Short answer. Usually you, as beneficiary of an implied trust. Article 1448 provides that when property is sold and the title goes to one person while another pays the price, the title-holder is a trustee and the payer is the beneficial owner, unless the title-holder is your legitimate or illegitimate child, in which case a gift is presumed instead.
What the law says
There is an implied trust when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary.
Civil Code, Article 1448 — Purchase-Money Resulting Trust. Read the full provision →
What the law says
if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being disputably presumed that there is a gift in favor of the child
Civil Code, Article 1448 — Purchase-Money Resulting Trust. Read the full provision →
The payer becomes the beneficial owner
Article 1448 addresses your exact situation. It provides that there is an implied trust when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. If you paid the purchase price with the intention of actually owning the beneficial interest, while the title went into someone else's name, that person legally holds the property as trustee for you, and you are recognized as the real, beneficial owner even though your name is not on the title.
The exception when the title-holder is your child
This implied trust does not apply automatically to every payer-and-titleholder pairing. The article carves out family situations directly: if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being disputably presumed that there is a gift in favor of the child. If you put the title in your own child's name, the law's starting assumption flips: rather than presuming you meant to remain the beneficial owner, it presumes you meant to give the property to your child.
The presumption of a gift can be disputed
The word disputably in the article matters. A gift to your child is only a presumption, not an unbreakable rule; it can be overcome with evidence showing you never actually intended to give the property away, and that the title was placed in your child's name for some other reason, such as convenience, while you still meant to keep the beneficial ownership for yourself. Without such evidence, though, the presumption of a gift stands, and the implied trust in your favor does not arise.
What this means for establishing your ownership
If the title-holder is not your child, you generally have a stronger, more direct claim to beneficial ownership under Article 1448, based simply on having paid the price with the intent to own the property. If the title-holder is your child, you would need to overcome the presumption that the arrangement was a gift, by showing evidence of your actual intent at the time the property was purchased and titled.
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.
- Alejandro B. Ty vs. Sylvia S. Ty, etc, G.R. No. 165696, April 30, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Ferdinand Roxas vs. Heirs of Melania Roxas, G.R. No. 254452, November 27, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jose Norberto Ang vs. The Estate of Sy So, G.R. No. 182252, August 3, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Estrella Pigao, et al. vs. Samuel Rabanillo, G.R. No. 150712, May 2, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →