JUANA MANLICON AND JACINTO (ALIAS MARCELO) DE GUZMAN, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLE, VS. MAGNO DE VERA AND CONSTANCIA URMAZA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan “ordering the defendants Magno de Vera and
Constancia Urmaza to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of Juana
Manlincon, married to Jacinto de Guzman, Filipinos, and resident of
Sinmaley, Pangasinan, and to pay to her one-sixth of the products of
the land or fishpond from 1932 up to the time of the return of the
one-sixth portion of the land belonging to the plaintiff, Juana
Manlincon, at the rate of one-sixth of P30, which was the annual rent
of the fishpond, and one-sixth of P12, the proceeds of the nipa
shingles gathered therefrom annually, with interest at the rate of 6
per centum, and to pay the costs.”

The land in question is situated in the barrio of Balogo, municipality of Binmaley, province of Pangasinan, and lias an area of
about 15,122 square meters. Said land, which is a fishpond,’formerly
belonged to the Conjugal partnership of Domingo Manlincon and Maxima
Arenas. Domingo Manlincon died on September 11, 1930. On September 29,
1932, Maxima Arenas, the surviving wife of Domingo Manlincon, sold the
land to Magno de Vera and his wife, the herein defendants. The deed of
sale was also signed by iioises Manlincon and Francisca Manlincon,
children of Domingo Manlincon in his first marriage, as witnesses. This
sale was duly registered by the defendants and a Torrens certificate of
title was issued in their name. The herein plaintiff, Juana Manlincon,
is the only surviving child of the deceased Domingo Manlincon in his
second marriage with Maxima Arenas, and she was still a minor at the
time the deed of sale was executed by Maxima Arenas. This action was
filed by Juana Manlincon and her husband for the purpose of securing a
reconveyance of the property.

The trial court rejected the theory of the plaintiffs that the sale
executed by Maxima Arenas in favor of defendant Magno de Vera was
tainted with fraud, in that it was secured by Magno de Vera while
having amorous relations with Maxima Arenas, and after obtaining from
the latter the documents covering the land on the pretext of looking
for a lawyer to defend Maxima Arenas in the action brought against her
by Francisca Manlincon. The court therefore held that the sale is valid
as far as the share of Maxima Arenas is concerned. But the trial court
awarded the judgment, hereinabove quoted, in favor of the plaintiffs on
the ground that, as the defendant Magno de Vera was the owner of an
adjoining fishpond prior to the sale in question, and therefore knew
that the fishpond was owned by the deceased Domingo Manlincon and
Maxima Arenas who had Juana Manlincon as their only child, he also knew
that upon the death of Domingo Manlincon, Juana Manlincon succeeded to
the right of her father in the ownership of the fishpond. The trial
court ruled that the resulting situation was a sort of a special trust
in which Juana Manlincon, in conjunction with the children of the first
marriage, Moises and Fraricisca Manlincon, was the beneficiary and the
defendant Magno de Vera, the trustee.

We are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court is
correct. The defendant Magno de Vera, with his admitted knowledge of
the fact about the ownership of the property, could not be in a better
situation than that of Maxima Arenas if the latter had registered it in
her own name. As stated in Gayondato vs. Treasurer of the
Philippine Islands, Magno de Vera may be considered as a trustee, not
in its technical sense, but for a want of a better term.

The appealed judgment is therefore affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the appellants.

The appealed judgment is therefore affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the appellants.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.