G.R. No. 197728, September 16, 2015
SPOUSES ARMANDO AND LORNA TRINIDAD, PETITIONERS, VS. DONA MARIE GLENN IMSON, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Armando and Lorna Trinidad filed a complaint for ejectment against respondent Dona Marie Glenn Imson before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City. Petitioners claimed ownership of a condominium unit (Unit 2203, AIC Gold Tower, Pasig City) purchased from three Indian nationals through a Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights (June 13, 2002) and later a Deed of Absolute Sale (July 13, 2007) in Armando’s name. At the time of purchase, the unit was leased to respondent by the original owners from April 1, 2002, to March 1, 2003. Petitioners alleged that respondent failed to pay monthly rentals from June 2002 onward, accumulating arrears of ₱2,130,000.00, and ignored a demand letter to vacate.
Respondent countered that she originally leased the unit but decided to purchase it in June 2002. Due to ongoing annulment proceedings, she requested petitioner Armando Trinidad, her confidante, to purchase and register the unit under his name with the understanding that she was the true owner. Armando agreed, leading to the execution of the Deed of Assignment in his name. Respondent claimed she paid the purchase price through cash and checks to the original owners, who acknowledged receipt, and also paid real property taxes, association dues, water bills, and other charges. She asserted open and public possession since April 2002. In 2007, while she was abroad, Armando annotated his claim on the title and executed the Deed of Absolute Sale without her knowledge, prompting the ejectment suit.
The MeTC dismissed the complaint, finding respondent the true owner and ordering petitioners to pay attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed, ruling petitioners owned the unit based on the Deeds and ordering respondent to vacate and pay rental arrears. The Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the RTC decision, holding respondent’s evidence of ownership more credible and ordering petitioners to return possession.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent is entitled to possession of the condominium unit based on a provisional finding of ownership, thereby reversing the RTC decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the issue of ownership was provisionally determined solely to resolve possession in the ejectment case, without barring a separate action on title.
The Court found no error in the CA’s factual conclusions, which aligned with the MeTC’s findings. While petitioners relied on the notarized Deed of Assignment and Deed of Absolute Sale, which enjoy a presumption of regularity, respondent presented clear and convincing evidence to rebut this presumption and establish the true agreement. This evidence included: (1) nine personal checks from respondent to the original owners as payment; (2) an affidavit from one original owner acknowledging respondent’s payments; (3) receipts for association dues, utility bills, real estate taxes, and insurance paid by respondent; and (4) respondent’s continuous possession since 2002. These acts demonstrated respondent’s exercise of ownership and supported her claim that Armando held the property in trust for her.
The Court upheld the existence of an implied trust under Article 1448 of the Civil Code, as payment by respondent of the purchase price, despite the title being in Armando’s name, established a resulting trust in her favor. Armando, as trustee, could not repudiate the trust by relying solely on the legal documents. Thus, respondent, as beneficiary, was entitled to possession. The CA correctly provisionally ruled on ownership to resolve possession, and its findings were supported by the evidence on record.