atp midterms
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/18/2019 Atp Midterms
1/10
RAMOS v RAMOS
Facts: Spouses Martin Ramos andCandida were survived by three
legitimate children: Jose, Agustin and
Granada. Martin was also survived by natural children. A special proceeding
was instituted !or the settlement o! theestate o! said spouses. Ra!ael, brother o!
Martin was appointed administrator. A
pro"ect o! partition was submitted andthe con"ugal hereditary estate was
appraised at #$,%&$.%'. (t consisted o!)& parcels o! land, some head cattle and
advances to the legitimate children. (t
was agreed in the pro"ect o! partitionthat Jose and Agustin would pay the
cash ad"udications to their natural
siblings. *nly the sum o! # ', $%+.$ o! the #$- represented the estate o!
Martin. )' thereo! was the !ree portionout o! which the shares o! the natural
children were to be ta-en: each wouldget #),&/.'/. 0he pro"ect o! partition
as well as the intervention o! 0imoteo as
guardian o! the !ive minor heirs wasapproved by the court. 1ater on, Judge
2epomuceno as-ed the administrator to
submit a report showing that the shareshave been delivered to the heirs asre3uired which the siblings
ac-nowledged in a mani!estation. 0he
4imalayan cadastre 5& lots6 involved inthis case were registed in e3ual shares
in the names o! Jose7s widow, Gregoriaand her daughter Granada.
0he Plaintiff’s 5natural children6
contend that while they were growing
up, they had been well supported byJose and Agustin as they had been
receiving their shares !rom the produceo! the 4aciendas in varied amounts over
the years. 8ven a!ter the death o! Jose,
Gregoria had continued giving themmoney but had stopped in )%/) by
reason that lessee 1acson was not ableto pay the lease rental. 2o accounting
had ever been made to them by Jose
nor Gregoria. 9pon the survey o! theland, they did not intervene, as Jose and
Agustin promised that said lands shall
be registered in the names o! the heirs.0hey did not -now that the intestate
proceedings were instituted !or thedistribution o! the estate o! their !ather.
2either did they have any -nowledgethat a guardian was assigned torepresent their minor siblings,
considering that Modesto and Miguelwho were claimed to be such were no
longer minors at the time o! the
partition. 0hey never received theirshare in the estate o! their !ather.
#lainti!!s later on discovered that theproperty had a 0orrens title in the name
o! Gregoria and her daughter when
Modesto7s children had in3uired !rom theRegister o! eeds. #etitioners now bring
the present suit !or the reconveyance o!the sub"ect parcels o! land in their !avor.
#etitioners claim that in e!!ect, Gregoria
and daughter are holding their shares in
trust which was denied by de!endants.e!endants alledge res "udicata and
prescription.
LOWER COURT: ismissed thecomplaint on the basis o! res "udicata as
their shares were already settled in theintestate proceedings. 2o deed o! trust
was alledged and proven. #lainti!!7s
appealed saying that they weregrievously pre"udiced by the partition
and thus res "udicata should not bartheir action.
SC: 0he plainti!!s have not proven anye;press trusts neither have they
speci!ied the -ind o! implied trustcontemplated in their action. 8ither way,
such action may be barred by laches.
(n the cadastral proceedings, Jose andwi!e claimed the & lots o! the plainti!!s.
A!ter the death o! Jose, the said lots
were ad"udicated to his widow and
-
8/18/2019 Atp Midterms
2/10
daughter. (n )%'+ Gregoria leased thesaid lots to
-
8/18/2019 Atp Midterms
3/10
#angasinan6 measures /$) s3. m5more or less6. 8strada however noticed
that the 0orrens title under e @era
indicated that his property measures&/+ s3. m. 4e learned that the
discrepancy is the ''+ s3. m. beingoccupied by Juliana. 8strada sued to
evict Juliana.
Juliana averred that she and her !ather
have been in open, continuous,e;clusive and notorious possession and
in the concept o! an owner o! the landsince )%+) that they7ve been paying
ta;es that the title held by 8strada was
registered in )%$ but it only too- themto initiate an action in )% there!ore
laches has set in.
(SS98: Bhether or not the disputedportion should be ad"udged in !avor o!
e @era7s estate.
481: 2o. 0he inclusion o! Juliana7s land
in e @era7s title was erroneously done.(t was shown that Juliana, an unlettered
woman, agreed to have Mariano de @era
borrow her title !or the purposes o!Mariano obtaining a loan during de
@era7s li!etime that when de @eraregistered his portion o! land ad"oined to
that o! Juliana, the latter7s land waserroneously included.
0he error is highlighted by the !act that
de @era7s widow, in her inventory be!ore
she died, attested that de @era7s portiono! land is only /$) s3. m. more or less.
0he discrepancy appro;imates theportion o! land actually being occupied
by Juliana. >y that, the only portion that
can be ad"udged in !avor o! de @era7sestate is that which was being claimed
by the widow 5in her inventory6. Arecalculation must however be made to
speci!y the e;act measure o! landbelonging to each: ''+ s3 m should be
retained by Juliana 5portion which she
actually occupies6 and /?+? s3. m.should go to de @era7s estate.
(O)*ALES v& +AC
Facts: 0he land in dispute is registered
in the name o! austo Soy. (n )%$),austo sold +/' s3. m. to rancisco
1andingin. (n )%/$, pursuant to a eed
o! onation e;ecuted by austo, AntonioSoy 5son o! austo6 and Gregoria
Miranda 5wi!e6 sold +$? s3. m. toJuanito Gon=ales and Coronacion
Ganaden. (n January )%?, austo sold
another +$? s3. m. to Gon=ales and
Ganaden and two days later, a 0C0 wasissued in !avor o! Gon=ales, indicatinghis share as coDowner o! $&? s3. m. and
austo Soy, +$? s3. m. (n )%/, austo
sold another )$? s3. m. to the Gon=alesand Ganaden.
April )%/, Respondents Rosita 1ope=,
Gavino Cayabyab, Agueda and elipa9bando, #edro Soriano, 0eosidia 1ope=
and ederico >allesteros 5nieces and
nephews o! austo6 !iled the instantcomplaint !or partition against austo
Soy. *n the same day they !iled a noticeo! lis pendens and had it annotated on
the *C0. austo answered and contested
plainti!!s claims, asserting e;clusive titlein his name. austo countered that the
3uestioned land was never registered inthe names o! his parents 8ugenio and
Ambrosia, and that he had been the
registered owner o! the premises since)%'+.
*n the basis o! evidence adduced e;D
parte, the 0rial Court held thatrespondents and austo were coD owners
o! the lot and ordered the partitionthereo!. #arties were en"oined to
partition amongst themselves and were
to submit the same to the lower court
-
8/18/2019 Atp Midterms
4/10
!or con!irmation. 9pon e;ecution, thesheri!! was unable to e!!ect
apportionment due to a 'rd party claim
o! Juanito and Coronacion Gon=ales,stating that they were registered owners
o! $&? s3. m. o! the disputed land. 0hesheri!! noted the various.
,!l%: (t is proper to issue the in"unction
sought by the petitioners to stop the
sale o! the property at public auction, toannul the levies made on the property,
to obtain the cancellation in the registryo! property o! the annotations made,
and to secure a
improvements petitioners had
introduced 5apartment, residential house
and piggery6. 0rial court allowedpetitioners to intervene as indispensableparties, vacating its previous "udgment
and granting a new trial.
Trial Cort: 0here is no proo! to show
that petitioners are coDowners o! theproperty in 3uestion because the land
has long been covered by an *C0 since)%'+ in the name o! their predecessor in
interest, austo Soy.
CA: Resolved in !avor o! respondents,
declaring that the sale to intervenorDpetitioners did not terminate the trust
relationship between the appellants andthe appellees. 0he sale in !avor o!
petitioners shall be en!orced against the
)E$ share o! respondents as heirs o!austo.
(ssue: Bas the disputed land held in
trust by austo Soy !or his sisters,8milia, Cornelia and Anastacia 5mothers
o! herein respondents6F
Rling: CA decision reversed, order !or
partition dismissed.
austo, being predecessorDinDinterest,had appeared to be the registered owner
o! the lot !or more than '? years and his
dominical rights can no longer bechallenged. Any insinuation as to the
e;istence o! an implied or constructive
trust should not be allowed.
8ven assuming there was an impliedtrust, respondents attempt at
reconveyance is barred by prescription,which in this case is )? years, the period
rec-oned !rom the issuance o! the
adverse title to the property whichoperates as a constructive notice.
0he assertion o! adverse title, which was
an e;plicit indication o! repudiation o!the trust !or the purpose o! the statute
o! limitations, too- place when the *C0
was issued in the name o! austo Soy in
)%'+, to the e;clusion o! his ' sisters.
8ven i! there were no repudiation, the
rule is that an action to en!orce animplied trust may be circumscribed not
only by prescription but also by laches
in which case, repudiation is notre3uired.
Respondents had literally slept on their
rights presuming they had any and can
no longer dispute the conclusive andincontrovertible character o! austo7s
title as they are deemed to haveac3uiesced therein.
SALAO S& SALAO
acts: A!ter the death o! @alentina
(gnacio, her estate was administered by
her daughter Ambrosia. (t waspartitioned e;tra"udically and the deed
was signed by her !our legal heirsnamely her ' children 5Ale"andra, Juan,
and Ambrosia6 and @alentin Salao, in
representation o! his deceased !ather,#atricio. 0he Calunuran !ishpond is the
property in contention in this case. #riorto the death o! @alentina (gnacio, her
children Juan and Ambrosia secured a
torrens title in their names a $ ha.!ishpond located at Sitio Calunuran,
-
8/18/2019 Atp Midterms
5/10
1ubao, #ampanga. A decree was alsoissued in the names o! Juan and
Ambrosia !or the #inanganacan !ishpond
which ad"oins the Calunuran !ishpond. Ayear be!ore Ambrosia7s death, she
donated her oneDhal! share in the two!ishponds in 3uestion to her nephew,
Juan Salo Jr. 4e was already the ownero! the other hal! o! the !ishponds havinginherited it !rom his !ather, Juan Salao
Sr. A!ter Ambrosia died, the heirs o!@alentin Salao, >enita Salao and the
children o! @ictorina Salao, !iled a
complaint against Juan Salao Jr. !or thereconveyance to them o! the Canluran
!ishpond as @alentin Salao7s supposedone H third share in the )$/ ha. o!
!ishpond registered in the names o! Juan
Salao Sr. and Ambrosia Salao.
.!f!n%ant’s arg"!nt: @alentin Salaodid not have any interest in the two
!ishponds and that the sole ownersthereo! were his !ather and his aunt
Ambrosia, as shown in the 0orrens titles
and that he was the donee o! Ambrosia7soneDhal! share.
Plaintiff’s arg"!nt: 0heir action is to
en!orce a trust which de!endant JuanSalao Jr. allegedly violated. 0he
e;istence o! trust was not de!initelyalleged in the plainti!!7s complaint but in
their appellant7s brie!.
RTC’s Rling: 0here was no community
o! property among Juan, Ambrosia and@alentin when the Calunuran and the
#inanganacan lands were ac3uired that
co H ownership over the real propertieso! @alentina (gnacio e;isted among her
heirs a!ter her death in )%)$ that theco H ownership was administered by
Ambrosia and that it subsisted up to)%)& when her estate was partitioned
among her three children and her
grandson, @alentin Salao. (t rationali=edthat @alentin7s omission during his
li!etime to assail the 0orrens titles o!
Juan and Ambrosia signi!ied that he wasnot a coDowner o! the !ishponds. (t did
not give credence to the testimonies o!
plainti!!s7 witnesses because theirmemories could not be trusted and
because no strong evidence supportedthe declarations. Moreover, the parties
involved in the alleged trust werealready dead.
Judgment appealed to CA but theamounts involved e;ceeded two hundred
thousand pesos, the CA elevated thecase to the SC.
+ss!:
5)6 B2 plainti!!s7 massive oral evidence
su!!icient to prove an implied trust,resulting or constructive, regarding thetwo !ishponds.
,!l%: SC a!!irmed lower court7s
decision.
5)6 #lainti!!7s pleading and evidencecannot be relied upon to prove an
implied trust. 0he trial court7s !irm
conclusion that there was no community
o! property during the li!etime o!@alentina (gnacio or be!ore )%)$ issubstantiated by de!endant7s
documentary evidence. 0here was no
resulting trust in this case because therenever was any intention on the part o!
Juan, Ambrosia and @alentin to createany trust. 0here was no constructive
trust because the registration o! the +
!ishponds in the names o! Juan andAmbrosia was not vitiated by !raud or
mista-e. 0his is not a case where tosatis!y the demands o! "ustice it is
necessary to consider the Calunuran
!ishpond as being held in trust by theheirs o! Juan Salao Sr. !or the heirs o!
@alentin Salao. And even assuming thatthere was an implied trust, plainti!!s7
action is clearly barred by prescriptionwhen it !iled an action in )%/+ or a!ter
-
8/18/2019 Atp Midterms
6/10
the lapse o! more than $? years !romthe date o! registration.
(ERO)A v .E (U*MA)
Facts:
#etitioner Gerona heirs are the
legitimate children o! omingo Geronaand #lacida de Gu=man. #lacida was alegitimate daughter o! Marcelo de
Gu=man and his !irst wi!e 0eodora de laCru=. A!ter the death o! 0eodora,
Marcelo married Camila Ramos. 0heir
children are herein respondents deGu=man heirs. Marcelo died some time
in Septermber )%$/ and respondentse;ecuted a deed o! e;traD"udicial
settlement o! his estate. 0hey!raudulently stipulated therein that theywere the only surviving heirs o! Marcelo
although -nowing that petitioners werealso his !orced heirs. 0hey were able to
cause the trans!er the certi!icates o!
parcels o! land each in their names. 0hepetitioners discovered the !raud only the
year be!ore the institution o! the case.#etitioners see- to annul the e;traD
"udicial settlement as well as have their
shares in the said properties reconveyedto them.
Cont!ntions: e!endants argue that
#lacida de Gu=man was not entitled toshare in the estate o! Marcelo as she
was an illegitimate child and that the
action o! the #etitioners is barred by thestatute o! limitations.
Rlings:
TR+AL COURT: 0he trial court
dismissed the case a!ter !inding that#lacida was a legitimate child o! Marcelo
and that the properties described herein
belonged to the con"ugal partnership o!Marcelo and Camila. (t also ruled that
#etitioners action had alreadyprescribed.
CA: a!!irmed ruling o! the trial court
Cont!ntions: #etitioners assert thatsince they are coDheirs o! Marcelo, the
action !or partition is not sub"ect to the
statue o! limitations that i! a!!ected, theperiod o! $ years did not begin to run
until discovery o! the !raud. 0hey claimthat the !raud done by respondents too-
place in )%/ or )%/ and that it had
not prescribed when the present actionwas commenced.
SC: 0he rule holds true only when the
de!endants do not hold the property in3uestion under an adverse title. 0he
statute o! limitations operates !rom the
time the adverse title is asserted by the
possessor o! the property.
0he de!endants e;cluded the petitioners
!rom the estate o! Marcelo when theye;ecuted the deed o! e;traD"udicial
settlement claiming that they are the
sole heirs thus setting up an adversetitle to the estate.
An action !or reconveyance o! real
property based upon a constructive or
implied trust, resulting !rom !raud maybe barred by the statute o! limitations
and the action may only be !iled within $years !rom the discovery o! the !raud. (n
the case at bar, the discovery was madeon June +/, )%$& when the deed was
!iled with the Register o! eeds and new
certi!icates o! title were issued in thenames o! the respondents e;clusively.
#lainti!!7s complaint was not !iled until
2ovember $, )%/& or more than )?years a!ter.
(gnacio Gerona as well as Maria
Concepcion attained the age o! ma"ortityin )%$& thus had $ years !rom date o!
discovery within which to !ile an action.
rancisco and el!in attained the age o!ma"ority in )%/+ and )%/$, thus had +
-
8/18/2019 Atp Midterms
7/10
years a!ter removal o! Ilegal incapacitywithin which to commence their action.
Fa$ian v& Fa$ian, G.R. 2o. 1D+?$$%, +%January )%&, ++ SCRA +'), J. Castro.
Bhile under Section )/ o! the riar1ands Act, title to the land sold isreserved to the Government until the
purchaser ma-es !ull payment o! all there3uired instalments and the interest
thereon, this legal reservation re!ers to
the bare, na-ed title. 0he e3uitable andbene!icial title goes to the purchaser the
moment he pays the !irst instalment andis given a certi!icate o! title.
0he reservation o! the title in !avor o!
the Government is made merely to
protect the interest o! the Governmentso as to preclude or prevent the
purchaser !rom encumbering ordisposing o! the lot purchased be!ore the
payment in !ull o! the purchase price.
*utside o! this protection theGovernment retains no right as an
owner. 0hus, a!ter the issuance o! the
sales certi!icate and pending payment in!ull o! the purchase price, the
Government may not sell the lot toanother, encumber it, occupy the land to
use or cultivate, nor lease it or evenparticipate or share in its !ruits.
An action !or reconveyance o! real
property based upon a constructive or
implied trust, resulting !rom !raud, maybe barred by the statute o! limitations,
and the action there!or may be !iledwithin $ years !rom the discovery o! the
!raud, such discovery being deemed to
have ta-en place when new certi!icateso! title were issued e;clusively in the
names o! adverse claimants.
FACTS: #ablo abian bought !rom the#hilippine Government lot /01 o! the
riar 1ands 8state in Muntinlupa, Ri=al.>y virtue o! this purchase, he was issued
sale certi!icate /$. 4e died on August
+, )%+&, survived by !our children,namely, 8speran=a, >enita (, >enita ((,
and Silbina. *n *ctober /, )%+& Silbinaabian and 0eodora abian, niece o! the
deceased, e;ecuted an a!!idavit. *n thestrength o! this a!!idavit, sal!c!rtificat! /$ was assigned to them.
0he acting irector o! 1ands, on behal!o! the Government' sol% lot /01 to
Silbina abian 0eodora abian. 0he
vendees spouses !orthwith too- physicalpossession thereo!, cultivated it, and
appropriated the produce. (n that same
year, they declared the lot in theirnames !or ta;ation purposes. (n )%'the R o! Ri=al issued a 0C0 over lot
/01 in their names. 0hey later
subdivided the lot into + e3ual parts.
0he plainti!!s !iled the present action !or
reconveyance against the de!endantsspouses, averring that Silbina and
0eodora, through fra% perpetrated intheir a!!idavit a!oresaid. 0hat by virtueo! this a!!idavit, the said de!endants
succeeded in having the sale certi!icateassigned to them and therea!ter in
having lot )$ covered by said
certi!icate trans!erred in their namesand that by virtue also o! these
assignment and trans!er, the de!endantssucceeded !raudulently in having lot )$
registered in their names. 0hey !urther
allege that the land has not beentrans!erred to an innocent purchaser !or
value. A reconveyance thereo! is prayed!or.
(n their answer, the de!endants spousesclaim that #ablo abian was not the
owner o! lot )$ at the time o! his death
on August +, )%+& because he had not
-
8/18/2019 Atp Midterms
8/10
paid in !ull the amorti=ations on the lotthat they are the absolute owners
thereo!, having purchased it !rom the
Government, and !rom that year havinge;ercised all the attributes o! ownership
thereo! up to the present and that thepresent action !or reconveyance has
already prescribed. 0he dismissal o! thecomplaint is prayed !or.
0he lower court rendered "udgment
declaring that the de!endants spouseshad ac3uired a valid and complete title
to the property by ac3uisitive
prescription, and accordingly dismissedthe complaint. 0he latter7s motion !or
reconsideration was therea!ter denied.
4ence, the present recourse.
+SSUE:
5)6 Bas #ablo abian the owner o! lot
)$ at the time o! his death, in the !ace
o! the !act, admitted by the de!endantsDappellees, that he had not then paid the
entire purchase price thereo!F
5+6 May laches constitute a bar to an
action to en!orce a constructive trustF
5'6 4as title to the land vested in theappellees through the mode o!
ac3uisitive prescriptionF
,EL.: 0he "udgment a quo, dismissing
the complaint, is a!!irmed
).
-
8/18/2019 Atp Midterms
9/10
installments to the Government, and in!act been issued a sale certi!icatein his
name, are conceded. 4e was there!ore
the owner o! lot )$ at the time o! hisdeath. 4e le!t !our daughters, namely,
8speran=a, >enita (, >enita (( andSilbina to whom all his rights and
interest over lot )$ passed upon hisdemise.
(n case a holder o! a certi!icate dies
be!ore the giving o! the deed and doesnot leave a widow, then the interest o!
the holder o! the certi!icate shall
descend and deed shall issue to theperson who under the laws o! the
#hilippine (slands would have ta-en had
the title been per!ected be!ore the deatho! the holder o! the certi!icate, uponproo! o! the holders thus entitled o!
compliance with all the re3uirements o!
the certi!icate.
+. 0he assignment and sale o! the lot to
the de!endants Silbina and 0eodora werethere!ore null and void. 0o the e;tent o!
the participation o! the appellants,application must be made o! theprinciple that i! property is ac3uired
through fraud , the person obtaining it isconsidered a trustee of an implied trust
!or the bene!it o! the person !rom whom
the property comes.
1aches may bar an action brought to
en!orce a constructive trust such as the
one in the case at bar. (lluminating arethe !ollowing e;cerpts !rom a decisionpenned by Mr. Justice Reyes:
>ut in constructive trusts, . . . the rule is
that laches constitutes a bar to actionsto en!orce the trust, and repudiation is
not re3uired, unless there is aconcealment o! the !acts giving rise to
the trust K
0he assignment o! sale certi!icate was
e!!ected in *ctober )%+& and the actual
trans!er o! lot )$ was made on the!ollowing 2ovember )$. (t was only on
July &, )%?, '+ big years later, that theappellants !or the !irst time came
!orward with their claim to the land. 0he
record does not reveal, and it is notseriously asserted, that the appellees
conc!al!% the !acts giving rise to thetrust. 9pon the contrary, paragraph )'
o! the stipulation o! !acts o! the parties
states with stri-ing clarity Ithatde!endants herein have been in
possession o! the land in 3uestion since
1928 up to the present publicly andcontinuously under claim of ownership;they have cultivated it, harvested and
appropriated the fruits for themselves.
'. it is already settled in this jurisdiction that an action for
reconveyance of real property basedupon a constructive or implied trusts,
resulting from fraud, may be barred bythe statute of limitations. the discoveryin that case being deemed to have ta-en
place when new certi!icates o! title wereissued e;clusively in the names o! the
respondents therein.
LAlthough, as a general rule, an action!or partition among coDheirs does not
prescribe, this is true only as long as the
de!endants do not hold the property in3uestion under an adverse title. hestatute of limitations operates, as in
other cases, from the moment such
adverse title is asserted by the possessor of the property
(nasmuch as petitioners see- to annulthe a!orementioned deed o! Ie;traD
-
8/18/2019 Atp Midterms
10/10
"udicial settlement upon the ground o!!raud in the e;ecution thereo!, the
action therefor may be filed within four
5$6 years from the discovery of thefraud. 9pon the undisputed !acts in the
case at bar, not only had laches set inwhen the appellants instituted their
action !or, reconveyance in )%?, but aswell their right to en!orce theconstructive trust had already
prescribed.
(t logically !ollows !rom the above
dis3uisition that ac3uisitive prescription
has li-ewise operated to vest absolutetitle in the appellees, pursuant to the
provisions o! section $) o! Act )%? that:
en years actual adverse possession by
any person claiming to be the owner !orthat time o! any land or interest in land,
uninterruptedly continued !or ten years
by occupancy, descent, grants, orotherwise, in whatever way such
occupancy may have commenced orcontinued , shall vest in every actual
occupant or possessor o! such land a !ulland complete title.
9pon the !oregoing dis3uisition, we hold
not only that the appellants7 action toen!orce the constructive trust created in
their !avor has prescribed, but as well
that a valid, !ull and complete title hasvested in the appellees by ac3uisitive
prescription.
)OTES:
Article )$/ o! the new Civil Code, whilenot retroactive in character, merely
e;presses a rule already recogni=ed by
our courts prior to the Code7spromulgation 5see Gayondato vs. (nsular
0reasurer, $% #hil. +$$6. Appellants are,however, in error in believing that li-e
e;press trust, such constructive trusts
may not be barred by lapse o! time. 0heAmerican law on trusts has always
maintained a %istinction $!t4!!n!5#r!ss trusts created by the intention
o! the parties, and the i"#li!% orconstrctiv! trsts that aree;clusively created by law, the latter not
being trusts in their technical sense. 0hee;press trusts disable the trustee !rom
ac3uiring !or his own bene!it the
property committed to his managementor custody, at least while he does not
openly repudiate the trust, and ma-essuch repudiation -nown to the
bene!iciary or cestui que trust . or this
reason, the old Code o! Civil #rocedure5Act )%?6 declared that the rules on
adverse possession does not apply to Icontinuing and subsisting 5i.e.,
unrepudiated6 trusts.