ll\epubltc of tbe .

flbilippines
~upreme Qtourt
:fflanila

THIRD DIVISION

HEIRS OF FERDINAND G.R. No. 254452

ROXAS, namely: ANGELA
MARGARITA T. ROXAS, Present:
DYAN PAULA T. ROXAS,
MICHAEL JUDE T. ROXAS, CAGUIOA, J., Chairperson,
and MARIA KATRINA T. INTING,
ROXAS, GAERLAN,
Petitioners, DIMAAMPAO, and
SINGH,* JJ.

- versus -

HEIRS OF MELANIA
ROXAS, namely: MANUEL A.
ROXAS, MARIA ROSARIO
ROXAS-URETA,
ALEXANDER A. ROXAS,
SALOME ROXAS-
PANTALEON, PAUL
GERARDO ROXAS, ELAINE
ROXAS GAMBOA, MA. Promulgated:
IMELDA ROXAS-CRUZ, and
DAVID ANTHONY ROXAS, November 27, 2024
Respondents. "''~'vC,~*

x------------------------------------------------------x

* On official business .
Decision 2 G.R. No. 254452

DECISION

INTING, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule

45 of the Rules of Court filed by the heirs of Ferdinand A. Roxas
(Ferdinand), namely: Angela Margarita T. Roxas (Angela), Dyan Paula
T. Roxas (Dyan), Michael Jude T. Roxas (Michael), and Maria Katrina
T. Roxas (Katrina) (collectively, the Heirs of Ferdinand), assailing the
Decision2 dated February 13, 2020, and the Resolution3 dated September
29, 2020, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 109260. The
CA reversed the Decision4 dated January 19, 2017, of Branch 5, Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Baguio City, First Judicial Region in Civil Case
No. 8146-R.

The Antecedents

Antonio Roxas (Antonio) and Melania Roxas (Melania) are the

parents of Ferdinand, Manuel A. Roxas (Manuel), Maria Rosario
Roxas-Ureta (Maria), Alexander A. Roxas (Alexander), Salome
Roxas-Pantaleon (Salome), Paul Gerardo Roxas (Paul), Elaine
Roxas-Gamboa (Elaine), Ma. Imelda Roxas-Cruz (Imelda), David
Anthony Roxas (David), Conrado A. Roxas (Conrado), and Jesus A.
Roxas (Jesus). 5

In 1970, Melania's cousin Felicisma Garcia, married to Alfonso

Garcia, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale (DOAS) in favor of Ferdinand
over a 500-square-meter parcel of land located at Loakan, Baguio City
(subject lot). Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-16657 was
thereafter issued in Ferdinand's name. Melania built a house on the subject
lot which the family used as a vacation house and residence of some of
their children. 6

Rollo , pp. 3-26.

2 id. at 27--40 . Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Robeno B. Martin and concurred in by
Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Walter S. Ong of the Fifteenth Division , Court of
Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 41-44. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin and concurred in by
Associate Justices Manu~l M. Barrios and Walter S. Ong of the Former Fifteenth Division, Court
of Appeals, Manila.
4
Id. at 46- 53. Penned by Presiding fodge Maria Ligaya V. ltliong-Rivera.
Id. at 28.
6
Id. at 28- 29.
 .,,
Decision .) G.R. No. 254452

From 1990 to 1995, Melania rented out a portion of the subject

property to Alfredo Sison (Alfredo). In 1991, Paul started residing on the
subject property together with his family. 7

Antonio died on April 1, 1995. Subsequently, Ferdinand died on

September 18, 2004, while Melania died on January 1, 2011. 8

On November 11, 2014, Manuel, Maria, Alexander, Salome, Paul,

Elaine, Imelda, and David (collectively, the Heirs of Melania) filed a
Complaint9 for the declaration of nullity of the DOAS and the cancellation
ofTCTNo. T- 16657. They alleged that it was Melania who purchased the
subject lot, but she placed it in Ferdinand's name to protect the interests
of her children in view of the existence of Antonio's illegitimate children.
Ferdinand was 19 years old and still studying at the time of the sale. The
house that Melania had built is declared in her name. Ferdinand never
questioned his sibling's use of the subject property. The Heirs of Melania
filed the complaint because the Heirs of Ferdinand sought to take over the
subject property after Melania's death. The latter filed an unlawful
detainer case against Paul before Branch 1, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Baguio City. Jesus approved of the, Complaint but did not join his
siblings because he resides abroad. As for Conrado, his relationship with
the Heirs of Melania is strained because he wants them to change their
religion. 10

The Heirs of Ferdinand countered that Ferdinand is the true owner

of the subject lot. Antonio and Melania gave him the money to pay for the
subject lot as they were overjoyed that he was about to graduate from
college. Melania constructed the house with the permission of Ferdinand.
Similarly, Ferdinand allowed Melania to rent out the property and keep
the proceeds from it. Ferdinand also allowed Paul to reside on the subject
property on the condition that he would vacate upon being asked to do so.
When he asked Paul to leave, Melania pleaded with him to allow his
brother to stay at least while she was still alive. Ferdinand paid the real
property tax for the subject lot. 11

The Heirs of Ferdinand averred that in 1988, Antonio and Melania

transferred their assets to their family corporation, Mel-Rox Realty Inc.
7
Id. at 29 .
8
Id. at 28.
9
Records, pp. 4-9.
10
Rollo, pp. 28- 29, 47, 57.
II jd_ at 29, 48.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 254452

(Mel-Rox). After Antonio died, Mel-Rox gave the former's illegitimate

children their share in his inheritance. Angela explained that Antonio's
illegitimate children had their claim annotated on the titles of the
properties registered under Mel-Rox. Thus, Mel-Rox paid Antonio's
illegitimate children their claim on the estate of Antonio. 12 This prompted
the legitimate children of Antonio and 1'v1elania to also ask for their share.
On March 7, 1997, Melania, Conrado, Ferdinand, Elaine, and Imelda, as
officers of Mel-Rox, executed a document entitled "Donation/Gifts of
Real Property and its Cash Equivalents to the Roxas Children from
Mr. and Mrs. Antonio and Melania Roxas" 13 (Donation Document).
Ferdinand's siblings were either given money or property. He did not
receive anything as the subject property was already given to him. 14

After Ferdinand died, the Heirs of Ferdinand met with some of the
Heirs of Melania regarding the subject property as it was Ferdinand's wish
for them to take over and improve it. They wanted to take possession of
the subject property, but the Heirs of Melania told them that they could
only do so after Melania's death. But even after Melania's death, Paul
stayed on the subject property. Hence, they filed an ejectment case against
him. 15

The Ruling of the RTC

The RTC ruled in favor of the Heirs of Ferdinand in its Decision; 16

thus:

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, judgment is

hereby rendered ordering the DISMISSAL of the complaint for lack
of merit and directing plaintiffs to pay the defendants the amount of
[PHP] 30,000.00 as attorney's fees.

SO ORDERED. 17

First, the RTC held that the action has not prescribed as an action
for the declaration of the inexistence of an absolutely simulated or
fictitious contract does not prescribe. The RTC likewise held that laches

12
Records, p. 125. Judicial Affidavit of Ange la Margarita T. Roxas.
13
Rollo, p. 45 .
14 Id. at 47-48 .
15
Id. at 48.
16
Id. at 46-53 .
17
Id. at 53 .
Decision 5 G.R. No. 254452

has not set in against the Heirs of Melania. They were in possession of the
subject property and had no reason to assert their right until the Heirs of
Ferdinand sought to eject Paul from it. Second, the R TC ruled that Antonio
and Melania were the true purchasers of the subject lot and that Ferdinand
held it in trust for them. The RTC based this on Melania's improvement
of the property, her payment of the taxes for it, the siblings' use of the
subject property, and the Donation Document. Third, the RTC opined that
the subject property was given to Ferdinand under the Donation
Document. The Heirs of Melania did not submit evidence to prove their
allegation that it was of dubious origin. Fourth, the RTC found that all the
elements for a valid contract were present. Hence, it refused to declare the
DOAS void because it was not simulated. Finally, the RTC held that the
Heirs of Melania acted in bad faith when they filed the Complaint because
they knew that the subject property was already given to Ferdinand.
Hence, it ordered them to pay attorney's fees for unnecessarily dragging
the Heirs of Ferdinand into litigation. 18

The Heirs of Melania appealed to the CA. 19

The Ruling of the CA

The CA granted the appeal in its Decision20 dated February 13,

2020, the dispositive portion of which provides:

WHEREFORE, the instant Appeal is GRANTED and the

assailed Decision dated 19 January 2017 issued by the Regional Trial
Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 5, Baguio City in Civil Case No.
8146-R is REVERSED.

This Court hereby ORDERS the Register of Deed[s] of Baguio

City to CANCEL TCTNo. T-16657 and issue anew title covering TCT
No. T-16657 in the name of Melania Roxas, and is DECLARED part
of her estate for di vision among her legal heirs.

SO ORDERED.2 1

First~ the CA ruled that Ferdinand was not the real buyer of the
subject lot and that the DOAS was a relatively simulated contract. The CA
observed that the Heirs of Ferdinand made conflicting claims. On the one
18
Id. at 49-53.
19
Records, pp. 375 -377. See Notice of Appeal dated May 22, 20 17.
20
Rollo, pp. 27-40.
21 Id. at 40 .
Decision 6 G.R. No . 254452

hand, they said in their Answer that Ferdinand purchased the subject lot.
On the other hand, they said in their Appellees' Brief that Melania donated
the subject lot to Ferdinand. The CA noted that Ferdinand was not
financially capable to buy the subject lot and that the Heirs of Ferdinand
did not dispute the Heirs of Melania's contention that Melania placed the
subject lot in Ferdinand's name to protect it from Antonio's illegitimate
children. Thus, the CA concluded that the true buyer of the subject lot was
. ??
M e1ama.--

Second, the CA stated that Melania could not have donated the
subject lot if it was true that it belonged to Ferdinand. Assuming arguendo
that Ferdinand was a donee, the CA did not find the donation to be valid
because the requisites under Articles 73 723 and 749 24 of the Civil Code
were not complied with. 25

Third, the CA held that the Donation Document cannot be

considered a will, and it is only through a will that Melania could have
validly disposed of her properties. 26

Finally, the CA found that Ferdinand held the subject lot in trust for
Melania pursuant to Article 1448 of the Civil Code. The Heirs of Melania
were able to prove that it was not given to him as a gift. As Melania was
the true owner of the subject lot, the CA ruled that TCT No. T-16657
should be cancelled and a new title should be issued in her name, to be
included in her estate that shall be divided among her heirs. 27

The Heirs of Ferdinand filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 28 After

the CA denied it, 29 they filed the present Petition before the Court.

22
Id. at 32- 34.
23
ARTICLE 737. The donor' s capacity shall be determined as of the time of the making of the
donation .
24 ARTICLE 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a
public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the
donee must satisfy.
The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document,
but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the Iifetirne of the donor.
If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an
authentic form , and this step shall be noted in both instruments.
25
Rollo, pp. 34-35 .
26
Id. at 35-37.
27
Id. at 37-40.
28
CA rollo , pp. 127- 142.
29 Rollo, pp. 41-44. See Reso lurion dated September 29, 2020.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 254452

First, the Heirs of Ferdinand clarified that the Donation Document

was neither a deed of donation nor a will but merely a list executed by the
Board of Directors of Mel-Rox. It was intended to confirm that ownership
over the subject lot was meant to be vested in Ferdinand. There was no
need to execute a separate document because the title is already in
Ferdinand's name. Notably, Elaine and Imelda did not dispute their
signatures in the Donation Document. Second, the Heirs of Ferdinand's
possession of TCT No. T-16657 is proof that they are the owners of the
subject lot. Melania would have kept the title if she wanted to prevent
Ferdinand from selling or encumbering it. Third, the Heirs of Ferdinand
only admitted that the house was declared in Melania's name, but they did
not admit that she paid the real property taxes for it. The Heirs of Melania
did not present evidence that she paid the real property taxes, unlike the
Heirs of Ferdinand who submitted several tax receipts. Fourth, the Heirs
of Melania failed to prove that Ferdinand was holding the subject lot in
trust for Melania. The Heirs of Ferdinand were able to establish their
ownership over the subject lot. Thus, the presumption under Article 1448
of the Civil Code that the subject lot was donated to him stands. Finally,
Paul's occupation was by mere tolerance of Ferdinand. In the unlawful
detainer case, the Court30 upheld the CA Decision31 dated May 24, 2017,
issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 147234, which affirmed the ruling of the RTC
in favor of the Heirs of Ferdinand. 32

The Heirs of Melania filed their Comment33 wherein they argued

that the CA correctly found that Melania displayed acts of ownership over
the subject property, thus showing her intent to have Ferdinand hold the
subject lot in trust for her. As such, they opined that the petition should
not be given due course. 34

The Heirs of Ferdinand filed a Reply 35 reiterating their previous

arguments.

30 Id. at 66- 67. See Resolution dated September 5, 2018.

31 id. at 54- 65. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate
Justices Fernanda Lam pas Peralta and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes of the Fifth Division, Court of
Appeals, Manila.
32
Id. at 11 - 23.
33
Id. at 101 - 104.
34
Id. at I 02.
35
Id. at 110- 117.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 254452

The Issue

The issue for the Court' s resolution is whether the CA erred in

ruling that Ferdinand was merely holding the subject lot in trust for
Melania.

The Ruling of the Court

Considering the varying findings of the R TC and the CA, the Court
deems it proper to give due course to the arguments raised by the Heirs of
Ferdinand, albeit they involve factual issues. 36

The Court grants the Petition.

Article 1448 of the Civil Code states:

ARTICLE 1448. There is an implied trust when prope1iy is

sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by
another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property.
The former is the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. However,
if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or
illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied
by law, it being disputably presumed that there is a gift in favor of the
child.

The implied trust under Article 1448 is called a purchase money

resulting trust, which has the following elements: (a) an actual payment
of money, property or services, or an equivalent, constituting valuable
consideration; and (b) such consideration must be furnished by the alleged
beneficiary of a resulting trust. The party alleging the existence of the trust
bears the burden of proving it. 37

Notably, the last sentence of Arti cle 1448 states that if the title is
conveyed to a child of the one paying the price of the sale, the disputable
presumption is that there is a gift in favor of the child. There being no
question that Ferdinand is the child of Melania, and that Melania paid the
purchase price for the subject lot, there is a disputable presumption that
Melania intended to donate the subject lot to Ferdinand.

36
See Tong v. Go Tiat Kun, 733 Phil. 58 I, 590 (20 I4).
37
Herbon v. Pa/ad, 528 Phil. 130, 14 1 (200 6).
Decision 9 G.R. No. 254452

Being a disputable presumption, it may be overturned by contrary

evidence. In Tong v. Go Tiat Kun, 38 the Court held that the presumption
was overturned because of several factors. First, the child under whose
name the property was titled did not prove that he had the means to pay
for it. Second, the parent and his other children always had possession of
the property. Third, the prope1ty remained undivided even though it was
registered in the name of one child. The surviving heirs of the child under
whose name it was titled only claimed ownership after the death of said
child. Fourth, the surviving heirs of the child admitted that their
predecessor-in-interest did not send any letter claiming ownership over
the property and that they had their own residence. Finally, the parent paid
the real property taxes. 39

The Court disagrees with the CA that the Heirs of Melania

successfully overturned the presumption in favor of Ferdinand.

Ferdinand admittedly did not pay for the subject lot. In addition, the
subject lot was not divided. But the similarities with Tong end there. It
was Ferdinand and his heirs who paid for the real property taxes on the
subject lot. 40 Melania also consistently asked Ferdinand to permit Paul to
stay in the subject lot and the house she had built. This showed that she
respected Ferdinand as the owner of the subject lot. More, the Heirs of
Ferdinand are in possession ofTCT No. T-16657.

Melania's act ofbuilding a house on the subject lot, paying the taxes
for said house, 41 and renting out a portion thereof,42 do not negate her
donative intent. As explained by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin
S. Caguioa (Associate Justice Caguioa), "these actions pertain only to the
exercise of the right to the possession, use, and fruits of the lot." 43

Having settled that the presumption under Article 1448 stands, it

must be determined if the donation should still comply with the formal
requirements under the Civil Code. These requirements would depend on
whether the property donated is movable or immovable.

38
733 Phil. 581 (2014).
39
/ d.at590- 591.
40
Records, pp. 150- 158.
41
Id. at 22.
42
Id. at 31, Answer.
43 J. Cagui oa, Concurring Opinion, p. 3.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 254452

In the Answer of the Heirs of Ferdinand before the RTC, they stated
that what was given by Melania to Ferdinand was the money to purchase
the subject lot. 44 Therefore, the applicable provision is Article 748 of the
Civil Code, which states that "[i]f the value of the personal property
donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the acceptance
shall be made in writing. Otherwise, the donation shall be void." The
DOAS states that the purchase price for the subject lot is exactly
PHP 5,000.00; 45 hence, the donation need not be made in writing.

In any event, Associate Justice Caguioa astutely observed that "it

would be illogical for the law to require the presumed donation to still
comply with the fonnal requisites because otherwise, there would be no
need for the presumption." 46 The presumption under Article 1448 is
necessary precisely because the parent chose an unconventional mode in
donating property to their child. The presumption under Article 1448
should not be overturned due to the failure to comply with the formal
requisites under Articles 748 or 749 of the Civil Code but should instead
be based on proof that the parent did not intend to donate the property to
the child.

Accordingly, the Court agrees with the R TC that the complaint of

the Heirs of Melania should be dismissed. However, the Court cannot
sustain the award of attorney's fees for lack of factual and legal bases
under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is

GRANTED. The Decision dated February 13, 2020, and the Resolution
dated September 29, 2020, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 109260 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated
January 19, 2017, of Branch 5, Regional Trial Comi, Baguio City, First
Judicial Region in Civil Case No. 8146-R is REINSTATED with the
MODIFICATION in that the award of attorney's fees is DELETED.

SO ORDERED .

44
I d. at 30.
45
Id. at 20.
46
J. Caguioa, Con cc11Ti11g Opinion, p. 7.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 254452

WE CONCUR:

S. CAGUIOA

s~ # . tA~
Associate Justice

(On official business)

MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assig d to the writer of the opinion
of the Court's Division.

MIN S. CAGUIOA

Chai,person, Th ird Division

Decision 12 G.R. No. 254452

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I ce1tify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.