/---!e-brary! 6.0 Phppnes Copyrght 2000 by Sony Vadez---\ |1974V432| EMILIANO B. RAMOS, ET AL., panths-appeants, vs. GREGORIA T. RAMOS, ET AL., defendants-appeants.1974 Dec 32nd DvsonG.R. No. L-19872D E C I S I O NAOUINO, |:The partes appeaed from the decson of the Court of Frst Instance of Negros Occdenta, dsmssng panths' compant and hodng that the ntestate estate of Martn Ramos was setted n Cv Case No. 217, whch was termnated on March 4, 1914, and that the |udgment theren s res |udcata and bars any tgaton regardngthe same estate (Cv Case No. 4522).The documentary evdence reveas the foowng facts:The spouses Martn Ramos and Candda Tanate ded on October 4, 1906 and October 26, 1888, respectvey. They were survved by ther three egtmate chdren named |ose, Agustn and Granada. Martn Ramos was aso survved by hs seven natura chdren named Atanaca, Tmoteo, Modesto, Manue, Emano, Mara and Federco.On December 10, 1906 a speca proceedng was nsttuted n the Court of Frst Instance of Negros Occdenta for the settement of the ntestate estate of the sad spouses. The case was docketed as Cv Case No. 217 (ts expedente s st exstng). Rafae O. Ramos, a brother of Martn, was apponted admnstrator. The estate was admnstered for more than sx years (Exh. F, G, H, I and |).A pro|ect of partton dated Apr 25, 1913 was submtted. It was sgned by the threeegtmate chdren, |ose, Agustn and Granada; by the two natura chdren, Atanacaand Tmoteo, and by Tmoteo Zayco n representaton of the other ve natura chdren who were mnors. It was sworn to before the |ustce of the peace (Exh. 3).In the pro|ect of partton the con|uga heredtary estate was apprased at P74,984.93. It conssted of eghteen parces of and, some head of catte and the advances to the egtmate chdren (Exh. 3).Under that pro|ect of partton, the foowng ad|udcatons were made to the hers:Legtmate chdren: Vaue1. To |ose Ramos: (a) HacendaCaaza wth an area of 328 hectares,(b) a one-hectare town ot, (c) a23-hectare ot n Sto Bgg, and(d) some head of catteP25,291.662.To Granada Ramos: (a) aparce of rceand wth a capactyof 16 cavans of seedngs, ocatedn Barro Bncue, Kabankaan,Negros Occdenta and (b) somehead of catte1,891.66.3.To Agustn Ramos: (a) theremanng fourteen (14) ots out ofthe eghteen ots descrbed n thenventory, whch ncuded the HacendaYaya wth an area of 185 hectares and(b) some head of catte36,291.68 Natura chdren:4.To each of the seven (7) naturachdren named Atanaca, Modesto,Tmoteo, Federco, Manue, Emanoand Mara, were ad|udcated personapropertes vaued at P1785.35 consstngof (a) cash amountng to P1,760.35 and(b) P25, representng a one-seventh (1/7)of a one-sxth (1/6) porton n certan headof catte aegedy representng one-thrdof the free porton of the estate of MartnRamos, wth an aggregate vaue of12.497.51Tota ad|udcatons P75,972.51It was agreed n the pro|ect of partton that |ose Ramos woud pay the cash ad|udcatons to Atanaca, Tmoteo and Manue, whe Agustn Ramos woud pay the cash ad|udcatons to Modesto, Federco, Emano and Mara. It was further agreed that |ose Ramos and Agustn Ramos woud pay ther sster, Granada, the sums of P3,302.36 and P14,213,78, respectvey (Exh. 3).The record does not show whether assessed or market vaues were used n apprasng the eghteen parces of and. By way of expanaton, t may be stated that, nasmuch as the gananca estate had an apprased vaue of P74,984.93, one-haf thereof or the sum of P37,492.46 represented the estate of Martn Ramos. One-thrd thereof was the free porton or P12,497.48. The shares of the seven natura chdren were to be taken from that one-thrd free porton. Dvdng P12,497.48 by seven gves a resut of P1,785.35 whch represented the one-seventh share of each natura chd n the free porton of the estate of ther putatve father, Martn Ramos. The partton was made n accordance wth the od Cv Code whch provdes:"ART. 840. When the testator eaves egtmate chdren or descendants, and aso natura chdren, egay acknowedged, each of the atter sha be entted to one-haf of the porton pertanng to each of the egtmate chdren not bettered, provded that t can be ncuded wthn the thrd for free dsposa, from whch t mustbe taken, after deductng the bura and funera expenses."The egtmate chdren may satsfy the porton pertanng to the natura chdren n cash, or n other property of the estate, at a far vauaton."The sum of P1,785.35, as the ega share of each natura chd, was the amount whch was ndcated n the pro|ect of partton (Exh. 3) and whch was to be satsedn cash. The second paragraph of artce 840 gves the egtmate chdren the rght to satsfy n cash the heredtary portons of the natura chdren. (Artce 840 was apped n the pro|ect of partton when t stated that each natura chd had "una septma parte de un sexto de semoventes" but the statement n the pro|ect of partton that each egtmate chd was entted to "un terco de os cnco quntos de os semoventes" s erroneous. It shoud be "un terco de os cnco sextos de os semoventes").