Banking Cases

of 109
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  G.R. No. 82027 March 29, 1990ROMARICO G. VITUG, pettoner,vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ROWENA FAUSTINO-CORONA, respondens. Rufno B. Javier Law Oce or pettoner.Quisumbing, Torres & Evangelisa or privae responden. SARMIENTO,  J.: This case is a chaper in an earlier sui decided by his Cour  1  involving heprobae of he wo wills of he lae Dolores Luchangco Viug, who died inNew York, U. S.A., on November 10, 1980, naming privae respondenRowena Faustno-Corona execurix. In our said decision, we upheld heappoinmen of Nenia Alone as co-special adminisraor of Mrs. Viug'sesae wih her (Mrs. Viug's) widower, pettoner Romarico G. Viug,pending probae.On January 13, 1985, Romarico G. Viug led a moton asking for auhoriyfrom he probae cour o sell cerain shares of sock and real propertesbelonging o he esae o cover allegedly his advances o he esae in hesum of P667,731.66, plus ineress, which he claimed were personal funds.As found by he Cour of Appeals, 2  he alleged advances consised of P58,147.40 spen for he paymen of esae ax, P518,834.27 as deciencyesae ax, and P90,749.99 as incremen hereo. 3  According o Mr. Viug,he wihdrew he sums of P518,834.27 and P90,749.99 from savings accounNo. 35342-038 of he Bank of America, Makat, Mero Manila.On April 12, 1985, Rowena Corona opposed he moton o sell on he groundha he same funds wihdrawn from savings accoun No. 35342-038 wereconjugal parnership propertes and par of he esae, and hence, here wasallegedly no ground for reimbursemen. She also sough his ouser forfailure o include he sums in queston for invenory and for concealmen of funds belonging o he esae.   4 Viug insiss ha he said funds are his exclusive propery having acquiredhe same hrough a survivorship agreemen execued wih his lae wife andhe bank on June 19, 1970. The agreemen provides:We hereby agree wih each oher and wih he BANK OF AMERICANNATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION (hereinaer referred o as heBANK), ha all money now or hereaer deposied by us or any or eiher of us wih he BANK in our join savings curren accoun shall be he properyof all or boh of us and shall be payable o and collectble or wihdrawableby eiher or any of us during our lifetme, and aer he deah of eiher orany of us shall belong o and be he sole propery of he survivor orsurvivors, and shall be payable o and collectble or wihdrawable by suchsurvivor or survivors.We furher agree wih each oher and he BANK ha he receip or check of eiher, any or all of us during our lifetme, or he receip or check of hesurvivor or survivors, for any paymen or wihdrawal made for our above-mentoned accoun shall be valid and sucien release and discharge of heBANK for such paymen or wihdrawal. 5 The rial cours  6  upheld he validiy of his agreemen and graned hemoton o sell some of he esae of Dolores L. Viug, he proceeds of whichshall be used o pay he personal funds of Romarico Viug in he oal sum of P667,731.66 ... . 7 On he oher hand, he Cour of Appeals, in he petton for certorari ledby he herein privae responden, held ha he above-quoed survivorshipagreemen constues a conveyance morts causa  which did no complywih he formalites of a valid will as prescribed by Artcle 805 of he CivilCode,   8  and secondly, assuming ha i is a mere donaton iner vivos,  i is aprohibied donaton under he provisions of Artcle 133 of he Civil Code. 9 The dispositve porton of he decision of he Cour of Appeals saes:WHEREFORE, he order of responden Judge daed November 26, 1985(Annex II, petton) is hereby se aside insofar as i graned privaeresponden's moton o sell cerain propertes of he esae of Dolores L.Viug for reimbursemen of his alleged advances o he esae, bu he same1  order is susained in all oher respecs. In additon, responden Judge isdireced o include provisionally he deposis in Savings Accoun No. 35342-038 wih he Bank of America, Makat, in he invenory of acual propertespossessed by he spouses a he tme of he deceden's deah. Wih cossagains privae responden.  10 In his petton, Viug, he surviving spouse, assails he appellae cour'sruling on he srengh of our decisions in Rivera v. People's Bank and Trus Co . 11  and Macam v. Gamaian   12  in which we susained he validiy of  survivorship agreemens and considering hem as aleaory conracs.  13 The petton is meriorious.The conveyance in queston is no, rs of all, one of morts causa,  whichshould be embodied in a will. A will has been dened as a personal,solemn, revocable and free ac by which a capaciaed person disposes of hispropery and righs and declares or complies wih dutes o ake eec aerhis deah. 14  In oher words, he beques or device mus perain o heesaor.  