Short answer. It is presumed a gift, not a trust. Article 1448 says that when the person to whom title is conveyed is a child of the one who paid the price, no trust is implied by law; instead there is a disputable presumption that a gift was intended in favor of the child.
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 general rule, and the exception for your child
Article 1448 sets out the purchase-money resulting trust: normally, when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another, the one who paid is the beneficiary and the titleholder is the trustee. That protects a payer who puts title in a stranger's name. But the article carves out a family exception. It says that 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. So placing title in your child's name flips the default.
Why the law presumes a gift
The presumption reflects ordinary human experience: a parent who pays for property and puts it in a child's name is usually intending to provide for that child, not to keep the child as a mere paper owner holding for the parent. Because of that, the law does not force the arrangement into a trust. Instead it reads the transfer as a gift — a completed act of generosity in the child's favor. The word disputably is important: this is a presumption, a starting point the law adopts, not an unbreakable conclusion. It tells the court how to read the situation unless someone proves otherwise.
Rebutting the presumption
Because the presumption is only disputably made, it can be overcome by evidence that no gift was intended. If you can show that you and your child understood the title was to be held for your benefit — that the child was to keep the property for you rather than receive it — the presumption of a gift can give way. The burden, however, is on the parent who says it was not a gift. Casual assertions after a falling-out rarely suffice; what persuades is proof of the actual intent at the time of the purchase, such as an agreement or conduct consistent with the child merely holding title.
What this means in practice
If your goal was to keep beneficial ownership while using your child's name, understand that the law starts against you: it assumes you meant to give. That has real consequences — the property may be treated as belonging to the child, with implications for control, later transfers and even the child's other obligations. Parents who genuinely intend only a name-holding arrangement, not a gift, are wise to document that intent clearly at the outset rather than rely on memory later. Whether the presumption can be rebutted in any given case depends on the specific facts and the strength of the proof of intent.
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 →