Short answer. No. Article 1447 makes clear that the implied trusts the Civil Code lists are illustrations, not an exhaustive catalogue. Other implied trusts recognized by the general law of trusts are also valid, so long as they do not conflict with the Code. The enumeration opens the door to further trusts rather than closing it.
What the law says
The enumeration of the following cases of implied trust does not exclude others established by the general law of trust
Civil Code, Article 1447 — Enumeration of Implied Trusts Not Exclusive. Read the full provision →
The listed cases are examples, not limits
The Civil Code sets out a series of situations in which an implied trust arises, where the law treats one person as holding property for the benefit of another even without an express trust agreement. A reader might assume that list is the complete set. Article 1447 heads off that assumption: the enumeration of the following cases of implied trust does not exclude others established by the general law of trust. The listed cases are illustrations of a broader principle, and courts are not confined to them when the circumstances call an implied trust into being.
The general law of trusts fills the gaps
Because the enumeration is open-ended, implied trusts recognised by the general law of trusts can be given effect even if the Code does not spell them out. This lets the law respond to new fact patterns, such as property taken or held under circumstances that fairness says should benefit someone other than the titleholder. The Civil Code's specific examples anchor the doctrine, while the general law supplies the flexibility to reach comparable situations the drafters did not separately list.
Subject to one limit
The openness is not unlimited. The article carries over a restriction stated elsewhere in the Code: the principles of the general law of trusts apply only insofar as they are not in conflict with the Civil Code and other statutes. So a court may draw on general trust principles to recognise an implied trust the Code did not enumerate, but it cannot use those principles to override a rule the Code itself lays down. The Code remains the controlling framework; the general law supplements it rather than displacing it.
Why this matters
For anyone dealing with property held in one name but claimed for another's benefit, the lesson is that the argument for an implied trust is not defeated merely because the situation is not on the Code's list. Resulting and constructive trusts, in particular, can arise from a wide range of dealings. What matters is whether the facts fit the recognised principles of trust law and stay consistent with the Code, not whether the drafters happened to enumerate that exact scenario.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Miguel Cuenco vs. Concepcion Cuenco Vda. De Manguerra, G.R. No. 149844, October 13, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of TImoteo Moreno, et al. vs. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority, G.R. No. 156273, October 15, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. Rosario vs. Court of Appeals & Lourdes Villahermosa, et al, G.R. No. 127005, July 19, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Meynardo Policarpio vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 116211, March 7, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →