Case Digest: Julio v. Dalandan, G.R. No. L-19012

Julio v. Dalandan, G.R. No. L-19012, October 20, 1967

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

Clemente Dalandan, deceased father of defendants Emiliano and Maria Dalandan, acknowledged that a four-hectare piece of riceland in Las Piñas, Rizal belonging to Victoriana Dalandan, whose only child and heir is plaintiff Victoria Julio, was posted as security for an obligation which he, Clemente Dalandan, assumed but, however, failed to fulfill. The result was that Victoriana's said land was foreclosed.

On September 8, 1950, the deceased, Clemente Dalandan, father of the defendants executed an affidavit attesting the following facts: (a) that he owed someone a sum of money; (b) that as security thereof, he gave a parcel of land to the creditor; (c) that in view of his failure to pay the debt, the mortgage was foreclosed; (d) that he felt bound by such foreclosure; and (e)that he therefore promise to replace said land by another lot or farm of approximately the same area on the condition that his children should not be forced to give the harvest, and on the further condition that substitution should not be required immediately. These was accepted by Victoriana Dalandan.

The present case was instituted by the creditor to declare him owner of the land, and to fix the period for the delivery of the land to him. A motion to dismiss was filed on the ground of prescription, more than ten years having elapsed.

ISSUE

Whether or not the action by the creditor prescribed.

RULING

No, the action by the creditor did not prescribe.

Under the law (Art 1444, NCC), no particular words are required for the creation of an express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended.

In this case, the action did not prescribe because: first, the naked ownership of the land passed to the creditor, while the usufruct remained with the children of the deceased affiant for an undetermined period of time. The children are deemed to have held the land as trustees of the creditor. In view of the creation of the express trust, it is clear that no period of prescription is involved, the recovery being imprescriptible; and second, assuming that there is no trust involved in this case, the period of prescription, under the facts, a term of 30 years.