Short answer. Acceptance is necessary, but no formal act is usually required. Where the trust imposes no burden on the beneficiary, his acceptance is presumed unless there is proof to the contrary. So in the ordinary case of a pure benefit, you need not sign or declare anything to be treated as having accepted.
What the law says
Acceptance by the beneficiary is necessary. Nevertheless, if the trust imposes no onerous condition upon the beneficiary, his acceptance shall be presumed, if there is no proof to the contrary.
Civil Code, Article 1446 — Beneficiary's Acceptance. Read the full provision →
Necessary, but presumed
Article 1446 sets up a rule and an exception in the same breath. Acceptance by the beneficiary is necessary. Nevertheless, if the trust imposes no onerous condition upon the beneficiary, his acceptance shall be presumed, if there is no proof to the contrary. So acceptance genuinely is a requirement, no one can be forced to receive a benefit against his will, but the law does not make you perform any ceremony to supply it. For a trust that simply confers something on you and asks nothing back, acceptance is assumed to be there, and the burden falls on whoever wants to say it is not.
Why the law presumes it
The presumption reflects ordinary human behaviour. People do not refuse gratuitous benefits, so the law saves everyone the artificial step of a formal acceptance where nothing is being asked of the recipient. This matters most where the beneficiary is a child, is far away, or does not even know of the trust when it is created: the benefit is not held hostage to a signature that may be impossible to obtain at the moment. The interest vests and the trustee may administer it, with the beneficiary treated as having accepted from the outset.
Where the presumption stops
Read the condition in the article carefully: acceptance is presumed only if the trust imposes no onerous condition upon the beneficiary. The moment the trust attaches a real burden, a charge to pay, a duty to perform, an obligation given in exchange for what is received, the automatic presumption falls away and actual acceptance has to be shown. That situation is the mirror image of this one and turns on what "onerous" means for the particular trust. For a plain, unburdened benefit, though, silence is consistent with acceptance, not with refusal.
The presumption can be rebutted
Presumed is not irrebuttable. The clause if there is no proof to the contrary leaves room to show the beneficiary in fact declined, most obviously by repudiating the trust. So the practical questions are whether the beneficiary ever said or did anything amounting to refusal, and whether the trust really imposes no burden. If you are the beneficiary and content to take the benefit, you need do nothing; if you mean to reject it, you must say so, because staying silent is what the law reads as acceptance.
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.
- Efraim D. Daniel vs. Nancy O. Magkaisa, et al, G.R. No. 203815, December 7, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Eulogio M. Pedrano vs. Heirs of Benedicto Pedrano etc, G.R. No. 159666, December 4, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →