3 Salao V Salao

7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 070
VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 65

Salao vs. Salao
*
No. L-26699. March 16, 1976.
BENITA SALAO, assisted by her husband, GREGORIO

MARCELO; ALMARIO ALCURIZA, ARTURO ALCURIZA,
OSCAR ALCURIZA and ANITA ALCURIZA, the latter two
being minors are represented by guardian ad litem, ARTURO
ALCURIZA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. JUAN S. SALAO, later
substituted by PABLO P. SALAO, Administrator of the Intestate
of JUAN S. SALAO; now MERCEDES P. VDA. DE SALAO,
ROBERTO P. SALAO, MARIA SALAO VDA. DE SANTOS,
LUCIANA P. SALAO, ISABEL SALAO DE SANTOS, and
PABLO P. SALAO, as successors-in-interest of the late JUAN S.
SALAO, together with PABLO P. SALAO, Administrator,
defendants-appellants.
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
66
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salao vs. Salao
Pleadings and practice; Effect of pleadings; Rule 9 of the 1940 Rules

of Court; Answer should contain either a specific denial or a statement of
matters in avoidance of the cause or causes of action asserted in
complaint.—Under section 6, Rule 9 of the 1940 Rules of Court the
answer should “contain either a specific denial or a statement of matters in
avoidance of the cause or causes of action asserted in the complaint.”
Section 7 of the same rule requires the defendant to “deal specifically with
each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and,
whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters which he
will rely upon to support his denial.” “Material averments in the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292dcd2970830fa7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/25
complaint, other than those as to the amount of damage, shall be deemed

admitted when not specifically denied” (Sec. 8). “The defendant may set
forth by answer as many affirmative defenses as he may have. All such
grounds of defenses as would raise issues of fact not arising upon the
preceding pleading must be specifically pleaded” (Sec. 9).
Same; Same; Same; Substantial compliance by defendant with Rule 9
of 1940 Rules of Court where he sets forth in his positive defenses matters
in avoidance of plaintiff’s cause of action: Case at bar.—The defendant
set forth in his “positive defenses” the matters in avoidance of the
plaintiffs’ first cause of action which supported his denials of paragraphs 1
to 10 and 12 of the first cause of action Obviously, he did so because he
found it impracticable to state piecemeal his own version as to the
acquisition of the two fishponds or to make a tedious and repetitious
recital of the ultimate facts contradicting the allegations of the first cause
of action. In doing so, he substantially complied with Rule 9 of the 1940
Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Rule 6 of the revised Rules of Court; Defenses;
Negative and affirmative defenses; Affirmative defenses include all
matters set up by way of confession and avoidance.—Under the present
Rules of Court a “negative defense is the specific denial of the material
fact or facts alleged in the complaint essential to the plaintiff’s cause or
causes of action”. On the other hand “an affirmative defense is an
allegation of new matter which, while admitting the material allegations
of the complaint, expressly or impliedly, would nevertheless prevent or
bar recovery by the plaintiff”. Affirmative defenses include all matters set
up “by way of confession and avoidance.”
Actions; Right of action affected by unreasonable delay in seeking
redress.—The plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-interest slept on their
rights, if they had any rights at all. Vigilanti prospiciunt jura or the law
protects him who is watchful of his rights. “Undue delay in the
enforcement of a right is strongly persuasive of a lack of
67
VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 67
Salao vs. Salao
merit in the claim, since it is human nature for a person to assert his rights
most strongly when they are threatened or invaded”. “Laches or
unreasonable delay on the part of a plaintiff in seeking to enforce a right is
not only persuasive of a want of merit but may, according to the
circumstances, be destructive of the right itself.”
Same; Reconveyance; Proof as to fiduciary relation of parties must

be clear and convincing.—In order to maintain an action for
reconveyance, proof as to the fiduciary relation of the parties must be
clear and convincing.
Appeals; Appellant’s brief; Contents of.—An appellant’s brief should
contain “a subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the
argument and page references” to the contents of the brief.
Same; Same; Necessity of strict compliance with formal requirements
regarding content of appellant’s brief; Reasons.—Lawyers for appellants,
when they prepare their briefs, would do well to read and re-read section
16 of Rule 46. If they comply strictly with the formal requirements
prescribed in section 16, they might make a competent and luminous
presentation of their clients’ case and lighten the burden of the Court.
What Justice Fischer said in 1918 is still true now: “The pressure of work
upon this Court is so great that we cannot, in justice to other litigants,
undertake to make an examination of the voluminous transcript of the
testimony, unless the attorneys who desire us to make such examination
have themselves taken the trouble to read the record and brief it in
accordance with our rules.”
Trusts; Nature of.—In its technical legal sense, a trust is defined as
the right enforceable soly in equity, to the beneficial enjoyment of
property, the legal title to which is vested in another, but the word “trust”
is frequently employed to indicate duties, relations, and responsibilities
which are not strictly technical trusts.
Same; Juridical concept of.—A person who establishes a trust is
called the trustor; one in whom confidence is reposed as regards property
for the benefit of another person is known as the trustee; and the person
for whose benefit the trust has been created is referred to as the
beneficiary. There is a fiduciary relation between the trustee and the cestui
que trust as regards certain property, real, personal, money or choses in
action.
Same; Express trusts.—Express trusts are created by the intention of
the trustor or of the parties. No particular words are required for the
creation of an express trust, it being sufficient that a
68
Salao vs. Salao
trust is clearly intended. Express trusts are those which are created by the
direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or
by words either expressly or impliedly evincing an intention to create a
trust.
Same; Implied trusts.—Implied trusts come into being by operation
of law. Implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are
deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent, or which
are superinduced on the transaction by operation of law as matters of
equity, independently of the particular intention of the parties.
Same; Same; Resulting trust.—A resulting trust is broadly defined as
a trust which is raised or created by the act or construction of law, but in
its more restricted sense it is a trust raised by implication of law and
presumed always to have been contemplated by the parties, the intention
as to which is to be found in the nature of their transaction, but not
expressed in the deed or instrument of conveyance.
Same; Trust must be proven by clear, satisfactory and convincing
evidence.—A constructive trust is a trust “raised by construction of law, or
arising by operation of law”. In a more restricted sense and as
contradistinguished from a resulting trust, a constructive trust is “a trust
not created by any words, either expressly or impliedly evincing a direct
intention to create a trust, but by the construction of equity in order to
satisfy the demands of justice.” It does not arise “by agreement or
intention, but by operation of law.” Thus, “if property is acquired through
mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a
trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the
property comes.”
Same; Same; Express and implied trusts; When parol evidence
available; Reasons.—No express trusts concerning an immovable or any
interest therein may be proven by parol evidence. An implied trust may be
proven by oral evidence. Trustworthy oral evidence is required to prove
an implied trust because oral evidence can be easily fabricated.
Succession; Representation; Representation takes place only in favor
of children of brothers or sisters, whether they be of the full or half blood.
—In the collateral line, representation takes place only in favor of the
children of brothers or sisters, whether they be of the full or half blood.
The nephew excludes a grandniece or great-grandnephews.
69
VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 69
Salao vs. Salao
Damages; Where action brought with sincerity and good faith, award
for damages not just and proper; Reasons; Case at bar.—The record
shows that the plaintiffs presented fifteen witnesses during the protracted
trial of this case which lasted from 1954 to 1959. They fought tenaciously.
They obviously incurred considerable expresses in prosecuting their case.
Although their causes of action turned out to be unfounded, yet the
pertinacity and vigor with which they pressed their claim indicate their
sincerity and good faith. It cannot be concluded with certitude that the
plaintiffs’ action was manifestly frivolous or was primarily intended to
harass the defendants. An award for damages to the defendants does not
appear to be just and proper.
Same; Moral damages; Where worries, and anxieties suffered by
defendant usually attendant to litigation, award for moral damages not
just and proper; Reasons.—The worries and anxiety of a defendant in a
litigation that was not maliciously instituted are not the moral damages
contemplated in the law. “The adverse result of an action does not per se
make the act wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of moral
damages. The law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right
to litigate; such right is so precious that moral damages may not be
charged on those who may exercise it erroneously.”
Attorney’s fees; Where action brought with sincerity and good faith,
award of attorney’s fees not just and proper.—But once it is conceded that
the plaintiffs acted in good faith in filing their action there would be no
basis for adjudging them liable to the defendants for attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses. It is not sound public policy to set a premium on the
right to litigate. An adverse decision does not ipso facto justify the award
of attorney’s fees to the winning party.
Land registration; Any transaction affecting land should be
evidenced by a registerable deed.—“The act of registration” is “the
operative act” that conveys, and affects the land. That means that any
transaction affecting the registered land should be evidenced by a
registerable deed.
Same; Torrens system; Purpose of.—The real purpose of the Torrens
system is to quiet title to land. “Once a title is registered, the owner may
rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or
sitting in the mirador de su casa, to avoid the possibility of losing his
land.”
Same; Same; Torrens title; Torrens title as conclusive evidence of
ownership; Presumption of validity and regularity in issuance of
70
Salao vs. Salao
title.—A Torrens title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership

of the land referred to therein (Sec. 47, Act 496). A strong presumption
exists that Torrens titles were regularly issued and that they are valid.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Bataan.

Dollete, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Eusebio V. Navarro for plaintiffs-appellants.
Nicolas Belmonte & Benjamin T. de Peralta for defendants-
appellants.
AQUINO, J.:
This litigation regarding a forty-seven-hectare fishpond located at

Sitio Calunuran, Hermosa, Bataan involves the law of trusts and
prescription. The facts are as follows:
The spouses Manuel Salao and Valentina Ignacio of Barrio
Dampalit, Malabon, Rizal begot four children named Patricio,
Alejandra, Juan (Banli) and Ambrosia. Manuel Salao died in 1885.
His eldest son, Patricio, died in 1886 survived by his only child.
Valentin Salao.
There is no documentary evidence as to what properties formed
part of Manuel Salao’s estate, if any. His widow died on May 28,
1914. After her death, her estate was administered by her daughter
Ambrosia.
It was partitioned extrajudically in a deed dated December 29,
1918 but notarized on May 22, 1919 (Exh. 21). The deed was
signed by her four legal heirs, namely, her three children,
Alejandra, Juan and Ambrosia, and her grandson, Valentin Salao,
in representation of his deceased father, Patricio.
The lands left by Valentina Ignacio, all located at Barrio
Dampalit, were as follows:
Nature of land
Area
in
square
meters
(1) One-half interest in a fishpond which she had 21,700
inherited from her parents, Feliciano Ignacio and
Damiana Mendoza, and the other half of which was
owned by her co-owner, Josefa Sta. Ana

...................................................
71
VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 71

Salao vs. Salao
(2) Fishpond inherited from her parents .............................. 7,418

(3) Fishpond inherited from her parents .............................. 6,989
(4) Fishpond with a bodega for salt ..................................... 50,469
(5) Fishpond with an area of one hectare, 12 ares and 5 11,205
centares purchased from Bernabe and Honorata Ignacio
by Valentina Ignacio on November 9, 1895 with a
bodega for salt
...................................................................
(6) Fishpond ........................................................................ 8,000
(7) One-half interest in a fishpond with a total area of 5,217
10,424 square meters, the other half was owned by A.
Aguinaldo ........................................
(8) Riceland ......................................................................... 50,454
(9) Riceland purchased by Valentina Ignacio from Eduardo 8,065
Salao on January 27, 1890 with a house and two
camarins thereon
.........................................................................................
(10) Riceland in the name of Ambrosia Salao, with an area 9,505
of 11,678 square meters, of which 2,173 square meters
were sold to Justa Yongco
....................................................................
T O T A L ------------- 179,022
square
meters
To each of the legal heirs of Valentina Ignacio was adjudicated a

distributive share valued at P8,135.25. In satisfaction of his
distributive share, Valentin Salao (who was then already forty-
eight years old) was given the biggest fishpond with an area of
50,469 square meters, a smaller fishpond with an area of 6,989
square meters and the riceland with a net area of 9,905 square
meters. Those parcels of land had an aggregate appraised value of
P13,501 which exceeded Valentin’s distributive share. So in the
deed of partition he was directed to pay to his coheirs the sum of
P5,365.75. That arrangement, which was obviously intended to

avoid the fragmentation of the lands, was beneficial to Valentin.
In that deed of partition (Exh. 21) it was noted that “desde la
muerte de Valentina Ignacio y Mendoza, ha venido administrando
sus bienes la referida Ambrosia Salao” “cuya administración lo ha
sido a satisfacción de todos los herederos y por designación los
mismos”. It was expressly stipulated that Ambrosia Salao was not
obligated to render any accounting of
72

Salao vs. Salao
her administration “en consideración al resultado satisfactorio de

sus gestiónes, mejoradas los bienes y pagadas por ella las
contribusiónes (pages 2 and 11, Exh. 21).
By virtue of the partition the heirs became “dueños absolutos
de sus respectivas propiedadas, y podrán inmediatamente tomar
posesión de sus bienes, en la forma como se han distribuido y
llevado a cabo las adjudicaciónes” (page 20, Exh. 21).
The documentary evidence proves that in 1911 or prior to the
death of Valentina Ignacio her two children, Juan Y. Salao, Sr. and
Ambrosia Salao, secured a Torrens title, OCT No. 185 of the
Registry of Deeds of Pampanga, in their names for a forty-seven-
hectare fishpond located at Sitio Calunuran, Lubao, Pampanga
(Exh. 14). It is also known as Lot No. 540 of the Hermosa cadastre
because that part of Lubao later became a part of Bataan.
The Calunuran fishpond is the bone of contention in this case.
Plaintiffs’ theory is that Juan Y. Salao, Sr. and his sister
Ambrosia had engaged in the fishpond business. Where they
obtained the capital is not shown in any documentary evidence.
Plaintiffs’ version is that Valentin Salao and Alejandra Salao were
included in that joint venture, that the funds used were the
earnings of the properties supposedly inherited from Manuel
Salao, and that those earnings were used in the acquisition of the
Calunuran fishpond. There is no documentary evidence to support
that theory.
On the other hand, the defendants contend that the Calunuran
fishpond consisted of lands purchased by Juan Y. Salao, Sr. and
Ambrosia Salao in 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908 as shown in their
Exhibits 8, 9, 10 and 13. But this point is disputed by the plaintiffs.
However, there can be no controversy as to the fact that after
Juan Y. Salao, Sr. and Ambrosia Salao secured a Torrens title for
the Calunuran fishpond in 1911 they exercised dominical rights

over it to the exclusion of their nephew, Valentin Salao.
Thus, on December 1, 1911 Ambrosia Salao sold under pacto
de retro for P800 the Calunuran fishpond to Vicente Villongco.
The period of redemption was one year. In the deed of sale (Exh.
19) Ambrosia confirmed that she and her brother Juan were the
dueños proindivisos of the said pesqueria. On December 7, 1911
Villongco, the vendee a retro, conveyed the same fishpond to
Ambrosia by way of lease for an anual canon of P128 (Exh. 19-a).
73
VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 73

Salao vs. Salao
After the fishpond was redeemed from Villongco or on June 8,

1914 Ambrosia and Juan sold it under pacto de retro to Eligio
Naval for the sum of P3,360. The period of redemption was also
one year (Exh. 20). The fishpond was later redeemed and Naval
reconveyed it to the vendors a retro in a document dated October
5, 1916 (Exh. 20-a).
The 1930 survey shown in the computation sheets of the
Bureau of Lands reveals that the Calunuran fishpond has an area of
479,205 square meters and that it was claimed by Juan Salao and
Ambrosia Salao, while the Pinañganacan fishpond (subsequently
acquired by Juan and Ambrosia) has an area of 975,952 square
meters (Exh. 22).
Likewise, there is no controversy as to the fact that on May 27,
1911 Ambrosia Salao bought for four thousand pesos from the
heirs of Engracio Santiago a parcel of swampland planted to
bakawan and nipa with an area of 96 hectares, 57 ares and 73
centares located at Sitio Lewa, Barrio Pinañganacan. Lubao,
Pampanga (Exh. 17-d).
The record of Civil Case No. 136, General Land Registration
Office Record No. 12144, Court of First Instance of Pampanga
shows that Ambrosia Salao and Juan Salao filed an application for
the registration of that land in their names on January 15, 1916.
They alleged in their petition that “han adquirido dicho terreno por
partes iguales y por la compra a los herederos del finado, Don
Engracio Santiago” (Exh. 17-a).
At the hearing on October 26, 1916 before Judge Percy M.
Moir, Ambrosia testified for the applicants. On that same day
Judge Moir rendered a decision, stating, inter alia, that the heirs of
Engracio Santiago had sold the land to Ambrosia Salao and Juan
Salao. Judge Moir “ordena la adjudicación y registro del terreno
solicitado a nombre de Juan Salao, mayor de edad y de estado

casado y de su esposa Diega Santiago y Ambrosia Salao, de estado
soltera y mayor de edad, en participaciones ignales” (Exh. 17-e).
On November 28, 1916 Judge Moir ordered the issuance of a
decree for the said land. The decree was issued on February 21,
1917. On March 12, 1917 Original Certificate of Title No. 472 of
the Registry of Deeds of Pampanga was issued in the names of
Juan Salao and Ambrosia Salao.
That Pinañganacan or Lewa fishpond later became Cadastral
Lot No. 544 of the Hermosa cadastre (Exh. 23). It adjoins the
Calunuran fishpond (See sketch, Exh. 1).
74

Salao vs. Salao
Juan Y. Salao, Sr. died on November 3, 1931 at the age of eighty

years (Exh. C). His nephew, Valentin Salao, died on February 9,
1933 at the age of sixty years according to the death certificate
(Exh. A. However, if according to Exhibit 21, he was forty-eight
years old in 1918, he would be sixty-three years old in 1933).
The intestate estate of Valentin Salao was partitioned
extrajudicially on December 28, 1934 between his two daughters,
Benita Salao-Marcelo and Victorina Salao-Alcuriza (Exh. 32). His
estate consisted of the two fishponds which he had inherited in
1918 from his grandmother, Valentina Ignacio.
If it were true that he had a one-third interest in the Calunuran
and Lewa fishponds with a total area of 145 hectares registered in
1911 and 1917 in the names of his aunt and uncle, Ambrosia Salao
and Juan Y. Salao, Sr., respectively, it is strange that no mention of
such interest was made in the extrajudicial partition of his estate in
1934.
It is relevant to mention that on April 8, 1940 Ambrosia Salao
donated to her grandniece, plaintiff Benita Salao, three lots located
at Barrio Dampalit with a total area of 5,832 square meters (Exh.
L). As donee Benita Salao signed the deed of donation.
On that occasion she could have asked Ambrosia Salao to
deliver to her and to the children of her sister, Victorina, the
Calunuran fishpond if it were true that it was held in trust by
Ambrosia as the share of Benita’s father in the alleged joint
venture.
But she did not make any such demand. It was only after
Ambrosia Salao’s death that she thought of filing an action for the
reconveyance of the Calunuran fishpond which was allegedly held
in trust and which had become the sole property of Juan Salao y
Santiago (Juani).
On September 30, 1944 or during the Japanese occupation and
about a year before Ambrosia Salao’s death on September 14,
1945 due to senility (she was allegedly eighty-five years old when
she died), she donated her one-half proindiviso share in the two
fishponds in question to her nephew, Juan S. Salao, Jr. (Juani). At
that time she was living with Juani’s family. He was already the
owner of the other half of the said fishponds, having inherited it
from his father, Juan Y. Salao, Sr. (Banli). The deed of donation
included other pieces of real property owned by Ambrosia. She
reserved for herself the usufruct over the said
75
VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 75

Salao vs. Salao
properties during her lifetime (Exh. 2 or M).

The said deed of donation was registered only on April 5, 1950
(page 39, Defendants’ Record on Appeal).
The lawyer of Benita Salao and the children of Victorina Salao
in a letter dated January 26, 1951 informed Juan S. Salao, Jr. that
his clients had a one-third share in the two fishponds and that
when Juani took possession thereof in 1945, he refused to give
Benita and Victorina’s children their one-third share of the net
fruits which allegedly amounted to P200,000 (Exh. K).
Juan S. Salao, Jr. in his answer dated February 6, 1951
categorically stated that Valentin Salao did not have any interest in
the two fishponds and that the sole owners thereof were his father
Banli and his aunt Ambrosia, as shown in the Torrens titles issued
in 1911 and 1917, and that he (Juani) was the donee of Ambrosia’s
one-half share (Exh. K-1).
Benita Salao and her nephews and niece filed their original
complaint against Juan S. Salao, Jr. on January 9, 1952 in the
Court of First Instance of Bataan (Exh. 36). They amended their
complaint on January 28, 1955. They asked for the annulment of
the donation to Juan S. Salao, Jr. and for the reconveyance to them
of the Calunuran fishpond as Valentin Salao’s supposed one-third
share in the 145 hectares of fishpond registered in the names of
Juan Y. Salao, Sr. and Ambrosia Salao.
Juan S. Salao, Jr. in his answer pleaded as a defense the
indefeasibility of the Torrens title secured by his father and aunt.
He also invoked the Statute of Frauds, prescription and laches. As
counter-claims, he asked for moral damages amounting to
P200,000, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses of not less than

P22,000 and reimbursement of the premiums which he has been
paying on his bond for the lifting of the receivership. Juan S.
Salao, Jr. died in 1958 at the age of seventy-one. He was
substituted by his widow, Mercedes Pascual, and his six children
and by the administrator of his estate.
In the intestate proceedings for the settlement of his estate the
two fishponds in question were adjudicated to his seven legal heirs
in equal shares with the condition that the properties would remain
under administration during the pendency of this case (page 181,
Defendants’ Record on Appeal).
After trial the lower court in its decision consisting of one
hundred ten printed pages dismissed the amended complaint
76

Salao vs. Salao
and the counter-claim. In sixty-seven printed pages it made a

laborious recital of the testimonies of plaintiffs’ fourteen
witnesses, Gregorio Marcelo, Norberto Crisostomo, Leonardo
Mangali, Fidel de la Cruz, Dionisio Manalili, Ambrosio Manalili,
Policarpio Sapno, Elias Manies, Basilio Atienza, Benita Salao,
Emilio Cagui, Damaso de la Peña, Arturo Alcuriza and Francisco
Buensuceso, and the testimonies of defendants’ six witnesses,
Marcos Galicia, Juan Galicia, Tiburcio Lingad, Doctor Wenceslao
Pascual, Ciriaco Ramirez and Pablo P. Salao. (Plaintiffs presented
Regino Nicodemus as a fifteenth witness, a rebuttal witness).
The trial court found that there was no community of property
among Juan Y. Salao, Sr., Ambrosia Salao and Valentin Salao
when the Calunuran and Pinañganacan (Lewa) lands were
acquired; that a co-ownership over the real properties of Valentina
Ignacio existed among her heirs after her death in 1914; that the
co-ownership was administered by Ambrosia Salao and that it
subsisted up to 1918 when her estate was partitioned among her
three children and her grandson, Valentin Salao.
The trial court surmised that the co-ownership which existed
from 1914 to 1918 misled the plaintiffs and their witnesses and
caused them to believe erroneously that there was a co-ownership
in 1905 or thereabouts. The trial court speculated that if Valentin
had a hand in the conversion into fishponds of the Calunuran and
Lewa lands, he must have done so on a salary or profit-sharing
basis. It conjectured that Valentin’s children and grandchildren
were given by Ambrosia Salao a portion of the earnings of the
fishponds as a reward for his services or because of Ambrosia’s

affection for her grandnieces.
The trial court rationalized that Valentin’s omission during his
lifetime to assail the Torrens titles of Juan and Ambrosia signified
that “he was not a co-owner” of the fishponds. It did not give
credence to the testimonies of plaintiffs’ witnesses because their
memories could not be trusted and because no strong documentary
evidence supported the declarations. Moreover, the parties
involved in the alleged trust were already dead.
It also held that the donation was validly executed and that
even if it were void Juan S. Salao, Jr., the donee, would
nevertheless be the sole legal heir of the donor, Ambrosia Salao,
and would inherit the properties donated to him.
77
VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 77