15  In his case, he monies subjec of savings accoun No. 35342-038were in he naure of conjugal funds In he case relied on, Rivera v. People'sBank and Trus Co., 16  we rejeced claims ha a survivorship agreemenpurpors o deliver one pary's separae propertes in favor of he oher, busimply, heir join holdings:xxx xxx xxx... Such conclusion is evidenly predicaed on he assumpton haSephenson was he exclusive owner of he funds-deposied in he bank,which assumpton was in urn based on he facs (1) ha he accoun wassrcinally opened in he name of Sephenson alone and (2) ha Ana Rivera served only as housemaid of he deceased. Bu i no infrequenlyhappens ha a person deposis money in he bank in he name of anoher;and in he insan case i also appears ha Ana Rivera served her maser forabou nineeen years wihou acually receiving her salary from him. Thefac ha subsequenly Sephenson ransferred he accoun o he name of himself and/or Ana Rivera and execued wih he laer he survivorshipagreemen in queston alhough here was no relaton of kinship beweenhem bu only ha of maser and servan, nullies he assumpton haSephenson was he exclusive owner of he bank accoun. In he absence,hen, of clear proof o he conrary, we mus give full faih and credi o hecertcae of deposi which recies in eec ha he funds in questonbelonged o Edgar Sephenson and Ana Rivera; ha hey were join (andseveral) owners hereof; and ha eiher of hem could wihdraw any par orhe whole of said accoun during he lifetme of boh, and he balance, if any, upon he deah of eiher, belonged o he survivor. 17 xxx xxx xxxIn Macam v. Gamaian,   18  i was held:xxx xxx xxxThis Cour is of he opinion ha Exhibi C is an aleaory conrac whereby,according o artcle 1790 of he Civil Code, one of he partes or bohreciprocally bind hemselves o give or do somehing as an equivalen forha which he oher pary is o give or do in case of he occurrence of aneven which is uncerain or will happen a an indeerminae tme. As alreadysaed, Leonarda was he owner of he house and Juana of he Buickauomobile and mos of he furniure. By virue of Exhibi C, Juana wouldbecome he owner of he house in case Leonarda died rs, and Leonardawould become he owner of he auomobile and he furniure if Juana wereo die rs. In his manner Leonarda and Juana reciprocally assigned heirrespectve propery o one anoher conditoned upon who migh die rs,he tme of deah deermining he even upon which he acquisiton of suchrigh by he one or he oher depended. This conrac, as any oher conrac,is binding upon he partes hereo. Inasmuch as Leonarda had died beforeJuana, he laer hereupon acquired he ownership of he house, in hesame manner as Leonarda would have acquired he ownership of heauomobile and of he furniure if Juana had died rs. 19 xxx xxx xxxThere is no showing ha he funds exclusively belonged o one pary, andhence i mus be presumed o be conjugal, having been acquired during heexisence of he maria. relatons. 20 2  Neiher is he survivorship agreemen a donaton iner vivos,  for obviousreasons, because i was o ake eec aer he deah of one pary. Secondly,i is no a donaton beween he spouses because i involved no conveyanceof a spouse's own propertes o he oher.I is also our opinion ha he agreemen involves no modicaton petton of he conjugal parnership, as held by he Cour of Appeals, 21  by merestpulaton   22  and ha i is no cloak 23  o circumven he law on conjugalpropery relatons. Cerainly, he spouses are no prohibied by law o invesconjugal propery, say, by way of a join and several bank accoun, morecommonly denominaed in banking parlance as an and/or accoun. In hecase a bar, when he spouses Viug opened savings accoun No. 35342-038,hey merely pu wha righully belonged o hem in a money-makingvenure. They did no dispose of i in favor of he oher, which would havearguably been sanctonable as a prohibied donaton. And since he fundswere conjugal, i can no be said ha one spouse could have pressured heoher in placing his or her deposis in he money pool.The validiy of he conrac seems debaable by reason of is survivor-ake-all feaure, bu in realiy, ha conrac imposed a mere obligaton wih aerm, he erm being deah. Such agreemens are permied by he CivilCode.  24 Under Artcle 2010 of he Code:ART. 2010. By an aleaory conrac, one of he partes or boh reciprocallybind hemselves o give or o do somehing in consideraton of wha heoher shall give or do upon he happening of an even which is uncerain, orwhich is o occur a an indeerminae tme.Under he aforequoed provision, he fulllmen of an aleaory conracdepends on eiher he happening of an even which is (1) uncerain, (2) which is o occur a an indeerminae tme. A survivorship agreemen, hesale of a sweepsake tcke, a ransacton stpulatng on he value of currency, and insurance have been held o fall under he rs caegory, whilea conrac for life annuiy or pension under Artcle 2021, e sequenta , hasbeen caegorized under he second. 25  In eiher case, he elemen of risk ispresen. In he case a bar, he risk was he deah of one pary andsurvivorship of he oher.However, as we have warned:xxx xxx xxxBu alhough he survivorship agreemen is per se no conrary o law isoperaton or eec may be violatve of he law. For insance, if i be shown ina given case ha such agreemen is a mere cloak o hide an inociousdonaton, o ransfer propery in fraud of crediors, or o defea he legitmeof a forced heir, i may be assailed and annulled upon such grounds. No suchvice has been impued and esablished agains he agreemen involved inhis case. 26 xxx xxx xxxThere is no demonsraton here ha he survivorship agreemen had beenexecued for such unlawful purposes, or, as held by he responden cour, inorder o frusrae our laws on wills, donatons, and conjugal parnership.The conclusion is accordingly unavoidable ha Mrs. Viug havingpredeceased her husband, he laer has acquired upon her deah a vesedrigh over he amouns under savings accoun No. 35342-038 of he Bank of America. Insofar as he responden cour ordered heir inclusion in heinvenory of asses le by Mrs. Viug, we hold ha he cour was in error.Being he separae propery of pettoner, i forms no more par of heesae of he deceased.WHEREFORE, he decision of he responden appellae cour, daed June 29,1987, and is resoluton, daed February 9, 1988, are SET ASIDE.No coss.SO ORDERED.3  G.R. No. 94723 August 21, 1997KAREN E. SALVACION, minor, thru Federico N. Salvacion, Jr., father andNatural Guardian, and Spouses FEDERICO N. SALVACION, JR., and EVELINAE. SALVACION, pettoners,vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, CHINA BANKING CORPORATION andGREG BARTELLI y NORTHCOTT, respondens. TORRES, JR.,  J.: In our predispositon o discover he srcinal inen of a saue, coursbecome he unfeeling pillars of he saus quo . Ligle do we realize hasaues or even constutons are bundles of compromises hrown our wayby heir framers. Unless we exercise vigilance, he saue may already beou of une and irrelevan o our day.The petton is for declaraory relief. I prays for he following reliefs:a.) Immediaely upon he ling of his petton, an Order be issuedresraining he respondens from applying and enforcing Secton 113 of Cenral Bank Circular No. 960;b.) Aer hearing, judgmen be rendered:1.) Declaring he respectve righs and dutes of pettoners and respondens;2.) Adjudging Secton 113 of Cenral Bank Circular No. 960 as conrary o heprovisions of he Constuton, hence void; because is provision ha Foreign currency deposis shall be exemp from aachmen, garnishmen,or any oher order or process of any cour, legislatve body, governmenagency or any adminisratve body whasoeveri.) has aken away he righ of pettoners o have he bank deposi of defendan Greg Barelli y Norhco garnished o satsfy he judgmenrendered in pettoners' favor in violaton of subsantve due processguaraneed by he Constuton;ii.) has given foreign currency deposiors an undue favor or a class privilegein violaton of he equal proecton clause of he Constuton;iii.) has provided a safe haven for criminals like he herein responden GregBarelli y Norhco since criminals could escape civil liabiliy for heirwrongful acs by merely convertng heir money o a foreign currency anddepositng i in a foreign currency deposi accoun wih an auhorized bank.The aneceden facs:On February 4, 1989, Greg Barelli y Norhco, an American ouris, coaxedand lured pettoner Karen Salvacion, hen 12 years old o go wih him o hisaparmen. Therein, Greg Barelli deained Karen Salvacion for four days, orup o February 7, 1989 and was able o rape he child once on February 4,and hree tmes each day on February 5, 6, and 7, 1989. On February 7,1989, aer policemen and people living nearby, rescued Karen, Greg Barelliwas arresed and deained a he Makat Municipal Jail. The policemenrecovered from Barelli he following iems: 1.) Dollar Check No. 368,Conrol No. 021000678-1166111303, US 3,903.20; 2.) COCOBANK BankBook No. 104-108758-8 (Peso Acc.); 3.) Dollar Accoun — China BankingCorp., US$/A#54105028-2; 4.) ID-122-30-8877; 5.) Philippine Money(P234.00) cash; 6.) Door Keys 6 pieces; 7.) Sued Doll (Teddy Bear) used inseducing he complainan.On February 16, 1989, Makat Investgatng Fiscal Edwin G. Condaya ledagains Greg Barelli, Criminal Case No. 801 for Serious Illegal Deenton andCriminal Cases Nos. 802, 803, 804, and 805 for four (4) couns of Rape. Onhe same day, pettoners led wih he Regional Trial Cour of Makat CivilCase No. 89-3214 for damages wih preliminary aachmen agains GregBarelli. On February 24, 1989, he day here was a scheduled hearing forBarelli's petton for bail he laer escaped from jail.On February 28, 1989, he cour graned he scal's Urgen Ex-Pare Motonfor he Issuance of Warran of Arres and Hold Deparure Order. Pending he4


Oct 8, 2019
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!