Case Digest: Tala Realty Services Corporation, et al. v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank

Tala Realty Services Corporation, et al. v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank

G. R. No. 130088, 7 April 2009

No right is created where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision.

Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino) filed before 17 Regional Trial Courts (RTC) 17 complaints for reconveyance of different properties against Tala Realty Services Corporation (Tala Realty) et al.

Banco Filipino‘s complaints commonly alleged that in 1979, expansion of its operations required the purchase of real properties for the purpose of acquiring sites for more branches; that as Sections 25(a) and 34 of the General Banking Act limit a bank‘s allowable investments in real estate to 50% of its capital assets, its board of directors decided to warehouse some of its existing properties and branch sites. Thus, Nancy L. Ty, a major stockholder and director, persuaded Pedro Aguirre and his brother Tomas Aguirre, both major stockholders of Banco Filipino, to organize and incorporate Tala Realty to hold and purchase real properties in trust for Banco Filipino; that after the transfer of Banco Filipino properties to Tala Realty, the Aguirres‘ sister Remedios prodded her brother Tomas to, as he did, endorse to her his shares in Tala Realty and registered them in the name of her controlled corporation, Add International.

Thus, Nancy, Remedios, and Pedro Aguirre controlled Tala Realty, with Nancy exercising control through her nominees Pilar, Cynthia, and Dolly, while Remedios exercised control through Add International and her nominee Elizabeth. Pedro Aguirre exercised control through his own nominees, the latest being Tala Realty‘s president, Rubencito del Mundo.

In the course of the implementation of their trust agreement, Banco Filipino sold to Tala Realty some of its properties. Tala Realty simultaneously leased to Banco Filipino the properties for 20 years, renewable for another 20 years at the option of Banco Filipino with a right of first refusal in the event Tala Realty decided to sell them.

Tala Realty repudiated the trust, claimed the titles for itself, and demanded payment of rentals, deposits, and goodwill, with a threat to eject Banco Filipino. Thus arose Banco Filipino‘s 17 complaints for reconveyance against Tala Realty.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trust agreement is void

HELD:

In Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, the Court, by Decision dated November 22, 2002, ruling on one of several ejectment cases filed by Tala Realty against Banco Filipino arising from the same trust agreement in the reconveyance cases subject of the present petitions, held that the trust agreement is void and cannot thus be enforced.

An implied trust could not have been formed between the Bank and Tala as the Court has held that “where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud.”

The bank cannot use the defense of nor seek enforcement of its alleged implied trust with Tala since its purpose was contrary to law. As admitted by the Bank, it “warehoused” its branch site holdings to Tala to enable it to pursue its expansion program and purchase new branch sites including its main branch in Makati, and at the same time avoid the real property holdings limit under Sections 25(a) and 34 of the General Banking Act which it had already reached.

Clearly, the Bank was well aware of the limitations on its real estate holdings under the General Banking Act and that its “warehousing agreement” with Tala was a scheme to circumvent the limitation. Thus, the Bank opted not to put the agreement in writing and call a spade a spade, but instead phrased its right to reconveyance of the subject property at any time as a “first preference to buy” at the “same transfer price.” This agreement which the Bank claims to be an implied trust is contrary to law. Thus, while the Court finds the sale and lease of the subject property genuine and binding upon the parties, the Court cannot enforce the implied trust even assuming the parties intended to create it. In the words of the Court in the Ramos case, “the courts will not assist the payor in achieving his improper purpose by enforcing a resultant trust for him in accordance with the ‗clean hands‘ doctrine.” The Bank cannot thus demand reconveyance of the property based on its alleged implied trust relationship with Tala.