Several of us bought property together but by agreement the title was taken in one name — what are the rest of us entitled to?

A trust the law creates for you

Putting the paper title in one buyer's name does not make that person the sole owner when the arrangement was for everyone's benefit. Article 1452 provides that if two or more persons agree to purchase property and by common consent the legal title is taken in the name of one of them for the benefit of all, a trust is created by force of law in favor of the others in proportion to the interest of each. The titleholder becomes a trustee. He holds the legal title, but he holds it for the group, and each co-buyer keeps a beneficial share matching what that co-buyer put in.

What 'in proportion to the interest of each' means

Your entitlement is not equal by default — it tracks your actual interest in the purchase. The article measures each co-buyer's beneficial share in proportion to the interest of each, which typically reflects how much of the price each contributed under the common agreement. So the person named on the title is not enriched at the others' expense; he is accountable to each co-buyer for that co-buyer's proportionate share. The title in one name is, in substance, a convenience of paperwork, not a transfer of everyone else's stake to the named holder.

What the trustee may and may not do

Because he holds for the benefit of all, the named titleholder cannot simply treat the property as his own. Dealing with it as though the other co-buyers had no interest — keeping the fruits, or trying to dispose of the whole for himself — runs against the trust the law has imposed. The beneficiaries are entitled to recognition of their shares and to an accounting for the property held on their behalf. The arrangement rests on the common consent behind the purchase, so being able to show that shared agreement, and each person's contribution, is what gives the beneficial shares their content.

The limits of the provision

The article creates and allocates the trust; it does not, on its own, resolve every downstream problem. It does not fix the exact figures if the parties dispute how much each contributed — that is a matter of proof. It also does not by itself settle the rights of a later good-faith purchaser who deals with the registered titleholder without notice of the others' interest, a situation the registration rules address. And it assumes a genuine common agreement to buy for all; it is not a tool to claim a share in property one simply hoped to be included in without any such understanding.

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 J. Osorio Pension Foundation, Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 162175, June 28, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Spouses Juan and Lilibeth Diaz vs. Jose Diaz & Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135885, April 28, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Heirs of Miguel Franco, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 123924, December 11, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Eustaquio Mallilin, Jr. vs. Ma. Elvira Castillo, G.R. No. 136803, June 16, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1452 — Trust Among Co-Purchasers