Short answer. Yes. Article 1453 creates an implied trust when property is conveyed to someone in reliance on his declared intention to hold it for, or transfer it to, another person or back to the grantor. The intended beneficiary becomes the beneficiary of that trust, even without a written trust agreement.
What the law says
When property is conveyed to a person in reliance upon his declared intention to hold it for, or transfer it to another or the grantor, there is an implied trust in favor of the person whose benefit is contemplated.
Civil Code, Article 1453 — Trust From a Declared Intention to Hold. Read the full provision →
A declared intention creates a trust by law
Article 1453 recognizes a trust arising simply from what the recipient of the property said they would do with it. It provides that when property is conveyed to a person in reliance upon his declared intention to hold it for, or transfer it to another or the grantor, there is an implied trust in favor of the person whose benefit is contemplated. Because you transferred the property relying on the recipient's declared intention to hold it for someone else, the law implies a trust automatically, in favor of whoever that intended beneficiary is, without requiring a separate, formal trust document to make it real.
Who the trust benefits
The article covers two related situations at once: holding the property for another named person, or holding it for the grantor to eventually transfer back. Either way, the person the arrangement was actually meant to benefit, whether that is a third party or you yourself as the original grantor, is recognized as the beneficiary of the implied trust, while the person who received legal title holds it as trustee, bound to act consistently with the declared purpose rather than as free, unrestricted owner.
Why reliance on the declaration matters
The trust arises specifically because the transfer was made in reliance on the recipient's stated intention. This means the declaration is not merely incidental; it is the reason the property was conveyed at all. If you would not have transferred the property but for the recipient's stated promise to hold it for the intended beneficiary, that reliance is what the law protects, preventing the recipient from later claiming full, unrestricted ownership simply because legal title happens to be in their name.
What this means if the trustee refuses to honor the arrangement
Because the trust exists by implication of law rather than by a formal written instrument, the intended beneficiary is not left without recourse simply because nothing was put in writing at the time. The recipient, as trustee, is legally bound by the declared intention that induced the transfer in the first place, and holding the property for personal benefit instead would be inconsistent with the trust Article 1453 recognizes.
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.
- Eustaquio Mallilin, Jr. vs. Ma. Elvira Castillo, G.R. No. 136803, June 16, 2000 — 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 →
- Valentino S. Clemente vs. The Court of Appeals, Annie Shotwell Jalandoon, et al, G.R. No. 175483, October 14, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Norma Edita R. Dy Sun-Ong vs. Jose Victory R. Dy Sun, G.R. No. 207435, July 1, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →