land. Subsequently, Resurreccion de Leon and Justa de Leon filed a petition to
favor of beneficiaries Resurrection De Leon and Justa De Leon. A declaration of compel Emiliana and Pilar to convey to them the 10 parcels of land.
trust has been defined as an act by which a person acknowledges that the property,  Trial court ruled in favor of Resurreccion de Leon and Justa de Leon, saying that
title to which he holds, is held by him for the use of another. And in the absence of a trust has been constituted by the late spouses Mariano Molo and Juana Juan
any reservation of the power to revoke a voluntary trust, the trust is irrevocable over the 10 parcels of land in question in favor of Resurreccion de Leon and
without the consent of the beneficiary. Justa de Leon as beneficiaries.
TOPIC: ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO

`Trustees: Rule 98 1. W/N the Mutual Agreement created a trust in favor of Resurreccion de Leon and
Justa de Leon as beneficiaries – YES
DOCTRINE:  `A declaration of trust has been defined as an act by which a person
` As trustees it is their duty to deliver the properties to the cestui que trust free from acknowledges that the property, title to which he holds, is held by him for the
all liens and encumbrances. use of another.
 The “Mutual Agreement” represents a recognition of pre-existing trust or a
A voluntary trust the assent of the beneficiary is not necessary to render it valid declaration of an express trust impressed on the 10 parcels of land in question.
because as a general rule acceptance by the beneficiary is presumed. The document in question clearly and unequivocally declares the existence of
the trust even if the same was executed subsequent to the death of the trustor,
FACTS: Juana Juan, for the right creating or declaring a trust need not be
 `Mariano Molo died leaving a will bequeathing his entire estate to his wife, contemporaneous or inter-parties.
Juana Juan. Juana Juan in turn executed a will naming therein many devisees  The fact that the beneficiaries were not notified of the existence of the trust or
and legatees, one of whom is Guillermo San Rafael, mother of the plaintiffs de that the latter have not been given an opportunity to accept it is of no
Leon, et al. and of the defendant Pilar. importance, for it is not essential to the existence of a valid trust and to the right
 However, Juana Juan executed a donation inter vivos in favor of Emiliana and of the beneficiaries to enforce the same that they had knowledge thereof the
Pilar (foster children) almost all of her entire property leaving only about time of its creation. Neither is it necessary that the beneficiary should consent
P16,000.00 worth of property for the devisees mentioned in the will. Among the to the creation of the trust. In fact it has been held that in case of a voluntary
properties conveyed are the 10 parcels of land subject of the present action. trust the assent of the beneficiary is not necessary to render it valid because as
 Six months after Juana Juan died, Emiliana and Pilar executed a document a general rule acceptance by the beneficiary is presumed.
called "Mutual Agreement" wherein the parties mutually agreed to sell ten lots at
P1 each to Resurrection De Leon and Justa De Leon. It was stated in the 2. W/N Emiliana and Pilar had a right to revoke the executed Mutual Agreement –
document that the agreement is made in conformity with the verbal wishes of NO
• Emiliana and Pilar had no right to revoke the trust without the consent of the
cestui que trust. The rule is that in the absence of any reservation of the
power to revoke a voluntary trust is irrevocable without the consent of the
beneficiary. It cannot be revoked by the creator alone, nor by the trustee.
Here, there is no such reservation.
On the Validity of the Mutual Agreement
The Mutual Agreement was executed by about 2yrs and 6mos from the time they
acquired title to the lands by virtue of the donation inter vivos executed in their favor
by their foster mother Juana Juan and 6mos after the death of the donor. There is
nobody who could cajole them to execute it, nor is there any force that could coerce
them to make the declaration therein expressed, except the constraining mandate of
their conscience to comply with the obligations repeatedly told to Emiliana before the
death of Juana Juan.
Emiliana (pharmacist) and Pilar (lawyer) both studied in reputable schools so it is to
be supposed that they understood and comprehended the legal import of the Mutual
Agreement they executed.
Moreover, they have more than ample time — the six months intervening between
the death of the donor and the execution of the document — to ponder not only wish
of their predecessors-in-interest but also on the propriety of putting in writing the
mandate they have received. It is, therefore, reasonable to presume that that
document represents the real wish of their foster parents.
RULING:
` Petition granted.

59 Resurreccion de Leon, Et Al. vs. Emiliana Molo-Peckson, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

59 Resurreccion de Leon, Et Al. vs. Emiliana Molo-Peckson, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

59 Resurreccion de Leon, Et Al. vs. Emiliana Molo-Peckson, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[59] RESURRECCION DE LEON, ET AL. vs.

TOPIC: ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO

On the Validity of the Mutual Agreement

You might also like