|udge Rchard Campbe, n hs "decson" dated Apr 28, 1913, approved the pro|ectof partton as we as the nterventon of Tmoteo Zayco as guardan of the ve hers, who were mnors. The court decared that the proceedng woud be consdered cosed and the record shoud be archved as soon as proof was submtted that each her had receved the porton ad|udcated to hm (Exh. 4).In an order dated February 3, 1914 |udge V. Nepomuceno asked the admnstrator tosubmt a report, compete wth the supportng evdence, showng that the shares of the hers had been devered to them as requred n the decson of Apr 28, 1913 (Exh. 5). In a manfestaton dated February 24, 1914, whch was sgned by |ose, Agustn, Granada, Atanaca and Tmoteo, a surnamed Ramos, and by Tmoteo Zayco, the guardan, and whch was sworn to before the |ustce of the peace on March 2 (not 4), 1914 and ed n court on March 5, 1914, they acknowedged:". . . hemos recbdo de Admnstrador |udca Rafae O. Ramos todas y cada una de as partcpacones a que respectvamente tenemos derecho en os benes rectos de os nados esposos Martn Ramos y Candda Tanate, de competo acuerdo y conformdad con e proyecto de repartcon que nosotros msmo sometemos a |uzgado en 25 de Abr de 1913 . . .." (Exh. 6).Note that Granada Ramos and the natura chdren were assumed to have receved ther shares from the admnstrator athough accordng to the ob|ect of partton, |ose Ramos and Agustn Ramos (not the admnstrator) were supposed to pay the cash ad|udcatons to each of them. No recepts were attached to the manfestaton,Exhbt 6. Apparenty, the manfestaton was not n strct conformty wth the terms of |udge Nepomuceno's order and wth the pro|ect of partton tsef.Lots Nos. 1370, 1371, 1372, 1375, 2158, 2159, 2161 and 2163 (eght ots) of the Hmamayan cadastre (page 8 of the Record on Appea does; not menton Lot 1370),whch are nvoved n ths case were regstered (as of 1958) n equa shares n the names of Gregora Ramos and her daughter, Granada Ramos, as shown beow (Exh. 8):OrgnaLot No.RegstratonPresent tte Date1370Aug. 29, 1923TCT No. RT-2238 Dec. 1, 19331371 do TCT No. RT-2235 do 1372 do TCT No. RT-2237 do 1375 do TCT No. RT-2236 do 2158 Sept. 10, 1923TCT No. RT-2230do 2159 do TCT No. RT-2233do2161 do TCT No. RT-2232do2163 do TCT No. RT-2231doPanths' verson of the case. - A summary of panths' ora evdence s found n pages 4 to 13 of ther we-wrtten bref. It s reproduced beow (omttng the ctatons of the transcrpt):"Martn Ramos, who ded n 1906 n the muncpaty of Hmamayan, Negros Occdenta, eft consderabe rea estate, the most vauabe of whch were the Hacenda Caaza and Hacenda Yaya, both ocated n Hmamayan, Negros Occdenta. Hacenda Caaza conssts of sugar and, paay and and npa groves wth an area of 400 hectares and wth a sugar quota aotment of 10,000 pcus, more or ess, and havng as ts present actua vaue P500,000 more or ess."A the chdren of Martn Ramos, whether egtmate or acknowedged natura, vedtogether n Hacenda Yaya durng hs fetme and were under hs care. Even defendant Gregora Ramos, wdow of |ose Ramos, admtted that she deat wth panths as famy reatons, especay seeng them durng Sundays n church as they ved wth ther father, and mantaned cose and harmonous reatons wth them even after the death of ther father. A sad chdren contnued to ve n sad house of ther father for years even after hs death."Upon ther father's death, hs propertes were eft under the admnstraton of Rafae Ramos, the younger brother of ther father and ther unce. Rafae Ramos contnued to admnster those propertes of ther father, gvng panths money as ther shares of the produce of sad propertes but panths not recevng any property or pece of and however, unt 1913 when Rafae Ramos gathered a the hers, ncudng panths, n the house of ther father, sayng he woud return the admnstraton of the propertes. He turned over Hacenda Yaya to Agustn Ramos and Hacenda Caaza to |ose Ramos."A sad chdren, defendants and panths ake, contnued to ve n the same house of ther father n Hacenda Yaya, now under the support of Agustn Ramos. Panth Modesto Ramos who 'coud understand Spansh a tte', ony eft sad house n 1911; panth Manue stayed there for one year and ved ater wth |ose Ramos for four years. Panth Mara Ramos, who hersef tested that she has 'a very ow educatona attanment', ved there unt 1916 when she got marred. Panth Emano ved there wth Agustn, hepng hm supervse the work n Hacenda Yaya,unt he transferred to Hacenda Caaza where he heped |ose Ramos supervse the work n sad hacenda."Agustn Ramos supported panths, gettng the money from the produce of Hacenda Yaya, the ony source of ncome of Agustn comng from sad hacenda. Panths asked money from Agustn pertanng to ther share n the produce of Hacenda Yaya and receved vared amounts, sometmes around P50 at a tme, gettng more when needed, and recevng P90 or P100 more or ess a year."|ose Ramos gave panths aso money as ther shares from the products of Hacenda Caaza. Even Mara Ramos who upon her marrage n 1916 ved n La Carota wth her husband was gven money whenever she went to Hmamayan. Panths receved vared amounts or sums of money from |ose as ther shares n theproduce of Hacenda Yaya more or ess about P100 a year, mosty durng the mng season every year whe he was ave up to hs death n 1930. Emano Ramos, now deceased and substtuted by hs wdow, Rosaro Tragco, moreover, receved P300 from |ose Ramos n 1918 taken from the products of Hacenda Caazawhen he went to the Unted States to study."Upon |ose Ramos death hs wdow Gregora Ramos, hersef, hs rst cousn, ther father and mother, respectvey beng brother and sster, contnued to gve panthsmoney pertanng to ther shares n the products of Hacenda Caaza. She however stopped dong so n 1951, teng them that the essee Estansao Lacson was not abe to pay the ease renta."There was never any accountng made to panths by |ose Ramos, panths reposng condence n ther eder brother. Nor was any accountng made by hs wdow, defendant Gregora Ramos, upon hs death, panth Manue Ramos moreover havng condence n her."Before the survey of these propertes by the Cadastra Court, panth Modesto Ramos was nformed by the Surveyng Department that they were gong to survey these propertes. Panths then went to see ther eder brother |ose to nform hm that there was a card ssued to them regardng the survey and gave hm 'a free hand to do somethng as an admnstrator'. They therefore dd not ntervene n the sad cadastra proceedngs because they were promsed that they (defendants |ose and Agustn) woud 'be the ones responsbe to have t regstered n the names of the hers'. Panths dd not e any cadastra answer because defendants |ose and Agustn tod them 'not to worry about t as they have to answer for a the hers'. Panths were 'assured' by defendants brothers."Panths dd not know that ntestate proceedngs were nsttuted for the dstrbuton of the estate of ther father. Nether dd panths Modesto, Manue, Emano and Mara know (that) Tmoteo Zayco, ther unce and brother-n-aw of defendant wdow Gregora was apponted ther guardan. There was an express admsson by defendant Gregora Ramos that Tmoteo Zayco was her brother-n-aw."Panths dd not know of any proceedngs of Cv Case No. 217. They never receved any sum of money n cashthe aeged nsgncant sum of P1,785.35 eachfrom sad aeged guardan as ther supposed share n, the estate of ther father under any aeged pro|ect of partton."Nether dd Atanaca Ramos nor her, husband, Nestor Omedo, sgn any pro|ect of partton or any recept of share n (the) nhertance of Martn Ramos n cash. Nestor Omedo dd not sgn any recept aegedy contanng the sgnatures of Atanaca asssted by hmsef as husband, Tmoteo Ramos, and Tmoteo Zayco as guardan ad-tem of the mnors Modesto, Manua, Federco, Emano and Mara. As a matter of fact panths Modesto and Manue were n 1913 no onger mnors at the tme of the aeged pro|ect of partton of the estate beng approved, both beng of age at that tme. No guardan coud n aw act on ther behaf."Panths ony dscovered ater on that the property admnstered by ther eder brother |ose had a Torrens Tte n the name of hs wdow, Gregora, and daughter, Candda, when panth Modesto's chdren nssted and nqured from the Regster ofDeeds sometme n 1956 or 1957. Panths dd not ntervene n the ntestate proceedngs for (the) settement of the estate of ther brother |ose as they dd not know of t."Panths were thus constraned to brng the present sut before the Court of Frst Instance of Negros Occdenta on September 5, 1957 seekng for the reconveyance n ther favor by defendants Gregora and daughter Candda and husband |ose Bayotof ther correspondng partcpatons n sad parces of and n accordance wth artce 840 of the od Cv Code and attorney's fees n the sum of P10,000 pus costsand expenses of ths tgaton". (4-13 Bref).Proceedngs n the ower court.The nstant acton was ed on September 5, 1957 aganst defendants Agustn Ramos, Granada Ramos and the hers of |ose Ramos for the purpose of securng a reconveyance of the supposed partcpatons of panths Atanaca, Emano, Manue, Mara and Modesto, a surnamed Ramos, n the aforementoned eght (8) ots whch apparenty form part of Hacenda Caaza. (The panths dd not specfy that the sad shares woud amount to one-sxth of the sad eght cadastra ots. One-sxth represented the one-thrd free porton of Martn Ramos' one-haf shares n the sad ots. And the sad one-sxth porton was the shareof hs seven egay- acknowedged natura chdren under artce 840 of the od Cv Code).The acton s reay drected aganst the hers of |ose Ramos, namey, hs wfe Gregora and hs daughter Candda n whose names the sad eght ots are now regstered as shown n Exhbt 8 and n page 4 hereof. It s predcated on the theory that panths' shares were hed n trust by the defendants. No deed of trust was aeged and proven.The defendants dened the exstence of a trust. They peaded the defenses of (a) reease of cam as shown n the pro|ect of partton, the decson and the recept of shares formng part of the expedente of Cv Case No. 217 (Exh. 3, 4 and 6), ack ofcause of acton, (c) res |udcata and (d) prescrpton.Tmoteo Ramos, who was |oned as a co-panth, manfested that he had aready receved hs own share of the nhertance, that he dd not authorze anyone to ncude hm as a panth and that he dd not want to be a party n ths case. He moved that hs name be strcken out of the compant (44-45 Rec. or Appea; Exh. 7).Emano Ramos, who ded n 1958, was substtuted by hs wdow and ther ten chdren (Exh. E, 61-64 Rec. on Appea). The compant s sent as to the fate of Federco Ramos, the seventh natura chd of Martn Ramos.As aready noted, after tra, the ower court dsmssed the compant on the ground of res |udcata. The panths as we as the defendants appeaed.Panths' appea. The panths contend that the tra court erred (1) n dsmssng ther compant, (2) n denyng ther rght to share n ther father's estate and (3) n hodng that the acton was barred by res |udcata or the pror |udgment n the speca proceedng for the settement of Martn Ramos' ntestate estate, Cv Case No. 217 of the Court of Frst Instance of Negros Occdenta, Abntesdado de os nados esposos Martn Ramos y Candda Tanate (Exh. F to | and 1 to 6).The panths vgorousy press on ths Court ther theory that the panths, as acknowedged natura chdren, were grevousy pre|udced by the partton and that the doctrne of res |udcata shoud not bar ther acton.A premnary ssue, whch shoud rst be resoved, s the correctness of the tra court's "nexorabe concuson" that the panths were the egay acknowedged natura chdren of Martn Ramos. Panths' acton s anchored on that premse.The defendants faed to mpugn that concuson n ther appeants' bref. Not havng done so, t may be regarded as concusve aganst them. That s the proposton advanced by the panths n ther repy-bref.The defendants n ther appeees' bref assa that concuson. It s true that an appeee may make an assgnment of error n hs bref but that rue refers to an appeee who s not an appeant (Saenz vs. Mtche, 60 Ph. 69, 80). However, sncean appeee s aowed to pont out the errors commtted by the tra court aganst hm (Reatvo vs. Castro, 76 Ph. 563, Lucero vs. De Guzman, 45 Ph. 852), defendants' contenton that the panths were not egay acknowedged natura chdren may |ust as we be passed upon.The defendants, n contestng the ower court's ndng that the panths were egay acknowedged chdren, assume that the egtmate chdren commtted a mstake n conferrng successona rghts on the panths.We hod that the tra court's concuson s correct. It s true that the acknowedgement of the panths s not evdenced by a record of brth, w or other pubc document (Art. 131, Od Cv Code). But the record of Cv Case No. 217, whch s reed upon by the defendants to support ther defense of res |udcata, ndubtaby shows that the panths were treated as acknowedged natura chdren of Martn Ramos. The reasonabe nference s that they were n the contnuous possesson of the status of natura chdren of Martn Ramos, as evdenced by hs drect acts and the acts of hs famy (Art. 135, Od Cv Code).Unacknowedged natura chdren have no rghts whatsoever (Buenaventura vs. Urbano, 5 Ph. 1; Sguong vs. Sguong, 8 Ph. 5, 11; Infante vs. Fgueras, 4 Ph. 738; Crsoo vs. Macadaeg, 94 Ph. 862). The fact that the panths, as natura chdren of Martn Ramos, receved shares n hs estate mpes that they were acknowedged. Obvousy, defendants Agustn Ramos and Granada Ramos and the ate |ose Ramos accorded successona rghts to the panths because Martn Ramosand members of hs famy had treated them as hs chdren. Presumaby, that fact was we-known n the communty. Under the crcumstances, Agustn Ramos and Granada Ramos and the hers of |ose Ramos are estopped from attackng panths' status as acknowedged natura chdren (See Arts. 283|4| and 2266|3|, New Cv Code).Even the ower court, after treatng the panths n 1913 n the ntestate proceedngas acknowedged natura chdren, had no choce but to reamrm that same hodng n ts 1961 decson n ths case.The cruca ssue s prescrpton. Wth t the questons of res |udcata and the exstence of a trust are nextrcaby nterwoven. Inasmuch as trust s the man thrustof panths' acton, t w be usefu to make a bref dgresson on the nature of trusts( decomsos) and on the avaabty of prescrpton and aches to bar the acton forreconveyance of property aegedy hed n trust."In ts technca ega sense, a trust s dened as the rght, enforceabe soey n equty, to the beneca en|oyment of property, the ega tte to whch s vested n another, but the word 'trust' s frequenty empoyed to ndcate dutes, reatons, andresponsbtes whch are not strcty technca trusts." (89 C.|.S. 712)."A person who estabshes a trust s caed the trustor; one n whom condence s reposed s known as the trustee; and the person for whose benet the trust has been created s referred to as the benecary" (Art. 1440, Cv Code). There s a ducary reaton between the trustee and the cestu que trust as regards certan property, rea, persona, money or choses n acton (Pacheco vs. Arro, 85 Ph. 505)."Trusts are ether express or mped. Express trusts are created by the ntenton of the trustor or of the partes. Imped trusts come nto beng by operaton of aw" (Art. 1441, Cv Code). "No express trusts concernng an mmovabe or any nterest theren may be proven by ora evdence. An mped trust may be proven by ora evdence" (Ibd, Arts. 1443 and 1457)."No partcuar words are requred for the creaton of an express trust, t beng sumcent that a trust s ceary ntended" (Ibd, Art. 1444; Tuason de Perez vs. Cauag, 96 Ph. 981; |uo vs. Daandan, L-19012, October 30, 1967, 21 SCRA 543, 546). "Express trusts are those whch are created by the drect and postve acts of the partes, by some wrtng or deed, or w, or by words ether expressy or mpedy evncng an ntenton to create a trust" (89 C.|.S. 122)."Imped trusts are those whch, wthout beng expressed, are deducbe from the nature of the transacton as matters of ntent, or whch are supernduced on the transacton by operaton of aw as matters of equty, ndependenty of the partcuarntenton of the partes" (89 C.|.S. 724). They are ordnary subdvded nto resutngand constructve trusts (89 C.|.S. 722)."A resutng trust s broady dened as a trust whch s rased or created by the act or constructon of aw, but n ts more restrcted sense t s a trust rased by mpcaton of aw and presumed aways to have been contempated of the partes, the ntenton as to whch s to he found n the nature of ther transacton, but not expressed n the deed or nstrument of conveyance" (89 C.|.S. 725). Exampes of resutng trusts are found n artce 1448 to 1455 of the Cv Code. See Pada vs. Court of Appeas, L-31569, September 28, 1973, 53 SCRA 168, 179).On the other hand, a constructve trust s a trust "rased by constructon of aw, or arsng by operaton of aw". In a more restrcted sense and as contradstngushed from a resutng trust, a constructve trust s "a trust not created by any words, ether expressy or mpedy evncng a drect ntenton to create a trust, but by the constructon of equty n order to satsfy the demands of |ustce. It does not arse by agreement or ntenton but by operaton of aw." (89 C.|.S. 726-727). "If a person obtans ega tte to property by fraud or conceament, courts of equty w mpress upon the tte a so-caed constructve trust n favor of the defrauded party." A constructve trust s not a trust n the technca sense (Gayondato vs. Treasurer of the P.I., 49 Ph. 244; See Art. 1456, Cv Code).There s a rue that a trustee cannot acqure by prescrpton the ownershp of property entrusted to hm (Pama vs. Crstoba, 77 Ph. 712), or that an acton to compe a trustee to convey property regstered n hs name n trust for the benet of the cestu qu trust does not prescrbe (Manaang vs. Canas, 94 Ph. 776; Crstoba vs. Gomez, 50 Ph. 810), or that the defense of prescrpton cannot be set up n an acton to recover property hed by a person n trust for the benet of another (Seva vs. De os Angees, 97 Ph. 875), or that property hed n trust can be recovered by the benecary regardess of the apse of tme (Marabes vs. Outo,100 Ph. 64; Bancaren vs. Dones, 98 Ph. 122, 126 |uan vs. Zuga, 62 O.G. 1351; 4 SCRA 1221; |acnto vs. |acnto, L-17957, May 31, 1962. See Tamayo vs. Cae|o, 147 Ph. 31, 37).That rue appes squarey to express trusts. The bass of the rue s that the possesson of a trustee s not adverse. Not beng adverse, he does not acqure by prescrpton the property hed n trust. Thus, secton 38 of Act 190 provdes that the aw of prescrpton does not appy "n the case of a contnung and subsstng trust" (Daz vs. Gorrcho and Aguado, 103 Ph. 261, 266; Laguna vs. Levantno, 71 Ph. 566; Sumra vs. Vstan, 74 Ph. 138; Gofeo vs. Court of Appeas, 63 O.G. 4895, 12 SCRA 199; Caadao vs. Santos, 63 O.G. 1956, 10 SCRA 691).The rue of mprescrptbty of the acton to recover property hed n trust may possby appy to resutng trusts as ong as the trustee has not repudated the trust (Hers of Candeara vs. Romero, 109 Ph. 500, 502-3; Martnez vs. Grao, 42 Ph. 35; Buencamno vs. Matas, 63 O. G. 11033, 16 SCRA 849).The rue of mprescrptbty was msapped to constructve trusts (Geronmo and Isdoro vs. Nava and Aquno, 105 Ph. 145, 153. Compare wth Cuson vs. Fernandezand Bengzon, 105 Ph. 135, 139; De Pason vs. De Pason, 112 Ph. 403, 407).Acqustve prescrpton may bar the acton of the benecary aganst the trustee n an express trust for the recovery of the property hed n trust where (a) the trustee has performed unequvoca acts of repudaton amountng to an ouster of the cestu qu trust; (b) such postve acts of repudaton have been made known to the cestu qu trust and (c) the evdence thereon s cear and concusve (Laguna vs. Levantno,supra; Sanas vs. Tuason, 55 Ph. 729. Compare wth the rue regardng co-owners found n the ast paragraph of artce 494, Cv Code; Casaas vs. Roseo, 50 Ph. 97; Gerona vs. De Guzman, L-19060, May 29, 1964, 11 SCRA 153, 157).Wth respect to constructve trusts, the rue s dherent. The prescrptbty of an acton for reconveyance based on constructve trust s now setted (Azona vs. Capuntan, L-10228, February 28, 1962, 4 SCRA 450; Gerona vs. De Guzman, supra; Cardad vs. Henares, 97 Ph. 973; Gonzaes vs. |menez, L-19073, |anuary 30, 1965,13 SCRA 80; Boaga vs. Soer, 112 Ph. 651; |. M. Tuason & Co., vs. Magdanga, L-15539, |anuary 30, 1962, 4 SCRA 84). Prescrpton may supervene n an mped trust (Bueno vs. Reyes, L-22587, Apr 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 1179; Faban vs. Faban, L-20449, |anuary 29, 1968; |acnto vs. |acnto, L-17957, May 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 371).And whether the trust s resutng or constructve, ts enforcement may be barred byaches (90 C.|.S. 887-889; 54 Am |ur. 449-450; Daz vs. Gorrcho and Aguado, supra. Compare wth Me|a vs. Gampona, 100 Ph. 277).The panths dd not prove any express trust n ths case. The expedente of the ntestate proceedng, Cv Case No. 217, partcuary the pro|ect of partton, the decson and the manfestaton as to the recept of shares (Exh. 3, 4 and 6) negatves the exstence of an express trust. Those pubc documents prove that the estate of Martn Ramos was setted n that proceedng and that ad|udcatons were made to hs seven natura chdren. A trust must be proven by cear, satsfactory, and convncng evdence. It cannot rest on vague and uncertan evdence or on oose, equvoca or ndente decaratons (De Leon vs. Peckson, 62 O. G. 994). As aready noted, an express trust cannot be proven by paro evdence (Pascua vs. Meneses, L-18838, May 25, 1967, 20 SCRA 219, 228; Cuaycong vs. Cuaycong, L-21616, December 11, 1967, 21 SCRA 1192).Nether have the panths speced the knd of mped trust contempated n ther acton. We have stated that whether t s a resutng or constructve trust, ts enforcement may be barred by aches.In the cadastra proceedngs, whch supervened after the cosure of the ntestate proceedng, the eght ots nvoved heren were camed by the spouses |ose Ramos and Gregora T. Ramos to the excuson of the panths (Exh. 8 to 19). After the death of |ose Ramos, the sad ots were ad|udcated to hs wdow and daughter (Exh.8). In 1932 Gregora T. Ramos and Candda Ramos eased the sad ots to Fex Yuo (Exh. 20). Yuo n 1934 transferred hs ease rghts over Hacenda Caaza to |uan S. Bonn and Nestor Omedo, the husband of panth Atanaca Ramos (Exh. 22). Bonn and Omedo n 1935 sod ther ease rghts over Hacenda Caaza to |esus S. Consng(Exh. 23).Those transactons prove that the hers of |ose Ramos had repudated any trust whch was supposedy consttuted over Hacenda Caaza n favor of the panths.Under Act 190, whose statute of mtatons appes to ths case (Art. 1116, Cv Code), the ongest perod of extnctve prescrpton was ony ten years (Daz vs. Gorrcho and Aguado, supra.).Atanaca, Modesto and Manue, a surnamed Ramos, were aready of age n 1914 (Exh. A to D). From that year, they coud have brought the acton to annu the partton. Mara Ramos and Emano Ramos were both born n 1896. They reached the age of twenty-one years n 1917. They coud have brought the acton from that year.The nstant acton was ed ony n 1957. As to Atanaca, Modesto and Manue, the acton was ed forty-three years after t accrued and, as to Mara and Emano, the acton was ed forty years after t accrued. The deay was nexcusabe. The nstant acton s unquestonaby barred by prescrpton and res |udcata.Ths case s smar to Go Ch Gun vs. Co, 96 Ph. 622, where a partton |udcay approved n 1916 was sought to be annued n 1948 on the ground of fraud. It was contended that there was fraud because the rea propertes of the decedent were aad|udcated to the edest son, whe the two daughters, who were mnors, were gven ony cash and shares of stocks. Ths Court, n uphodng the petton, sad:."In any case, the partton was gven the stamp of |udca approva, and as a matter of prncpe and pocy we shoud sustan ts reguarty, n the absence of such cause or reason that the aw tsef xes as a ground for nvadty" (on page 634). "As the admnstraton proceedngs ended n the year 1916, the guardanshp proceedngs n1931, and the acton was brought ony n the year 1948, more than 32 years from the tme of the dstrbuton and 27 years from the termnaton of guardanshp proceedngs", the acton was barred by aches (on page 637). See Lopez vs. Gonzaga, L-18788, |anuary 31, 1964, 10 SCRA 167; Cuaycong vs. Cuaycong supra).The eadng case of Severno vs. Severno, 44 Ph. 343, repeatedy cted by the panths, does not nvove any ssue of prescrpton or aches. In that case, the acton for reconveyance was seasonaby brought. The aeged trustee was an overseer who secured tte n hs name for the and of hs brother whch was under hs admnstraton. He coud not have acqured t by prescrpton because hs possesson was not adverse. On certan occasons, he had admtted that he was merey the admnstrator of the and and not ts true owner.More n pont s the Cuaycong case, supra, where the acton for the reconveyance ofproperty hed n trust accrued n 1936 and t was ed ony n 1961 or after the apseof twenty-ve years. That acton was barred.On ts face, the partton agreement was theoretcay correct snce the seven natura chdren were gven ther fu egtme, whch under artce 942 of the od Cv Code was ther share as ega hers. But t was possbe that the ands were undervaued or were not propery apprased at ther far market vaue and, therefore, the natura chdren were short-changed n the computaton of the vaue of ther shares whch the egtmate chdren coud pay n cash as aowed n artce 840 of the od Cv Code. It s of common knowedge that anyone who receved ands n the partton of a decedent's estate woud utmatey have an advantage over the one who receved cash because ands ncrease n vaue as tme goes by whe money s easy spent.As ponted out n the statement of facts, t was anomaous that the manfestaton, evdencng the aeged recept by the natura chdren of ther shares, shoud recte that they receved ther shares from the admnstrator, when n the pro|ect of partton tsef, as approved by the probate court (Exh. 3 to 6), t was stpuated that |ose Ramos and Agustn Ramos woud be the ones to pay the cash settement for ther shares. No recepts were submtted to the court to prove that |ose Ramos and Agustn Ramos pad to the panths the cash ad|udcated to them n the pro|ect of partton.The panths pnpont certan aeged rreguartes n the ntestate proceedng. The aver that Modesto Ramos and Manue Ramos were aready of age n 1913 and coudnot therefore have been represented by Tmoteo Zayco as guardan ad tem and that, consequenty, the two were dened due process. The panths accuse Zayco ofnot havng competenty protected the nterests of the mnors, Mara Ramos and Emano Ramos. They aege that Atanaca Ramos sgned the pro|ect of partton and the "recept" of shares (Exh. 3 and 6) wthout understandng those documents whch were n Spansh. They assert that the opsded and defectve partton was notmpemented.In short, the panths contend that the partton was not bndng on them (Note that ther brother, Tmoteo, consdered hmsef bound by that partton). They ask that the case be remanded to the ower court for the determnaton and ad|udcaton of ther rghtfu shares.A those contentons woud have a sembance of cogency and woud deserve serous consderaton f the panths had not sept on ther rghts. They aowed more than forty years to eapse before they woke up and companed that they weremuch aggreved by the partton. Under the crcumstances, ther cams can hardy evoke |udca compasson. Vgantbus et non dormentbus |ura subvenunt. "If eterna vgance s the prce of safety, one cannot seep on one's rght for more thana tenth of a century and expect t to be preserved n ts prstne purty" (Ozaeta, |. nAssocacon Cooperatva de Credto Agrcoa de Magao vs. Montecaro, 74 Ph. 281, 283).The panths have ony themseves to bame f the courts at ths ate hour can no onger ahord them reef aganst the nequtes aegedy vtatng the partton of ther father's estate.In connecton wth the res |udcata aspect of the case, t may be cared that n the settement of a decedent's estate t s not de rgeuerfor the hers to sgn a parttonagreement. "It s the |udca decree of dstrbuton, once na, that vests tte n the dstrbutees" (Reyes vs. Barretto-Datu, L-17818, |anuary 25, 1967, 19 SCRA 85, 91) whch n ths case was |udge Campbe's decson (Exh. 4).A |udgment n an ntestate proceedng may be consdered as a |udgment n rem (Varea vs. Vanueva, 95 Ph. 248, 267. See Sec. 49|a|, Rue 39, Rues of Court). There s a rung that "f the decree of dstrbuton was erroneous or not n conformty wth aw or the testament, the same shoud have been corrected by opportune appea; but once t had become na, ts bndng ehect s ke that of any other |udgment n rem, uness propery set asde for ack of |ursdcton or fraud". A partton approved by the court n 1939 coud no onger be contested n 1956 on theground of fraud. The acton had aready prescrbed. "The fact that one of the dstrbutees was a mnor at the tme the court ssued the decree of dstrbuton doesnot mpy that the court had no |ursdcton to enter the decree of dstrbuton." (Reyes vs. Barretto-Datu, supra, ctng Ramos vs. Ortuzar, 89 Ph. 742). "A na order of dstrbuton of the estate of a deceased person vests the tte to the and of the estate n the dstrbutees" (Syabus, Santos vs. Roman Cathoc Bshop of NuevaCaceres, 45 Ph. 895, 900).Parenthetcay, t may be noted that the ng of the nstant case ong after the death of |ose Ramos and other persons nvoved n the ntestate proceedng renderst dmcut to determne wth certtude whether the panths had reay been defrauded. What |ustce Street sad n Snco vs. Longa, 51 Ph. 507, 518-9 s reevant to ths case:"In passng upon controverses of ths character experence teaches the danger of acceptng ghty charges of fraud made many years after the transacton n queston was accompshed, when death may have seaed the ps of the prncpa actors and changes ehected by tme may have gven a totay dherent coor to the cause of controversy. In the case before us the guardan, Emo Tevez, s dead. The same s true of Trndad Dago, mother of the defendant Agueda Longa; whe Agapto Longa s now vng n Span. It w be borne n mnd aso that, nsofar as ora proof s concerned, the charge of fraud rests prncpay on the testmony of a snge wtness who, f fraud was commtted, was a partcpant theren and who naturay woud now be anxous, so far as practcabe, to put the bame on others. Inths connecton t s we to bear n mnd the foowng mpressve anguage of Mr. |ustce Story:". . . But ength of tme necessary obscures a human evdence; and as t thus removes from the partes a the mmedate means to verfy the nature of the orgna transactons, t operates by way of presumpton, n favor of nnocence, and aganst mputaton of fraud. It woud be unreasonabe, after a great ength of tme, to requre exact proof of a the mnute crcumstances of any transacton, or to expect a satsfactory expanaton of every dmcuty, rea or apparent, wth whch t may be ncumbered. The most that can fary be expected, n such cases, f the partes are vng, from the fraty of memory, and human nrmty s, that the matera facts can be gven wth certanty to a common ntent; and, f the partes are dead, and the cases rest n condence, and n paro agreements, the most that we can hope s to arrve at probabe con|ectures, and to substtute genera presumptons of aw, for exact knowedge. Fraud, or breach of trust, ought not ghty to be mputed to the vng; for, the ega presumpton s the other way; as to the dead, who are not here to answer for themseves, t woud be the heght of n|ustce and cruety, to dsturb ther ashes, and voate the sanctty of the grave, uness the evdence of fraud be cear, beyond a reasonabe doubt (Prevost vs. Gratz,6 Wheat. |U.S.|, 481, 498)."Defendants' appea.Defendants Granada Ramos, Gregora T. Ramos, Candda Ramos, |ose Bayot and Agustn Ramos appeaed from the ower court's decson nsofar as t gnored ther countercam for P50,000 as mora damages and P10,000 as attorney's fees. In ther bref the cam for attorney's fees was ncreased to P20,000. They prayed for exempary damages.The defendants argue that panths' acton was baseess and was ed n gross and evdent bad fath. It s aeged that the acton caused defendants menta angush, wounded feengs, mora shock and serous anxety and compeed them to hre the servces of counse and ncur tgaton expenses.Artces 2219 and 2220 (aso 1764 and 2206) of the Cv Code ndcate the cases where mora damages may be recovered. The nstant tgaton does not fa wthn any of the enumerated cases. Nor can t be regarded as anaogous to any of the cases mentoned n those artces. Hence, defendants' cam for mora damages cannot be sustaned (Ventana vs. Centeno, 110 Ph. 811, 814). The worres and anxety of a defendant n a tgaton that was not macousy nsttuted are not the mora damages contempated n the aw (Sos & Yarsantos vs. Savador, L-17022, August 14, 1965, 14 SCRA 887)."The adverse resut of an acton does not per se make the act wrongfu and sub|ect the actor to the payment of mora damages. The aw coud not have meant to mpose a penaty on the rght to tgate, such rght s so precous that mora damages may not be charged on those who may exercse t erroneousy." (Barreto vs. Arevao, 99 Ph. 771, 779).On the other hand, the award of reasonabe attorney's fees s governed by artce 2208 of the Cv Code whch ays down the genera rue that, n the absence of stpuaton, attorney's fees and tgaton expenses cannot be recovered. Artce 2208 speces eeven nstances where attorney's fees may be recovered. The defendants dd not pont out the specc provson of artce 2208 on whch ther countercam may be predcated.What may possby appy to defendants' countercam are paragraphs four and eeven whch respectvey provde that attorney's fees may be recovered "n case of a ceary unfounded cv acton or proceedng aganst the panth" (defendant s a panth n hs countercam) or "n any other cases where the court deems t |ust and equtabe" that attorney's fees shoud be awarded.We hod that, notwthstandng the dsmssa of the acton, no attorney's fees shoud be granted to the defendants. Under the facts of the case, t cannot be asseverated wth dogmatc naty that panths' acton was manfesty unfounded or was macousy ed to harass and embarrass the defendants. A ndcatons pont to the fact that the panths honesty thought that they had a good cause of acton. They acted n evdent good fath. (See Herrera vs. Luy Km Guan, 110 Ph. 1020, 1028; Rza Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeas, L-23729, May 16, 1967, 20 SCRA 61).Inasmuch as some of the panths were mnors when the partton of ther father's anded estate was made, and consderng that they were not aotted even a few square meters out of the hundreds of hectares of and, whch beonged to hm, they had reason to fee aggreved and to seek redress for ther grevances. Those crcumstances as we as the marked contrast between ther ndgence and the amuence of the hers of ther haf-brother, |ose Ramos, mght have mpeed them toask the courts to reexamne the partton of ther father's estate.It s not sound pubc pocy to set a premum on the rght to tgate. An adverse decson does not pso facto |ustfy the award of attorney's fees to the wnnng party (Herrera vs. Luy Km, supra; Hers of |ustva vs. Gusto, 61 O. G. 6959. Cf. Lazatn vs. Twao and Castro, 112 Ph. 733, 741).Snce no compensatory and mora damages have been awarded n ths case, defendants' cam for exempary damages, whch was ventated for the rst tme n ther appeants' bref, may be as an afterthought, cannot be granted (Art. 2229, Cv Code).WHEREFORE, the tra court's |udgment s amrmed wth the carcaton that defendants' countercam s dsmssed. No costs.SO ORDERED.Makanta, C.|., Barredo, Antono and Fernandez, ||., concur.Fernando, |., dd not take part. \---!e-brary! 6.0 Phppnes Copyrght 2000 by Sony Vadez---/ (|1974V432| EMILIANO B. RAMOS, ET AL., panths-appeants, vs. GREGORIA T. RAMOS, ET AL., defendants-appeants., G.R. No. L-19872, 1974 Dec 3, 2nd Dvson)