GR 45027; (January, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45027. January 27, 1992.
BERNARDO DE LOS SANTOS, petitioner, vs. FAUSTINO B. REYES, THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES BENJAMIN DIESTRO and AIDA LAGAREJOS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Bernardo de los Santos filed a complaint for reconveyance of a parcel of land. He claimed ownership through inheritance from his child, who allegedly inherited it from his deceased wife, Virginia T. Reyes, the registered owner. The land was originally titled in Virginia’s name pursuant to a deed of sale. Petitioner’s claim hinged on proving the child was born alive and survived the mother, thereby inheriting the property before its own death. The respondent, Faustino B. Reyes (Virginia’s father), defended that he was the true owner. He testified that he paid for the land but had it registered in his daughter’s name only to circumvent a vendor’s rule limiting sales to two lots per person. He further testified that the child was born dead. The trial court dismissed the complaint, declaring Faustino the owner and awarding damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
ISSUE
The core issues were whether the petitioner sufficiently proved his cause of action for reconveyance based on inheritance, and whether parol evidence was admissible to prove Faustino Reyes’s true ownership despite the title being in his daughter’s name.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the inheritance claim, the Court upheld the finding that petitioner failed to prove the child was born alive. He did not testify to rebut Faustino’s positive testimony that the child was stillborn. Under Article 43 of the Civil Code, one alleging a prior death for purposes of succession must prove it. Petitioner’s failure was fatal to his claim of inheriting through the child. On the ownership issue, the Court ruled no express trust existed. The situation fell under Article 1448 on implied trusts, where property is paid for by one person but titled in another. However, a disputable presumption of a gift arises if the titled person is a child of the payor. Here, Faustino paid, and the title was in his daughter Virginia. The presumption of a gift was rebuttable by evidence. Faustino’s testimonial evidence was properly admitted to rebut this presumption and prove there was no gift, establishing his beneficial ownership. The Court found no error in admitting this parol evidence, as it did not prove an express trust but rather rebutted a statutory presumption.