Text of the provision
Art. 1447. The enumeration of the following cases of implied trust does not exclude others established by the general law of trust, but the limitation laid down in article 1442 shall be applicable.
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
The following cases of implied trust do not exclude others recognized by the general law of trusts — subject to the parol-evidence limit of Art. 1442.
An implied trust is one that arises by operation of law from the circumstances of a transaction, rather than from an express declaration by the parties. The articles that follow list specific situations the law recognizes as creating such a trust, and this article makes clear that the list is illustrative, not exhaustive — other situations recognized under the general law of trusts can likewise give rise to an implied trust. That broader source of trust law, however, remains subject to the same limitation Article 1442 places on principles adopted from outside the Code.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 1446 — Beneficiary's Acceptance.
- Article 1448 — Purchase-Money Resulting Trust.
Cases citing this article
- Miguel Cuenco vs. Concepcion Cuenco Vda. De Manguerra, G.R. No. 149844, October 13, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of TImoteo Moreno, et al. vs. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority, G.R. No. 156273, October 15, 2003 — 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 →
- Meynardo Policarpio vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 116211, March 7, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.