Salao vs. Salao
Both parties appealed. The plaintiffs appealed because their action

for reconveyance was dismissed. The defendants appealed because
their counterclaim for damages was dismissed.
The appeals, which deal with factual and legal issues, were
made to the Court of Appeals. However, as the amounts involved
exceed two hundred thousand pesos, the Court of Appeals elevated
the case to this Court in its resolution of October 3, 1966 (CA-
G.R. No. 30014-R).
Plaintiffs’ appeal.—An appellant’s brief should contain “a
subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the
argument and page references” to the contents of the brief (Sec. 16
[a], Rule 46, 1964 Rules of Court; Sec. 17, Rule 48, 1940 Rules of
Court).
The plaintiffs in their appellants’ brief consisting of 302 pages
did not comply with that requirement. Their statements of the case
and the facts do not contain “page references to the record” as
required in section 16[c] and [d] of Rule 46, formerly section 17,
Rule 48 of the 1940 Rules of Court.
Lawyers for appellants, when they prepare their briefs, would
do well to read and re-read section 16 of Rule 46. If they comply
strictly with the formal requirements prescribed in section 16, they
might make a competent and luminous presentation of their
clients’ case and lighten the burden of the Court.
What Justice Fisher said in 1918 is still true now: “The
pressure of work upon this Court is so great that we cannot, in
justice to other litigants, undertake to make an examination of the
voluminous transcript of the testimony (1,553 pages in this case,

twenty-one witnesses having testified), unless the attorneys who
desire us to make such examination have themselves taken the
trouble to read the record and brief it in accordance with our rules”
(Palarca vs. Baguisi, 38 Phil. 177, 181). As noted in an old case,
this Court decides hundreds of cases every year and in addition
resolves in minute orders an exceptionally considerable number of
petitions, motions and interlocutory matters (Alzua and Arnalot vs.
Johnson, 21 Phil. 308, 395; See In re Almacen, L-27654, February
18, 1970, 31 SCRA 562, 573).
Plaintiffs’ first assignment of error raised a procedural issue. In
paragraphs 1 to 14 of their first cause of action they made certain
averments to establish their theory that Valentin Salao
78

Salao vs. Salao
had a one-third interest in the two fishponds which were registered

in the names of Juan Y. Salao, Sr. (Banli) and Ambrosia Salao.
Juan S. Salao, Jr. (Juani) in his answer “specifically” denied
“each and all the allegations” in paragraphs 1 to 10 and 12 of the
first cause of action with the qualification that Original Certificates
of Title Nos. 185 and 472 were issued “more than 37 years ago” in
the names of Juan (Banli) and Ambrosia under the circumstances
set forth in Juan S. Salao, Jr.’s “positive defenses” and “not under
the circumstances stated in the amended complaint”.
The plaintiffs contend that the answer of Juan S. Salao, Jr. was
in effect an admission of the allegations in their first cause of
action that there was a co-ownership among Ambrosia, Juan,
Alejandra and Valentin, all surnamed Salao, regarding the
Dampalit property as early as 1904 or 1905; that the common
funds were invested in the acquisition of the two fishponds; that
the 47-hectare Calunuran fishpond was verbally adjudicated to
Valentin Salao in the 1919 partition and that there was a verbal
stipulation to register “said lands in the name only of Juan Y.
Salao”.
That contention is unfounded. Under section 6, Rule 9 of the
1940 Rules of Court the answer should “contain either a specific
denial or a statement of matters in avoidance of the cause or
causes of action asserted in the complaint”. Section 7 of the same
rule requires the defendant to “deal specifically with each material
allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and,
whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters
which he will rely upon to support his denial”. “Material

averments in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of
damage, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied”
(Sec. 8). “The defendant may set forth by answer as many
affirmative defenses as he may have. All such grounds of defenses
as would raise issues of fact not arising upon the preceding
pleading must be specifically pleaded” (Sec. 9).
What defendant Juan S. Salao, Jr. did in his answer was to set
forth in his “positive defenses” the matters in avoidance of
plaintiffs’ first cause of action which supported his denials of
paragraphs 4 to 10 and 12 of the first cause of action. Obviously,
he did so because he found it impracticable to state piecemeal his
own version as to the acquisition of the two fishponds or to
79
VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 79

Salao vs. Salao
contradicting the allegations of the first cause of action.

We hold that in doing so he substantially complied with Rule 9
of the 1940 Rules of Court. It may be noted that under the present
Rules of Court a “negative defense is the specific denial of the
material fact or facts alleged in the complaint essential to the
plaintiff’s cause or causes of action”. On the other hand, “an
affirmative defense is an allegation of new matter which, while
admitting the material allegations of the complaint, expressly or
impliedly, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by the
plaintiff.” Affirmative defenses include all matters set up “by way
of confession and avoidance”. (Sec. 5, Rule 6, Rules of Court).
The case of El Hogar Filipino vs. Santos Investments, 74 Phil.
79 and similar cases are distinguishable from the instant case. In
the El Hogar case the defendant filed a laconic answer containing
the statement that it denied “generally and specifically each and
every allegation contained in each and every paragraph of the
complaint”. It did not set forth in its answer any matters by way of
confession and avoidance. It did not interpose any affirmative
defenses.
Under those circumstances, it was held that defendant’s specific
denial was really a general denial which was tantamount to an
admission of the allegations of the complaint and which justified
judgment on the pleadings. That is not the situation in this case.
The other nine assignments of error of the plaintiffs may be
reduced to the decisive issue of whether the Calunuran fishpond
was held in trust for Valentin Salao by Juan Y. Salao, Sr. and
Ambrosia Salao. That issue is tied up with the question of whether

plaintiffs’ action for reconveyance had already prescribed.
The plaintiffs contend that their action is “to enforce a trust
which defendant” Juan S. Salao, Jr. allegedly violated. The
existence of a trust was not definitely alleged in plaintiffs’
complaint. They mentioned trust for the first time on page 2 of
their appellants’ brief.
To determine if the plaintiffs have a cause of action for the
enforcement of a trust, it is necessary to make some exegesis on
the nature of trusts (fideicomisos). Trusts in Anglo-American
jurisprudence were derived from the fideicommissa of the Roman
law (Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Abadilla,
80

Salao vs. Salao
46 Phil. 642, 646).

“In its technical legal sense, a trust is defined as the right,
enforceable solely in equity, to the beneficial enjoyment of
property, the legal title to which is vested in another, but the word
‘trust’ is frequently employed to indicate duties, relations, and
responsibilities which are not strictly technical trusts” (89 C.J.S.
712).
“A person who establishes a trust is called the trustor; one in
whom confidence is reposed as regards property for the benefit of
another person is known as the trustee; and the person for whose
benefit the trust has been created is referred to as the beneficiary”
(Art. 1440, Civil Code). There is a fiduciary relation between the
trustee and the cestui que trust as regards certain property, real,
personal, money or choses in action (Pacheco vs. Arro, 85 Phil.
505).
“Trusts are either express or implied. Express trusts are created
by the intention of the trustor or of the parties. Implied trusts come
into being by operation of law” (Art. 1441, Civil Code). “No
express trusts concerning an immovable or any interest therein
may be proven by parol evidence. An implied trust may be proven
by oral evidence” (Ibid, Arts. 1443 and 1457).
“No particular words are required for the creation of an express
trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended” (Ibid, Art.
1444; Tuason de Perez vs. Caluag, 96 Phil. 981; Julio vs.
Dalandan, L-19012, October 30, 1967, 21 SCRA 543, 546).
“Express trusts are those which are created by the direct and
positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by
words either expressly or impliedly evincing an intention to create

a trust” (89 C.J.S. 722).
“Implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are
deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent, or
which are superinduced on the transaction by operation of law as
matters of equity, independently of the particular intention of the
parties” (89 C.J.S. 724). They are. ordinarily subdivided into
resulting and constructive trusts (89 C.J.S. 722).
“A resulting trust is broadly defined as a trust which is raised or
created by the act or construction of law, but in its more restricted
sense it is a trust raised by implication of law and presumed
always to have been contemplated by the parties’, the
81
VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 81

Salao vs. Salao
intention as to which is to be found in the nature of their

transaction, but not expressed in the deed or instrument of
conveyance (89 C.J.S. 725). Examples of resulting trusts are found
in articles 1448 to 1455 of the Civil Code. (See Padilla vs. Court
of Appeals, L-31569, September 28, 1973, 53 SCRA 168, 179;
Martinez vs. Graño, 42 Phil. 35).
On the other hand, a constructive trust is a trust “raised by
construction of law, or arising by operation of law”. In a more
restricted sense and as contradistinguished from a resulting trust, a
constructive trust is “a trust not created by any words, either
expressly or impliedly evincing a direct intension to create a trust,
but by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of
justice.” It does not arise “by agreement or intention, but by
operation of law.” (89 C.J.S. 726-727).
Thus, “if property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the
person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an
implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property
comes” (Art. 1456, Civil Code).
Or “if a person obtains legal title to property by fraud or
concealment, courts of equity will impress upon the title a so-
called constructive trust in favor of the defrauded party”. Such a
constructive trust is not a trust in the technical sense. (Gayondato
vs. Treasurer of the P. I., 49 Phil. 244).
Not a scintilla of documentary evidence was presented by the
plaintiffs to prove that there was an express trust over the
Calunuran fishpond in favor of Valentin Salao. Purely parol
evidence was offered by them to prove the alleged trust. Their
claim that in the oral partition in 1919 of the two fishponds the
Calunuran fishpond was assigned to Valentin Salao is legally
untenable.
It is legally indefensible because the terms of article 1443 of
the Civil Code (already in force when the action herein was
instituted) are peremptory and unmistakable: parol evidence
cannot be used to prove an express trust concerning realty.
Is plaintiffs’ massive oral evidence sufficient to prove an
implied trust, resulting or constructive, regarding the two
fishponds?
Plaintiffs’ pleadings and evidence cannot be relied upon to
prove an implied trust. The trial court’s firm conclusion that there
was no community of property during the lifetime of
82

Salao vs. Salao
Valentina Ignacio or before 1914 is substantiated by defendants’

documentary evidence. The existence of the alleged co-ownership
over the lands supposedly inherited from Manuel Salao in 1885 is
the basis of plaintiffs’ contention that the Calunuran fishpond was
held in trust for Valentin Salao.
But that co-ownership was not proven by any competent
evidence. It is quite improbable because the alleged estate of
Manuel Salao was likewise not satisfactorily proven. The plaintiffs
alleged in their original complaint that there was a co-ownership
over two hectares of land left by Manuel Salao. In their amended
complaint, they alleged that the co-ownership was over seven
hectares of fishponds located in Barrio Dampalit, Malabon, Rizal.
In their brief they alleged that the fishponds, ricelands and saltbeds
owned in common in Barrio Dampalit had an area of twenty-eight
hectares, of which sixteen hectares pertained to Valentina Ignacio
and eleven hectares represented Manuel Salao’s estate.
They theorized that the eleven hectares “were, and necessarily,
the nucleus, nay the very root, of the property now in litigation
(page 6, plaintiffs-appellants’ brief). But the eleven hectares were
not proven by any trustworthy evidence. Benita Salao’s testimony
that in 1918 or 1919 Juan, Ambrosia, Alejandra and Valentin
partitioned twenty-eight hectares of lands located in Barrio
Dampalit is not credible. As noted by the defendants, Manuel
Salao was not even mentioned in plaintiffs’ complaints.
The 1919 partition of Valentina Ignacio’s estate covered about
seventeen hectares of fishponds and ricelands (Exh. 21). If at the
time that partition was made there were eleven hectares of land in
Barrio Dampalit belonging to Manuel Salao, who died in 1885,
those eleven hectares would have been partitioned in writing as in
the case of the seventeen hectares belonging to Valentina Ignacio’s
estate.
It is incredible that the forty-seven-hectare Calunuran fishpond
would be adjudicated to Valentin Salao mereby by word of mouth.
Incredible because for the partition of the seventeen hectares of
land left by Valentina Ignacio an elaborate “Escritura de Particion”
consisting of twenty-two pages had to be executed by the four
Salao heirs. Surely, for the partition of one hundred forty-five
hectares of fishponds among three of the same Salao heirs an oral
adjudication would not have sufficed.
83
VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 83

Salao vs. Salao
The improbability of the alleged oral partition becomes more

evident when it is borne in mind that the two fishponds were
registered land and “the act of registration” is “the operative act”
that conveys and affects the land (Sec. 50, Act No. 496). That
means that any transaction affecting the registered land should be
evidenced by a registerable deed. The fact that Valentin Salao and
his successors-in-interest, the plaintiffs, never bothered for a
period of nearly forty years to procure any documentary evidence
to establish his supposed interest of participation in the two
fishponds is very suggestive of the absence of such interest.
The matter may be viewed from another angle. As already
stated, the deed of partition for Valentina Ignacio’s estate was
notarized in 1919 (Exh. 21). The plaintiffs assert that the two
fishponds were verbally partitioned also in 1919 and that the
Calunuran fishpond was assigned to Valentin Salao as his share.
Now, in the partition of Valentina Ignacio’s estate, Valentin was
obligated to pay P3,355.25 to Ambrosia Salao. If, according to the
plaintiffs, Ambrosia administered the two fishponds and was the
custodian of its earnings, then it could have been easily stipulated
in the deed partitioning Valentina Ignacio’s estate that the amount
due from Valentin would just be deducted by Ambrosia from his
share of the earnings of the two fishponds. There was no such
stipulation. Not a shred of documentary evidence shows Valentin’s
participation in the two fishponds.
The plaintiffs utterly failed to measure up to the yardstick that a
trust must be proven by clear, satisfactory and convincing
evidence. It cannot rest on vague and uncertain evidence or on

loose, equivocal or indefinite declarations (De Leon vs. Molo-
Peckson, 116 Phil. 1267, 1273).
“ Trust and trustee; establishment of trust by parol evidence; certainty of

proof.—Where a trust is to be established by oral proof, the testimony
supporting it must be sufficiently strong to prove the right of the alleged
beneficiary with as much certainty as if a document proving the trust were
shown. A trust cannot be established, contrary to the recitals of a Torrens
title, upon vague and inconclusive proof.” (Syllabus, Suarez vs.
Tirambulo, 59 Phil. 303).
“ Trusts; evidence needed to establish trust on parol testimony.—In
order to establish a trust in real property by parol evidence, the proof
should be as fully convincing as if the act giving rise to the trust
obligation were proven by an authentic document. Such a trust cannot be
established upon testimony consisting in large part of insecure surmises
based on ancient hearsay.” (Syllabus, Santa
84

Salao vs. Salao
Juana vs. Del Rosario, 50 Phil. 110).
The foregoing rulings are good under article 1457 of the Civil
Code which, as already noted, allows an implied trust to be proven
by oral evidence. Trustworthy oral evidence is required to prove an
implied trust because oral evidence can be easily fabricated.
On the other hand, a Torrens title is generally a conclusive
evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein (Sec. 47,
Act 496). A strong presumption exists that Torrens titles were
regularly issued and that they are valid. In order to maintain an
action for reconveyance, proof as to the fiduciary relation of the
parties must be clear and convincing (Yumul vs. Rivera and Dizon,
64 Phil. 13, 17-18).
The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land.
“Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the
necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the
mirador de su casa, to avoid the possibility of losing his land”
(Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590, 593).
There was no resulting trust in this case because there never
was any intention on the part of Juan Y. Salao, Sr., Ambrosia Salao
and Valentin Salao to create any trust. There was no constructive
trust Decause the registration of the two fishponds in the names of
Juan and Ambrosia was not vitiated by fraud or mistake. This is
not a case where to satisfy the demands of justice it is necessary to

consider the Calunuran fishpond as being held in trust by the heirs
of Juan Y. Salao, Sr. for the heirs of Valentin Salao.
And even assuming that there was an implied trust, plaintiffs’
action is clearly barred by prescription or laches (Ramos vs.
Ramos, L-19872, December 3, 1974, 61 SCRA 284; Quiñiano vs.
Court of Appeals, L-23024, May 31, 1971, 39 SCRA 221; Varsity
Hills, Inc. vs. Navarro, L-30889, February 29, 1972, 43 SCRA
503; Alzona vs. Capunitan and Reyes, 114 Phil. 377).
Under Act No. 190, whose statute of limitation would apply if
there were an implied trust in this case, the longest period of
extinctive prescription was only ten years (Sec. 40; Diaz vs.
Gorricho and Aguado, 103 Phil. 261, 266).
The Calunuran fishpond was registered in 1911. The written
extrajudicial demand for its reconveyance was made by the
plaintiffs in 1951. Their action was filed in 1952 or after the lapse
of more than forty years from the date of registration. The
85
VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 85

Salao vs. Salao
plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-interest, Valentin Salao, slept on

their rights, if they had any rights at all. Vigilanti prospiciunt jura
or the law protects him who is watchful of his rights (92 C.J.S.
1011, citing Esguerra vs. Tecson, 21 Phil. 518, 521).
“Undue delay in the enforcement of a right is strongly
persuasive of a lack of merit in the claim, since it is human nature
for a person to assert his rights most strongly when they are
threatened or invaded”. “Laches or unreasonable delay on the part
of a plaintiff in seeking to enforce a right is not only persuasive of
a want of merit but may, according to the circumstances, be
destructive of the right itself.” (Buenaventura vs. David, 37 Phil.
435, 440-441).
Having reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not
entitled to the reconveyance of the Calunuran fishpond, it is no
longer necessary to pass upon the validity of the donation made by
Ambrosia Salao to Juan S. Salao, Jr. of her one-half share in the
two fishponds. The plaintiffs have no right and personality to
assail that donation.
Even if the donation were declared void, the plaintiffs would
not have any successional rights to Ambrosia’s share. The sole
legal heir of Ambrosia was her nephew, Juan, Jr., her nearest
relative within the third degree. Valentin Salao, if living in 1945
when Ambrosia died, would have been aiso her legal heir, together
with his first cousin, Juan, Jr. (Juani). Benita Salao, the daughter of
Valentin, could not represent him in the succession to the estate of
Ambrosia since in the collateral line, representation takes place
only in favor of the children of brothers or sisters, whether they be
of the full or half blood (Art. 972, Civil Code). The nephew
excludes a grandniece like Benita Salao or great-grandnephews
like the plaintiffs Alcuriza (Pavia vs. Iturralde, 5 Phil. 176).
The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint.
Defendants’ appeal.—The defendants dispute the lower court’s
finding that the plaintiffs filed their action in good faith. The
defendants contend that they are entitled to damages because the
plaintiffs acted maliciously or in bad faith in suing them. They ask
for P25,000 attorney’s fees and litigation expenses and, in
addition, moral damages.
We hold that defendants’ appeal is not meritorious. The record
shows that the plaintiffs presented fifteen witnesses during the
protracted trial of this case which lasted from 1954
86

Salao vs. Salao
to 1959. They fought tenaciously. They obviously incurred

considerable expenses in prosecuting their case. Although their
causes of action turned out to be unfounded, yet the pertinacity
and vigor with which they pressed their claim indicate their
sincerity and good faith.
There is the further consideration that the parties were
descendants of common ancestors, the spouses Manuel Salao and
Valentina Ignacio, and that plaintiffs’ action was based on their
honest supposition that the funds used in the acquisition of the
lands in litigation were earnings of the properties allegedly
inherited from Manuel Salao.
Considering those circumstances, it cannot be concluded with
certitude that plaintiffs’ action was manifestly frivolous or was
primarily intended to harass the defendants. An award for damages
to the defendants does not appear to be just and proper.
The worries and anxiety of a defendant in a litigation that was
not maliciously instituted are not the moral damages contemplated
in the law (Solis & Yarisantos vs. Salvador, L-17022, August 14,
1965, 14 SCRA 887; Ramos vs. Ramos, supra).
The instant case is not among the cases mentioned in articles
2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code wherein moral damages may be
recovered. Nor can it be regarded as analogous to any of the cases

mentioned in those articles.
“The adverse result of an action does not per se make the act
wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of moral damages.
The law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to
litigate; such right is so precious that moral damages may not be
charged on those who may exercise it erroneously.” (Barreto vs.
Arevalo, 99 Phil. 771, 779).
The defendants invoke article 2208 (4) (11) of the Civil Code
which provides that attorney’s fees may be recovered “in case of a
clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff”
(defendant is a plaintiff in his counterclaim) or “in any other case
where the court deems it just and equitable” that attorney’s fees
should be awarded.
But once it is conceded that the plaintiffs acted in good faith in
filing their action there would be no basis for adjudging them
liable to the defendants for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses
(See Rizal Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, L-
23729, May 16, 1967, 20 SCRA 61).
87
VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 87

Salao vs. Salao
It is not sound public policy to set a premium on the right to

litigate. An adverse decision does not ipso facto justify the award
of attorney’s fees to the winning party (Herrera vs. Luy Kim Guan,
110 Phil. 1020, 1028; Heirs of Justiva vs. Gustilo, 61 O. G. 6959).
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. No pronouncement as to
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Antonio, Concepcion Jr. and Martin,

JJ., concur.
Fernando (Chairman, Second Division), J., being out of
the country, did not take part.
Martin, J., was designated to sit in the Second Division.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes.—a) Specific denials and pleas of avoidance.—General

denials have been abolished by the present Rules of Court, and a
defendant is now required to allege all his defenses, both negative
and positive, by specific denials and pleas in avoidance (Rule 9,
secs. 6, 7 and 8), disclosing the true facts in order to prevent
surprise and unfair advantage. Explains Moran (Rules of Court,

1957, Vol. 1, p. 158). “The purpose of requiring the defendant to
make a specific denial is to make him disclose the matters alleged
in the complaint which he sincerely intends to disprove at the trial,
together with the matters which he relies upon to support the
denial. Under the old procedure, the defendant was allowed to
conceal, under a general denial, the true facts of his case and at the
same time compel the proving of facts alleged in the complaint
which he, at the trial, does not even attempt to dispute. He was
thus given the advantage, doubly unfair, of presenting his true
facts only at the trial as a surprise to the plaintiff, and of
compelling the latter to incur unnecessary expenses for proving
facts not really disputed by him. The new system of specific denial
removes this unfair advantage, unnecessary expenses and waste of
time, by compelling both parties to lay their cards on the table,
thus reducing the controversy to its true terms.” (Diñoso vs. CA
and Fontillas, L-17738, April 22, 1963).
b) Attorney’s fees and the light to litigate.—It is not sound
public policy to place a penalty on the right to litigate. To compel
the defeated party to pay the fees of counsel for his successful
opponent would throw wide the door of temptation to
88

Recto vs. De la Rosa
the opposing party and his counsel to swell the fees to undue
proportions, and to apportion them arbitrarily between those
pertaining properly to one branch of the case from the other. (Tan
Ti vs. Alvear, No. 8228, January 16, 1914).
c) Laches.—It must be remembered that generally, courts
cannot dispense justice motu proprio, but same must be sought for
in accordance with the proper procedure prescribed by law. The
law does not encourage laches, indifference, negligence or
ignorance. On the contrary, for a party to deserve the consideration
of the courts, he must not only show that he is entitled to the relief
prayed for, but must show also that he is not guilty of any of the
aforementioned failings. (Samson vs. Yatco, L-12084, August 25,
1958)
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

3 Salao V Salao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Salao V Salao

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

3 Salao V Salao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 070

VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 65

BENITA SALAO, assisted by her husband, GREGORIO

66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pleadings and practice; Effect of pleadings; Rule 9 of the 1940 Rules

complaint, other than those as to the amount of damage, shall be deemed

VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 67

Salao vs. Salao

Same; Reconveyance; Proof as to ﬁduciary relation of parties must

68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salao vs. Salao

VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 69

Salao vs. Salao

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salao vs. Salao

title.—A Torrens title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Bataan.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This litigation regarding a forty-seven-hectare ﬁshpond located at

owned by her co-owner, Josefa Sta. Ana

VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 71

(2) Fishpond inherited from her parents .............................. 7,418

To each of the legal heirs of Valentina Ignacio was adjudicated a

P5,365.75. That arrangement, which was obviously intended to

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

her administration “en consideración al resultado satisfactorio de

the Calunuran ﬁshpond in 1911 they exercised dominical rights

VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 73

After the ﬁshpond was redeemed from Villongco or on June 8,

solicitado a nombre de Juan Salao, mayor de edad y de estado

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Juan Y. Salao, Sr. died on November 3, 1931 at the age of eighty

VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 75

properties during her lifetime (Exh. 2 or M).

P200,000, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses of not less than

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

and the counter-claim. In sixty-seven printed pages it made a

ﬁshponds as a reward for his services or because of Ambrosia’s

VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 77

Both parties appealed. The plaintiffs appealed because their action

voluminous transcript of the testimony (1,553 pages in this case,

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

had a one-third interest in the two ﬁshponds which were registered

which he will rely upon to support his denial”. “Material

VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 79

contradicting the allegations of the ﬁrst cause of action.

Ambrosia Salao. That issue is tied up with the question of whether

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

46 Phil. 642, 646).

words either expressly or impliedly evincing an intention to create

VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 81

intention as to which is to be found in the nature of their

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Valentina Ignacio or before 1914 is substantiated by defendants’

VOL. 70, MARCH 16, 1976 83

The improbability of the alleged oral partition becomes more

evidence. It cannot rest on vague and uncertain evidence or on

“ Trust and trustee; establishment of trust by parol evidence; certainty of

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED