Salao v Salao, 70 SCRA 65

Facts:
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.
After Valentina’s death, her estate was administered by her daughter Ambrosia.
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
The property in question is the forty-seven-hectare fishpond located at Sitio Calunuran, Lubao,
Pampanga, wherein Benita Salao-Marcelo daughter of Valentin Salao claimed 1/3 interest on
the said fishpond.
The defendant Juan Y. Salao Jr. inherited from his father Juan Y. Salao, Sr. ½ of the fishpond
and the other half from the donation of his auntie Ambrosia Salao.
It was alleged in the said case that Juan Y. Salao, Sr and Ambrosia Salao had engaged in the
fishpond business. Where they obtained the capital and 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.
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, in which he refused to give Benita and
Victorina’s children their one-third share of the net fruits which allegedly amounted to P200,000.
However, there was no mention on the deeds as to the share of Valentin and Alejandra.

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 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.
Benita Salao and her nephews and niece 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.

Issue :
Whether or not the Calunuran fishpond was held in trust for Valentin Salao by Juan Y. Salao, Sr.
and Ambrosia Salao.
Whether or not plaintiffs’ action for reconveyance had already prescribed.
Held:
1. 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 because 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 ” being held in trust by the heirs of
Juan Y. Salao, Sr. for the heirs of Valentin Salao.
Ratio:
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.
The plaintiffs utterly failed to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. It cannot rest
on vague and uncertain evidence or on loose, equivocal or indefinite declarations.
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.
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 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 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.
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”.
2. Reconveyance had already prescribed. Plaintiffs’ action is clearly barred by prescription or
laches.
Ratio:
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 year.
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 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.”
Having reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reconveyance of the
Calunuran fishpond, it is no longer 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 assil 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 also 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 is (Art 972, Civil Code). The nephew excludes a
grandniece like Benita Salao or great-gandnephews like the plaintiffs Alcuriza (Pavia vs.
Iturralde 5 Phil. 176).