PARTNERSHIP and TRUSR BAR EXAM Partnership (2009 Bar Question TRUE or FALSE. FALSE. An oral partnership is valid. SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ TRUE. Partnership Partnership is is a consensual consensual contract, hence, it is valid even though not in writing. AN%THER SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ TRUE. An oral oral contract of of partnership partnership is valid even though not in writing. However, if it involves contriution of an i!!ovale propert" or a real right, an oral contract of partnership partnersh ip is void. #n such a case, the contract of partnership to e valid, !ust e in a pulic instru!ent $Art. %&&%, '((), and the inventor" of said propert" signed " the parties !ust e attached to said pulic instru!ent $Art. %&&*, '((.). AN%THER SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ TRUE. Partnership Partnership is is a consensual consensual contract, hence, it is valid even though not in writing. The oral contract contract of partnership partnership is also also valid even if an i!!ovale propert" or real right is contriuted thereto. +hile the law in such a case, reuires the partnership to e in a pulic docu!ent, the law does not e-pressl" declare the contract void if not e-ecuted in the reuired for! $Article %/01&2, '((). And there eing nothing in the law fro! which it can e inferred that the said reuire!ent is prohiitor" prohiitor" or !andator" $Article 3, '((), the said oral contract of partnership !ust also e valid. The interested part" !a" si!pl" reuire reuire the contract to e !ade into a pulic docu!ent in order to co!pl" with the reuired for! $Article %*3&, '((). The purpose of the law in reuiring a pulic docu!ent is si!pl" to notif" the pulic aout the contriution. contriution. (&99' Bar Question %. (an two cor corpora porations tions org organi4 ani4e ea general partnership under the (ivil (ode of the Philippin Philippines5 es5 6. (an a corpor corporatio ation n and and an ind individu ividual al for! a general partnership5 SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ %.
a. 'o. A corpor corporatio ation n is !ana !anaged ged " " its oard of directors. #f the corporation were were to eco!e a partner, co7partners would have the power to !a8e the corporation part" to transactions in an irregular !anner since the partners are not agents su9ect to the control of the :oard of ;irectors. :ut a corporation !a" enter into a
cers of the corporatio corporation. n. However, a corporation !a" for! a general partnership with another corporation or an individual provided the following conditions are !et? %) The Articles of #ncorporatio #ncorporation n of the corporation e-pressl" allows the corporation to enter into partnerships@ 6) The Articles of Partnership !ust provide that all partners will !anage the partnership, and the" shall e 9ointl" and severall" liale@ and *) #n case of a foreign corporation, it !ust e licensed to do usiness in the Philippines. c.
'o. A corp 'o. corpora oratio tion n !a" !a" not not e a general partner ecause the principle of !utual agenc" in general partnership allowing the other general partner to ind the corporation will violate the corporation law principle that onl" the oard of directors !a" ind the corporation.
Pae ) &
PARTNERSHIP and TRUSR BAR EXAM 6. 'o, for the sa!e reasons given in the Answer to 'u!er 6 aove.
(&9** Bar Question ;istinguish co7ownership fro! partnership. SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ (o7ownership is distinguished fro! an ordinar" partnership in the following wa"s? $%) As to creation? +hereas co7ownership !a" e created " law, contract, succession, fortuitous event, or occupanc", partnership is alwa"s created " contract. $6) As to purpose? +hereas the purpose of co7ownership is the co!!on en9o"!ent of the thing or right owned in co!!on, the purpose of a partnership is to otain prots. $*) As to personalit"? +hereas a co7 ownership has no 9uridical personalit" which is separate and distinct fro! that of the owners, a partnership has. $) As to duration? +hereas an agree!ent not to divide the co!!unit" propert" for !ore than ten "ears is not allowed " law such an agree!ent would e perfectl" valid in the case of partnerships. This is so, ecause under the law, there is no li!itation upon the duration of partnerships. $3) As to power of !e!ers? +hereas a co7owner has no power to represent the co7ownership unless there is an agree!ent to that eBect, a partner has the power to represent the partnership, unless there is a stipulation to the contrar". $=) As to eBect of disposition of shares? #f a co7owner transfers his share to a third person, the latter eco!es auto!aticall" a co7owner, ut if a partner transfers his share to a third person, the latter does not eco!e a partner, unless agreed upon " all of the partners. $&) As to division of prots? +hereas in co7 ownership the division of the enets and charges is -ed " law, in a partnership the division of prots arid
losses !a" e su9ect to the agree!ent of the partners. $C) As to eBect of death? +hereas the death of a co7owner has no eBect upon the e-istence of the co7 ownership, the death of a partner shall result in. the dissolution of the partnership.
Rihts and %+,iations o- Partners A.on The.se,/es (20&2 Bar Question A partner cannot de!and the return of his share $contriution) during the e-istence of a partnership. ;o "ou agree5 E-plain "our answer. SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ Des, he is not entitled to the return of his contriution to the capital of the partnership, ut onl" to the net prots fro! the partnership usiness during the life of the partnership period. #f he is a li!ited partner, however, he !a" as8 for the return of his contriutions as provided in Art %C3= and %C3&, (ivil (ode. (20&0 Bar Question A, :, and ( entered into a partnership to operate a restaurant usiness. +hen the restaurant had gone past rea87even stage and started to ga!er considerale prots, ( died. A and : continued the usiness without dissolving the partnership. The" in fact opened a ranch of the restaurant, incurring oligations in the process. (reditors started de!anding for the pa"!ent of their oligations. +ho are liale for the settle!ent of the partnerships oligations5 E-plain5
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ The two re!aining partners, A and :, are liale. +hen an" partner dies and the usiness is continued without an" settle!ent of accounts as etween hi! or his estate, the surviving partners are held liale for continuing the usiness despite the death of ( (Articles 1841, 1785, par. 2, and 1833 of the e! Civil Code". Pae ) 2
PARTNERSHIP and TRUSR BAR EXAM (200& Bar Question
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ %. 'o, a conve"ance " a partner of his whole interest in a partnership does not of itself dissolve the partnership in the asence of an agree!ent. $Art. %C%*, (ivil (ode) 6.
(&992 Bar Question +, K, D and organi4ed a general partnership with + and K as industrial partners and D and as capitalist partners. D contriuted P3/.///.// and contriuted P6/.///.// to the co!!on fund. :" a unani!ous vote of the partners, + and K were appointed !anaging partners, without an" specication of their respective powers and duties. A applied for the position of Secretar" and : applied for the position of Accountant of the partnership. The hiring of A was decided upon " + and K, ut was opposed " D and . The hiring of : was decided upon " + and , ut was opposed " K and D. +ho of the applicants should e hired " the partnership5 E-plain and give "our reasons.
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ A should e hired as Secretar". The decision for the hiring of A prevails ecause it is an act of ad!inistration which can e perfor!ed " the dul" appointed !anaging partners, + and K. : cannot e hired, ecause in case of a tie in the decision of the !anaging partner, the deadloc8 !ust e decided " the partners owning the controlling interest. #n this case, the opposition of K and D prevails ecause D owns the controlling interest $Art. %C/%, (ivil (ode).
(&9*9 Bar Question MKN used his savings fro! his salaries a!ounting to a little !ore than P6,/// as capital in estalishing a restaurant. MDN gave the a!ount of P,/// to MKN as Mnancial assistanceN with the understanding that MDN would e entitled to 66O of the annual prots derived fro! the operation of the restaurant. After the lapse of 66 "ears, MDN led a case de!anding his share in the said prots. MKN denied that there was a partnership and raised the issue of prescription as MDN did not assert his rights an"ti!e within ten $%/) "ears fro! the start Pae )
PARTNERSHIP and TRUSR BAR EXAM of the operation of the restaurant. #s MDN a partner of MKN in the usiness5 +h"5 +hat is the nature of the right to de!and ones share in the prots of a partnership5 ;oes this right prescrie5
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ Des, ecause there is an agree!ent to contriute to a co!!on fund and an intent to divide prots. #t is founded upon an e-press trust. #t is i!prescriptile unless repudiated. A1TERNATIE ANS#ER$ 'o, MDN is not a partner ecause the a!ount is e-tended in the for! of a nancial assistance arid therefore it is a loan, and the !ere sharing of prots does not estalish a partnership. The right is founded upon a contract of loan where" the orrower is ound to pa" principal and interest li8e all ordinar" oligations. Des, his right prescries in si- or ten "ears depending upon whether the contract is oral or written. %+,iations o- Partnership3Partners to Third Persons (20&0 Bar Question A, :, and ( entered into a partnership to operate a restaurant usiness. +hen the restaurant had gone past rea87even stage and started to ga!er considerale prots, ( died. A and : continued the usiness without dissolving the partnership. The" in fact opened a ranch of the restaurant, incurring oligations in the process. (reditors started de!anding for the pa"!ent of their oligations. +hat are the creditors recourses5 E-plain.
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ (reditors can le the appropriate actions, for instance, an action for the collection of su! of !one" against the Mpartnership at willN and if there are no su>cient funds, the creditors !a" go after the private properties of Aand : (Article 181#,e! Civil Code". (reditors !a" also sue the estate of (. The estate is not e-cused fro! the liailities of the partnership even if ( is dead alread" ut onl" up to the ti!e that he re!ained a
partner $Article %C60, %C*3, par. 6@ '((, $estate %state of ota v. 'erra, & Phil. = 1%0632). However, the liailit" of (s individual propert" shall e su9ect rst to the pa"!ent of his separate dets (Article 1835,e! Civil (ode).
(&99 Bar Question A, : and ( for!ed a partnership for the purpose of contracting with the Qovern!ent in the construction of one of its ridges. Gn
Pae ) '
PARTNERSHIP and TRUSR BAR EXAM A. +ho are liale for the settle!ent of the partnerships oligations5 E-plain5 :. +hat are the creditors recourses5 E-plain.
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ A. The two re!aining partners, A and :, are liale. +hen an" partner dies and the usiness is continued without an" settle!ent of accounts as etween hi! or his estate, the surviving partners are held liale for continuing the usiness despite the death of ( (Articles 1841, 1785, par. 2, and 1833 of the e! Civil Code". :. (reditors can le the appropriate actions, for instance, an action for the collection of su! of !one" against the Mpartnership at willN and if there are no su>cient funds, the creditors !a" go after the private properties of A and : (Article 181#, e! Civil Code". (reditors !a" also sue the estate of (. The estate is not e-cused fro! the liailities of the partnership even if ( is dead alread" ut onl" up to the ti!e that he re!ained a partner $Article %C60, %C*3, par. 6@ '((, $estate %state of ota v. 'erra, & Phil. = 1%0632). However, the liailit" of (s individual propert" shall e su9ect rst to the pa"!ent of his separate dets (Article 1835, e! Civil (ode).
(&994 Bar Question Stating rieJ" the thesis to support "our answer to each of the following cases, will the death of a partner ter!inate the partnership5 SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ Des. The death of a partner will ter!inate the partnership, " e-press provision of par. 3, Art. %C*/ of the (ivil (ode.
(&995 Bar Question Pauline, Patricia and Priscilla for!ed a usiness partnership for the purpose of engaging in neon advertising for a ter! of ve $3) "ears. Pauline suseuentl" assigned to Philip her interest in the partnership. +hen Patricia and Priscilla learned of the assign!ent, the" decided to dissolve the
partnership efore the e-piration of its ter! as the" had an unproductive usiness relationship with Philip in the past. Gn the other hand, unaware of the !ove of Patricia and Priscilla ut sensing their negative reaction to his acuisition of Paulines interest, Philip si!ultaneousl" petitioned for the dissolution of the partnership. %. #s the dissolution done " Patricia and Priscilla without the consent of Pauline or Philip valid5 E-plain. 6. ;oes Philip have an" right to petition for the dissolution of the partnership efore the e-piration of its specied ter!5 E-plain.
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ %. Under Art. %C*/ $%) $c) of the '((, the dissolution " Patricia and Priscilla is valid and did not violate the contract of partnership even though Pauline and Philip did not consent thereto. The consent of Pauline is not necessar" ecause she had alread" assigned her interest to Philip, The consent of Philip is not also necessar" ecause the assign!ent to hi! of Paulines interest did not !a8e hi! a partner, under Art. %C%* of the '((. A1TERNATIE ANS#ER$ #nterpreting Art. %C*/ $%) $c) to !ean that if one of the partners had assigned his interest on the partnership to another the re!aining partners !a" not dissolve the partnership, the dissolution " Patricia and Priscilla without the consent of Pauline or Philip is not valid. 6. 'o, Philip has no right to petition for dissolution ecause he does not have the standing of a partner $Art. %C%* '(().
(&99 Bar Question A, : and ( for!ed a partnership for the purpose of contracting with the Qovern!ent in the construction of one of its ridges. Gn
PARTNERSHIP and TRUSR BAR EXAM co!plaint against hi! on the ground that it was the A:( partnership that is liale for the det. ; replied that A:( partnership was dissolved upon co!pletion of the pro9ect for which purpose the partnership was for!ed. +ill "ou dis!iss the co!plaint against : if "ou were the 9udge5
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ As
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ Des. To!as can e held liale under the doctrine of estoppel. :ut as regards the parties a!ong the!selves, onl" Rene and
#n the event that To!as is !ade to pa" the liailit" to third person, he has the right to see8 rei!urse!ent fro! Rene and
1i.ited Partnership (&99' Bar Question (an a husand and wife for! a li!ited partnership to engage in real estate usiness, with the wife eing a li!ited partner5 SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ a) Des. The (ivil (ode prohiits a husand and wife fro! constituting a universal partnership. Since a li!ited partnership is not a universal partnership, a husand and wife !a" validl" for! one. ) Des. +hile spouses cannot enter into a universal partnership, the" can enter into a li!ited partnership or e !e!ers thereof $(#R v. 'ter, et al., 6& S(RA %36).
20&&620&' Bar Questions 20&' Bar Question Ti!oth" e-ecuted a e!orandu! of Agree!ent $GA) with Iristopher setting up a usiness venture covering three $*) fastfood stores 8nown as Hungr" Toppings that will e estalished at all Uno, all ;os, and all Tres. The pertinent provisions of the GA provides? %. Ti!oth" shall e considered a partner with thirt" percent $*/O) share in all of the stores to e set up " Iristopher@ 6. The proceeds of the usiness, after deducting e-penses, shall e used to pa" the principal a!ount of
Pae ) 7
PARTNERSHIP and TRUSR BAR EXAM P3//,///.// and the interest therein which is to e co!puted ased on the an8 rate, representing the an8 loan secured " Ti!oth"@ *. The net prots, if an", after deducting the e-penses and pa"!ents of the principal and interest shall e divided as follows? sevent" percent $&/O) for Iristopher and thirt" percent $*/O) for Ti!oth"@ . Iristopher shall have a free hand in running the usiness without an" interference fro! Ti!oth", his agents, representatives, or assigns , and should such interference happen, Iristopher has the right to u" ac8 the share of Ti!oth" less the a!ounts alread" paid on the principal and to dissolve the GA@ and 3. Iristopher shall su!it his !onthl" sales report in connection with the usiness to Ti!oth". +hat is the contractual relationship etween Ti!oth" and Iristopher5
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ The contractual relationship etween Ti!oth" and Iristopher is that of partnership. Article %&=& of the (ivil (ode provides that under a contract of partnership, two or !ore persons ind the!selves to contriute !one", propert" or industr" to a co!!on fund, with the intention of dividing the prots a!ong the!sleves. oreover, article %&=0 of the (ivil (ode states in part that receipt " a person of a share of the prots of a usiness is pri!a facie evidence that he is a partner in the usiness, provided that the said prots were not received in pa"!ent for det, as wages, annuit", interest on a loan, or as consideration for a sale. #n this case, the GA etween Ti!oth" and Iristopher
stipulated that the" shall share in the prots of the usiness */7&/. The contriutions of the partners include a an8 loan otained " Ti!oth" and industr" in the for! of !anaging the properties " Iristopher. Thus, the reuisites for estalishing a contract of partnership are co!plied with. $6/%* :ar uestions) #n 6//3, L, , ', / and P for!ed a partnership. L, and ' were capitalist partners who contriuted P3//,/// each, while /, a li!ited partner, contriuted P% , ///,///. P 9oined as an industrial partner, contriuting onl" his services. The Articles of Partnership, registered with the Securities and E-change (o!!ission, designated L and / as !anaging partners@ L was liale onl" to the e-tent of his capital contriution@ and P was not liale for losses. #n 6//=, the partnership earned a net prot of PC//,///. #n the sa!e "ear, P engaged in a diBerent usiness with the consent of all the partners. However, in 6//&, the partnership incurred a net loss of P3//,///. #n 6//C,the partners dissolved the partnership. The proceeds of the sale of partnership assets were insu>cient to settle its oligation. After liuidation, the partnership had an unpaid liailit" ofP*//,///. $l) Assu!ing that the 9ust and euitale share of the industrial partner, P, in the prot in 6//= a!ounted to P% //,///, how !uch is the share of /, a li!ited partner, in the PC//,/// net prot5 $A) P%=/,///. $:) P%&3,///. $() P6C/,///. $;) P6//,///. $E) 'one of the aove.
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ $() P6C/,///. First, deduct the share of P fro! the prots. PC//,/// less P%//,/// is P&//,///. 'e-t, get the share of G " following the proportion that the shares of L, , ', G is %?%?%?6, respectivel".
Pae ) 4
PARTNERSHIP and TRUSR BAR EXAM $##) #n 6//&, how !uch is the share of /, a li!ited partner, in the net loss of P3//,///5 $A) P /. $:) P% //,///. $() P%63,///. $;) P6//,///. $E) 'one of the aove.
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ $;) P6//,/// A li!ited partner shall not eco!e liale a s a general partner unless, in addition to the e-ercise of his rights and powers as a li!ited partner, he ta8es part in the control of the usiness $Art %0C, (ivil (ode). #n the asence of stipulation as to prots and losses, the share of each partner in the losses shall e proportionate to what he !a" have contriuted $Art %&0&).
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ $E) 'one of the aove is co!pletel" accurate. 20&& Bar Questions The liailit" of the partners, including industrial partners for partnership contracts entered into in its na!e and for its account, when all partnership assets have een e-hausted is $A) Pro7rata. $:)
$###) (an the partnership creditors hold L, / and Pliale after all the assets of the partnership are e-hausted5 $A) Des. The stipulation e-e!pting P fro! losses is valid onl" a!ong the partners. L is liale ecause the agree!ent li!iting his liailit" to his capital contriution is not valid insofar as the creditors are concerned. Having ta8en part in the !anage!ent of the partnership, / is liale as capitalist partner. $:) 'o. P is not liale ecause there is a valid stipulation e-e!pting hi! fro! losses. Since the other partners allowed hi! to engage in an outside usiness activit", the stipulation asolving P fro! liailit" is valid. For /, it is asic that a li!ited partner is liale onl" up to the e-tent of his capital contriution. $() Des. The stipulations e-e!pting P and L fro! losses are not inding upon the creditors. / is li8ewise liale ecause the partnership was not for!ed in accordance with the reuire!ents of a li!ited partnership. $;) 'o. The (ivil (ode allows the partners to stipulate that a partner shall not e liale for losses. The registration of the Articles of Partnership e!od"ing such stipulations serves as constructive notice to the partnership creditors. $E) 'one of the aove is co!pletel" accurate.
Pae ) *
PARTNERSHIP and TRUSR BAR EXAM Trust "istinuish +et8een epress trust and i.p,ied trust (&99: Ans8er$ E-press trust and i!plied trust !a" e distinguished fro! each other in the following wa"s? $%) Gur 'ew (ivil (ode denes an e-press trust as one created " the intention of the trustor or of the parties, and an i!plied trust as one that co!es into eing " operation of law. $6) E-press trusts are those created " the direct and positive acts of the parties, " so!e writing or deed or will or " words evidencing an intention to create a trust. Gn the other hand, i!plied trusts are those which, without eing e-pressed, are deducile fro! the nature of the transaction " operation of law as !atters of euit", in dependentl" of the particular intention of the parties. $*) Thus, if the intention to estalish a trust is clear, the trust is e-press@ if the intent to estalish a trust is to e ta8en fro! circu!stances or other !atters indicative of such intent, then the trust is i!plied. $(ua"ong v. (ua"ong, 6% S(RA %%06). $) 'o e-press trust concerning an i!!ovale or an" interest therein !a" e proved " parol evidence $Art.%*, '((.), while the e-istence of an i!plied trust !a" e proved " parol evidence $3) Laches and prescription do not constitute a ar to enforce an e-press trust, at least while the trustee does not openl" repudiate the trust, and !a8e 8nown such repudiation to the eneciar", while laches and prescription !a" constitute a ar to enforce an i!plied trust, and no repudiation is reuired unless there is
conceal!ent of the facts giving rise to the trust. $Faian v. Faian, 6% S(RA 6%*).
Epress Trust; Pres
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ The !atter should e decided in favor of Re!igio $trustee) ecause the action has not prescried. The case at ar involves an e-press trust which does not prescrie as long as the" have not een repudiated " the trustee $;ia4 vs. Qorricho. %/* Phil, 6=%). I.p,ied Trust (&99*
PARTNERSHIP and TRUSR BAR EXAM SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ %. +hen, for convenience, the Torrens title to the two parcels of land were placed in
AN%THER ANS#ER$ %. Under Article &= of the (ivil (ode,
seller in securing his title. $Eduarte vs. (A, 63* S(RA *0%)
A""ITI%NA1 ANS#ER$ %.
PARTNERSHIP and TRUSR BAR EXAM AN%THER ANS#ER$ 6. The suit will prosper, appl"ing the ruling in #!perial vs. (A cited aove. :oth law and euit" authori4e such result, said the Supre!e (ourt. Strictl" spea8ing,
A1TERNATIE ANS#ER$ 6. The suit will not prosper, since
the action of aureen has alread" prescried since ten "ears have alread" elapsed fro! the registration of the title in his na!e. ;ecide. ;iscuss full".
SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ This is a case of an i!plied resulting trust. #f +alter clai!s to have acuired ownership of the land " prescription or if he anchors his defense on e-tinctive prescription, the ten "ear period !ust e rec8oned fro! %0C& when he de!anded that aureen re!ove the e-tension house on Lot 'o. 6 ecause such de!and a!ounts to an e-press repudiation of the trust and it was !ade 8nown to aureen. The action for reconve"ance led in %006 is not "et arred " prescription. $Spouses Huang v. (ourt of Appeals, Sept. %*, %00). Trust "e Son Tort (2004 E-plain the concept of trust de son tort $constructive trust) and give an e-a!ple. SU!!ESTE" ANS#ER$ A constructive trust is a trust 'GT created " an" word or phrase, either e-pressl" or i!pliedl", evincing a direct intention to create a trust, ut is one that arises in order to satisf" the de!ands of 9ustice. #t does not co!e aout " agree!ent or intention ut !ainl" operation of law and construed as a trust against one who, " fraud, duress or ause of condence, otains or holds the legal right to propert" which he ought not, in euit" and good conscience, to hold $Heirs of Loren4o Dap v. (A, *&% Phil 36*, %00%). The following are e-a!ples of constructive trust? %. Art. %3= '(( which provides? #f propert" is acuired through !ista8e or fraud, the person otaining it is, " force of law considered a trustee of an i!plied trust for the enet of the person for who! the propert" co!es. 6. Art %3% '(( which provides? +hen land passes " succession through an" person and he causes the legal title to e put in the na!e of another, a trust is estalished " i!plication of law for the enet of the true owner. *. Art %3 '(( which provides? #f an asolute conve"ance of propert" is !ade in order to secure the perfor!ance of an oligation of the grantor Pae ) &&
PARTNERSHIP and TRUSR BAR EXAM toward the grantee, a trust " virtue of law is estalished. #f the fulll!ent of the oligation is oBered " the grantor when it eco!es due, he !a" de!and the reconve"ance of the propert" to hi!. . Art %33 '(( which provides? +hen an" trustee, guardian or an" person holding a duciar" relationship uses trust funds for the purchase of propert" and causes conve"ance to e !ade to hi! or to third person, a trust is estalished " operation of law in favor of the person to who! the funds elong.
20&&620&' Bar Questions An action for reconve"ance of a registered piece of land !a" e rought against the owner appearing on the title ased on a clai! that the latter !erel" holds such title in trust for the plaintiB. The action prescries, however, within %/ "ears fro! the registration of the deed or the date of
the issuance of the certicate of title of the propert" as long as the trust had not een repudiated. +hat is the e-ception to this %/7 "ear prescriptive period5 $A) +hen the plaintiB had no notice of the deed or the issuance of the certicate of title. $:) +hen the title holder concealed the !atter fro! the plaintiB. $() +hen fortuitous circu!stances prevented the plaintiB fro! ling the case sooner. $;) +hen the plaintiB is in possession of the propert".
Pae ) &2
