Scribd
Upload
156 views

Escobar Vs Locsin

1) The plaintiff claimed ownership of a lot that was awarded to another, Domingo Sumangil, in a cadastral proceeding. The plaintiff alleges she asked Sumangil to claim the lot for her since she was illiterate, but he committed a breach of trust by claiming it for himself. 2) The court found the plaintiff had equitable title to the lot since 1914 when it was given to her, and she had possessed it since, but the legal title was awarded to Sumangil. 3) Possession of a legal title does not preclude the operation of a trust agreement. The remedy sought was enforcement of the trust between the plaintiff and Sumangil, not review of the cadastral decree

Uploaded by

Francis Coronel Jr.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
156 views

Escobar Vs Locsin

1) The plaintiff claimed ownership of a lot that was awarded to another, Domingo Sumangil, in a cadastral proceeding. The plaintiff alleges she asked Sumangil to claim the lot for her since she was illiterate, but he committed a breach of trust by claiming it for himself. 2) The court found the plaintiff had equitable title to the lot since 1914 when it was given to her, and she had possessed it since, but the legal title was awarded to Sumangil. 3) Possession of a legal title does not preclude the operation of a trust agreement. The remedy sought was enforcement of the trust between the plaintiff and Sumangil, not review of the cadastral decree

Uploaded by

Francis Coronel Jr.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

EUSEBIA ESCOBAR VS RAMON LOCSIN, in his capacity as special administrator of the

intestate estate of Juana Ringor, G.R. No. L-48309 January 30, 1943
FACTS
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of the subject lot; and that in the course of the
cadastral proceedings, plaintiff being illiterate, asked Sumangil to claim the same for her (plaintiff) but
Sumangil committed a breach of trust by claiming the lot for himself, so it was adjudicated in favor of
Sumangil. The defendant is the special administrator of the estate of Juana Ringor, to whom the parcel
of land in question was assigned by partition in the intestate estate of Sumangil and Duque. The CFI
found that the plaintiff is the real owner of the lot which she had acquired in 1914 by donation propter
nuptias from Pablo Ringor; that plaintiff had since that year been in possession of the land; and that
the same had been decreed in the cadastral proceedings in favor of Domingo Sumangil. The trial court,
while recognizing that the plaintiff had the equitable title and the defendant the legal title, nevertheless
dismissed the complaint because the period of one year provided for in section 38 of the Land
Registration Act for the review of a decree had elapsed and the plaintiff had not availed herself of this
remedy.
ISSUE Does the possession of legal title preclude the operation of a trust agreement?
HELD
No. The trial court plainly erred. The complaint did not seek the review of the decree or the reopening
of the cadastral case, but the enforcement of a trust. Hence, section 38 of Act No. 496 does not apply.
The estate of Juana Ringor as the successor in interest of the trustee, Domingo Sumangil, is in equity
bound to execute a deed of conveyance of this lot to the plaintiff-appellant. The remedy herein prayed
for has been upheld by this Court in previous cases, one of which is Severino vs. Severino (44 Phil.,
343, year 1923). There is no indication there of an intention to cut off, through the issuance of a decree
of registration, equitable rights or remedies such as those here in question. On the contrary, section
70 of the Act provides: Registered lands and ownership therein, shall in all respects be subject to the
same burdens and incidents attached by law to unregistered land. Nothing contained in this Act shall
in any way be construed to relieve registered land or the owners thereof from any rights incident to
the relation of husband and wife, or from liability to attachment on mesne process or levy on
execution, or from liability to any lien of any description established by law on land and the buildings
thereon, or the interest of the owner in such land or buildings, or to change the laws of descent, or
the rights of partition between coparceners, joint tenants and other cotenants, or the right to take the
same by eminent domain, or to relieve such land from liability to be appropriated in any lawful manner
for the payment of debts, or to change or affect in any other way any other rights or liabilities created
by law and applicable to unregistered land, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in the
amendments hereof. A trust — such as that which was created between the plaintiff and Domingo
Sumangil — is sacred and inviolable. The Courts have therefore shielded fiduciary relations against
every manner of chicanery or detestable design cloaked by legal technicalities. The Torrens system
was never calculated to foment betrayal in the performance of a trust. The judgment appealed from is
hereby reverse, and the defendant is ordered to convey that lot in question to the plaintiff within
fifteen days from the entry of final judgment herein; and upon his failure or refusal to do so, this
judgment shall constitute sufficient authorization for the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, in lieu of
a deed of conveyance, to transfer the certificate of title for said lot No. 692 to the plaintiff Eusebia
Escobar. The defendant shall pay the costs of both instances

You might also like