Short answer. Yes, if the land passed to you by succession and you had the title placed in your relative's name. Article 1451 then raises an implied trust by law: the relative holds the legal title, but the beneficial ownership stays with you, the true owner. He cannot keep the land as his own.
What the law says
When land passes by succession to any person and he causes the legal title to be put in the name of another, a trust is established by implication of law for the benefit of the true owner.
Civil Code, Article 1451 — Trust From Succession. Read the full provision →
The rule Article 1451 lays down
The provision is precise about the sequence it governs: when land passes by succession to any person and he causes the legal title to be put in the name of another, a trust is established by implication of law for the benefit of the true owner. The heir is the person to whom the land actually passed on the decedent's death. If that heir then has the certificate of title issued in someone else's name, the law does not read the paper as a gift. It reads it as a trust, and the person named on the title holds for the heir.
Why the certificate of title is not the last word
People assume a Torrens title settles ownership beyond argument. For most purposes it does, but Article 1451 is one of the situations where the register and the true ownership part company. Registration in a relative's name does not defeat the heir's beneficial interest; it simply means the trust is unwritten and must be proved. What matters is that the land came to you by succession and that you, not your relative, were the source of the ownership he now appears to hold. The title in his name records the trust arrangement rather than overturning it.
What you have to establish
Two facts carry the claim. First, that the land passed to you by succession — the decedent's ownership, the death, your right as heir, and any settlement of the estate. Second, that you caused the title to be placed in the relative's name, rather than genuinely transferring the land to him. Evidence that you kept possession, paid the taxes, and dealt with the property as owner all point the same way. Where money changed hands or a deed of sale was signed, the picture is muddier, and the relative may argue he bought the land rather than merely held it.
The clock, and what to do now
An implied trust does not last forever once it is repudiated. As long as the trustee acknowledges he holds for you, your right is secure; but if he openly claims the land as his own — sells it, refuses your demand, asserts sole ownership — time begins to run against you from that repudiation. So a demand that he reconvey, made in writing and answered, is not merely a courtesy; it fixes the date everything is measured from. Gather the succession documents and the tax record, then put the demand in writing before the relationship sours further.
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.
- Erlinda Pilapil, et al. vs. Heirs of Maximino R. Briones, et al, G.R. No. 150175, March 10, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Norma C. Magsano, Et Al. vs. Pangasinan Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., Et Al, G.R. No. 215038, October 17, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Primo Inalvez and Juliana Inalvez vs. Bayang Nool, Allan Nool and Celestino Nool, G.R. No. 188145, April 18, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Nelson Nufable, et al. vs. Generosa Nufable, et al, G.R. No. 126950, July 2, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →