Goyanko vs UCPB 690s79

8/9/2019 Goyanko vs UCPB 690s79

1/9

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 179096 February 06, 2013

JOSEPH GO!N"O, JR., a# a$%&'(ra(or o) (*e E#(a(e o) Jo#e+* Goya'o, Sr., Petitioner,

vs.

UN-TE COCONUT P/!NTERS !N", M!NGO !ENUE R!NCH, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

R-ON, J.:

e resolve the petition for revie! on certiorar i "

filed b# petitioner $oseph %o#an&o, $r., ad'inistrator of the Estate of $oseph %o#an&o, Sr., to nullif# the decision( dated )ebruar# (*, (**+ and the

resolution dated $ul# ", (**+ of the Court of -ppeals C-/ in C-0%.R. CV. No. **(1+ affir'in2 the

decision3 of the Re2ional 4rial Court of Cebu Cit#, 5ranch "6R4C/ in Civil Case No. CE50(((++.

4he R4C dis'issed the petitioner7s co'plaint for recover# of su' 'one# a2ainst 8nited Coconut

Planters 5an&, Man2o -venue 5ranch 8CP5/.

4he )actual -ntecedents

In "991, the late $oseph %o#an&o, Sr. %o#an&o/ invested 4!o Million Pesos P(,***,***.**/ !ith

Philippine -sia :endin2 Investors, Inc. fa'il#, represented b# the petitioner, and his ille2iti'ate

fa'il# presented conflictin2 clai's to P-:II for the release of the invest'ent. Pendin2 theinvesti2ation of the conflictin2 clai's, P-:II deposited the proceeds of the invest'ent !ith 8CP5 on

October (9, "9961 under the na'e ;Phil -sia< I4) In 4rust )or/ 4he =eirs of $oseph %o#an&o,

Sr.; (ACCOUNT). On Septe'ber (+, "99+, the deposit under the -CCO8N4 !as P",1*9,">.+6.

On Dece'ber "", "99+, 8CP5 allo!ed P-:II to !ithdra! One Million )ive =undred 4housand

Pesos P",1**,***.**/ fro' the -ccount, leavin2 a balance of onl# P9,">.+6. hen 8CP5 refused

the de'and to restore the a'ount !ithdra!n plus le2al interest fro' Dece'ber "", "99+, the

petitioner filed a co'plaint before the R4C. In its ans!er to the co'plaint, 8CP5 ad'itted, a'on2

others, the openin2 of the -CCO8N4 under the na'e ;I4) In 4rust )or/ 4he =eirs of $oseph

%o#an&o, Sr.,; (ITF HEIRS) and the !ithdra!al on Dece'ber "", "99+.

The RTC Ruling

In its -u2ust (+, (** decision, the R4C dis'issed the petitioner7s co'plaint and a!arded 8CP5

attorne#7s fees, liti2ation e?penses and the costs of the suit.6 4he R4C did not consider the !ords

;I4) =EIRS; sufficient to char2e 8CP5 !ith &no!led2e of an# trust relation bet!een P-:II and

%o#an&o7s heirs (HEIRS). It concluded that 8CP5 'erel# perfor'ed its dut# as a depositor# ban& in

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt1


2/9

allo!in2 P-:II to !ithdra! fro' the -CCO8N4, as the contract of deposit !as officiall# onl# bet!een

P-:II, in its o!n capacit#, and 8CP5. 4he petitioner appealed his case to the C-.

The CA’s Ruling

5efore the C-, the petitioner 'aintained that by o+e'&' (*e !CCOUNT, P!/-- e#(ab*e$ a (ru#(by 4*&5* &( 4a# (*e (ru#(ee a'$ (*e HE-RS are (*e (ru#(or#be'e)&5&ar&e#8 thus, 8CP5

should be liable for allo!in2 the !ithdra!al.

4he C- partiall# 2ranted the petitioner7s appeal. It affir'ed the -u2ust (+, (** decision of the R4C,

but deleted the a!ard of attorne#7s fees and liti2ation e?penses. 4he C- held that no e?press trust

!as created bet!een the =EIRS and P-:II. )or a trust to be established, the la! re@uires, a'on2

others, a co'petent trustor and trustee and a clear intention to create a trust, !hich !ere absent in

this case. Auotin2 the R4C !ith approval, the C- noted that the contract of deposit !as onl#

bet!een P-:II in its o!n capacit# and 8CP5, and the !ords ;I4) =EIRS; !ere insufficient to

establish the e?istence of a trust. 4he C- concluded that as no trust e?isted, e?pressl# or i'pliedl#,

8CP5 is not liable for the a'ount !ithdra!n.+

In its $ul# ", (**+ resolution,> the C- denied the petitioner7s 'otion for reconsideration. =ence, the

petitioner7s present recourse.

T*e Pe(&(&o'

4he petitioner ar2ues in his petition that< first , an e?press trust !as created, as clearl# sho!n b#

P-:II7s March (>, "996 and Nove'ber "1, "996 letters.9 Citin2 Burisprudence, the petitioner

e'phasies that fro' the established definition of a trust, "* P-:II is clearl# the trustor as it created

the trust 8CP5 is the trustee as it is the part# in !ho' confidence is reposed as re2ards the

propert# for the benefit of another and the =EIRS are the beneficiaries as the# are the persons for !hose benefit the trust is created."" -lso, @uotin2 Development Ban of t!e "!ilippines v#

Commission on A$%it&"( the petitioner ar2ues that the na'in2 of the cest$i '$e tr$st is not necessar#

as it suffices that the# are ade@uatel# certain or identifiable."

Secon% , 8CP5 !as ne2li2ent and in bad faith in allo!in2 the !ithdra!al and in failin2 to in@uire into

the nature of the -CCO8N4."3 4he petitioner 'aintains that the surroundin2 facts, the testi'on# of

8CP57s !itness, and 8CP57s o!n records sho!ed that< "/ 8CP5 !as a!are of the trust relation

bet!een P-:II and the =EIRS and (/ P-:II held the -CCO8N4 in a trust capacit#. Finall , the C-

erred in affir'in2 the R4C7s dis'issal of his case for lac& of cause of action. 4he petitioner insists

that since an e?press trust clearl# e?ists, 8CP5, the trustee, should not have allo!ed the !ithdra!al.

T*e Ca#e )or UCP

8CP5 posits, in defense, that the -CCO8N4 involves an ordinar# deposit contract bet!een P-:II

and 8CP5 onl#, !hich created a debtor0creditor relationship obli2atin2 8CP5 to return the proceeds

to the account holder0P-:II. 4hus, it !as not ne2li2ent in handlin2 the -CCO8N4 !hen it allo!ed

the !ithdra!al. 4he 'ere desi2nation of the -CCO8N4 as ;I4); is insufficient to establish the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt14


3/9

e?istence of an e?press trust or char2e it !ith &no!led2e of the relation bet!een P-:II and the

=EIRS.

8CP5 also ar2ues that the petitioner chan2ed the theor# of his case. 5efore the C-, the petitioner

ar2ued that the =EIRS are the trustors0beneficiaries, and P-:II is the trustee. =ere, the petitioner

'aintains that P-:II is the trustor, 8CP5 is the trustee, and the =EIRS are the beneficiaries.Contrar# to the petitioner7s assertion, the records failed to sho! that P-:II and 8CP5 e?ecuted a

trust a2ree'ent, and P-:II7s letters 'ade it clear that P-:II, on its o!n, intended to turn0over the

proceeds of the -CCO8N4 to its ri2htful o!ners.

T*e Cour(# Ru&'

4he issue before us is !hether 8CP5 should be held liable for the a'ount !ithdra!n because a

trust a2ree'ent e?isted bet!een P-:II and 8CP5, in favor of the =EIRS, !hen P-:II opened the

-CCO8N4 !ith 8CP5.

:e rue &' (*e 'ea(&;e.

e first address the procedural issues. e stress the settled rule that a petition for revie!

on certiorari under Rule 31 of the Rules of Court resolves onl# @uestions of la!, not @uestions of

fact."1 - @uestion, to be one of la!, 'ust not e?a'ine the probative value of the evidence presented

b# the parties"6 other!ise, the @uestion is one of fact."+ hether an e?press trust e?ists in this case

is a @uestion of fact !hose resolution is not proper in a petition under R$le *# Reinforcin2 this is the

e@uall# settled rule that factual findin2s of the lo!er tribunals are conclusive on the parties and are

not 2enerall# revie!able b# this Court,"> especiall# !hen, as here, the C- affir'ed these findin2s.

4he plain reason is that this Court is not a trier of facts. "9 hile this Court has, at ti'es, per'itted

e?ceptions fro' the restriction,(* !e find that none of these e?ceptions obtain in the present case.

Second, !e find that the petitioner chan2ed the theor# of his case. 4he petitioner ar2ued before the

lo!er courts that an e?press trust e?ists bet!een P-:II as the trustee and the =EIRS as the trustor0

beneficiar#.(" 4he petitioner no! asserts that the e?press trust e?ists bet!een P-:II as the trustor

and 8CP5 as the trustee, !ith the =EIRS as the beneficiaries.(( -t this sta2e of the case, such

chan2e of theor# is si'pl# not allo!ed as it violates basic rules of fair pla#, Bustice and due process.

Our rulin2s are clear 0 ;a part# !ho deliberatel# adopts a certain theor# upon !hich the case !as

decided b# the lo!er court !ill not be per'itted to chan2e itF on appeal; (other!ise, the lo!er

courts !ill effectivel# be deprived of the opportunit# to decide the 'erits of the case fairl#. (35esides,

courts of Bustice are devoid of Burisdiction to resolve a @uestion not in issue. (1 )or these reasons, the

petition 'ust fail. Independentl# of these, the petition 'ust still be denied.

No express trust exists; UCPB exercised the required diligence in handling the ACCUNT;

petitioner has no cause o! action against UCPB

- trust, either e?press or i'plied, (6 is the fiduciar# relationship ;? ? ? bet!een one person havin2 an

e@uitable o!nership of propert# and another person o!nin2 the le2al title to such propert#, the

e@uitable o!nership of the for'er entitlin2 hi' to the perfor'ance of certain duties and the e?ercise

of certain po!ers b# the latter.;(+E?press or direct trusts are created b# the direct and positive acts of

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt27


4/9

the trustor or of the parties.(> No !ritten !ords are re@uired to create an e?press trust. 4his is clear

fro' -rticle "333 of the Civil Code,(9 but, the creation of an e?press trust 'ust be fir'l# sho!n it

cannot be assu'ed fro' loose and va2ue declarations or circu'stances capable of other

interpretations.*

In Ri+al S$ret , Ins$rance Co# v# CA,

"

!e laid do!n the re@uire'ents before an e?press trust !illbe reco2nied<

5asicall#, (*e#e ee%e'(# &'5u$e a 5o%+e(e'( (ru#(or a'$ (ru#(ee, a' a#5er(a&'abe (ru#( res,

a'$ #u))&5&e'(y 5er(a&' be'e)&5&ar&e#. , "996 letter,

P-:II 'anifested its intention to pursue an active role in and up to the turnover of those proceeds to

their ri2htful o!ners,( !hile in the Nove'ber "1, "996 letter, P-:II be22ed the petitioner to trust it

!ith the safe&eepin2 of the invest'ent proceeds and docu'ents. =ad it been P-:II7s intention to

create a trust in favor of the =EIRS, it !ould have relin@uished an# ri2ht or clai' over the proceeds

in 8CP57s favor as the trustee. -s 'atters stand, P-:II never did.

8CP57s records and the testi'on# of 8CP57s !itness 3 li&e!ise lead us to the sa'e conclusion.

hile the !ords ;I4) =EIRS; 'a# have created the i'pression that a trust account !as created, a

closer scrutin# reveals that it is an ordinar# savin2s account.1 e 2ive credence to 8CP57s

e?planation that the !ord ;I4); !as 'erel# used to distin2uish the -CCO8N4 fro' P-:II7s other

accounts !ith 8CP5. - trust can be created !ithout usin2 the !ord ;trust; or ;trustee,; but the 'ere

use of these !ords does not auto'aticall# reveal an intention to create a trust. 6If at all, these !ords

sho!ed a trustee0beneficiar# relationship bet!een P-:II and the =EIRS.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt36


5/9

Contrar# to the petitioner7s position, 8CP5 did not beco'e a trustee b# the 'ere openin2 of the

-CCO8N4.-./p!i-hile this 'a# see' to be the case, b# reason of the fiduciar# nature of the ban&7s

relationship !ith its depositors,+ this fiduciar# relationship does not ;convert the contract bet!een

the ban& and its depositors fro' a si'ple loan to a trust a2ree'ent, !hether e?press or i'plied.; > It

si'pl# 'eans that the ban& is obli2ed to observe ;hi2h standards of inte2rit# and perfor'ance; in

co'pl#in2 !ith its obli2ations under the contract of si'ple loan.

9

Per -rticle "9>* of the CivilCode,3* a creditor0debtor relationship e?ists bet!een the ban& and its depositor.3" 4he savin2s

deposit a2ree'ent is bet!een the ban& and the depositor3( b# receivin2 the deposit, the ban&

i'pliedl# a2rees to pa# upon de'and and onl# upon the depositor7s order.3

Since the records and the petitioner7s o!n ad'ission sho!ed that the -CCO8N4 !as opened b#

P-:II, 8CP57s receipt of the deposit si2nified that it a2reed to pa# P-:II upon its de'and and onl#

upon its order. 4hus, !hen 8CP5 allo!ed P-:II to !ithdra! fro' the -CCO8N4, it !as 'erel#

perfor'in2 its contractual obli2ation under their savin2s deposit a2ree'ent. No ne2li2ence or bad

faith33 can be i'puted to 8CP5 for this action. -s far as 8CP5 !as concerned, P-:II is the account

holder and not the =EIRS. -s !e held in Falton Iron 0ors Co# v# C!ina Banin1 Corporation# 31 the

ban&7s dut# is to its creditor0depositor and not to third persons. 4hird persons, li&e the =EIRS here,!ho 'a# have a ri2ht to the 'one# deposited, cannot hold the ban& responsible unless there is a

court order or 2arnish'ent.36 4he petitioner7s recourse is to 2o before a court of co'petent

Burisdiction to prove his valid ri2ht over the 'one# deposited.

In these li2hts, !e find the third assi2n'ent of error 'ooted. - cause of action re@uires that there be

a ri2ht e?istin2 in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant7s obli2ation to respect that ri2ht, and an act or

o'ission of the defendant in breach of that ri2ht.3+ e reiterate that 8CP57s obli2ation !as to!ards

P-:II as its creditor0depositor. hile the =EIRS 'a# have a valid clai' over the proceeds of the

invest'ent, the obli2ation to turn0over those proceeds lies !ith P-:II. Since no trust e?ists the

petitioner7s co'plaint !as correctl# dis'issed and the C- did not co''it an# reversible error in

affir'in2 the R4C decision. One final note, the burden to prove the e?istence of an e?press trust lies!ith the petitioner.3> )or his failure to dischar2e this burden, the petition 'ust fail.

=ERE)ORE, in vie! of these considerations, !e hereb# DENG the petition and -))IRM the

decision dated )ebruar# (*, (**+ and the resolution dated $ul# ", (**+ of the Court of -ppeals in

C-0%.R. CV. No. **(1+. Costs a2ainst the petitioner.

SO ORDERED<

!RTURO . R-ON

-ssociate $ustice

1 Dated September 25, 2007 and filed on September 24, 2007 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Proedure! rollo" pp 24#42"

2 Penned b$ %ssoiate &ustie Prisila 'alta(ar#Padilla, and onurred in b$ )*eutive &ustie %rsenio +"

a-pale and %ssoiate &ustie Romeo ." 'ar(a! id " at 9#17"

/ Id at 19#20"

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt48http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_179096_2013.html#fnt48http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt3


6/9

4 Dated %u-ust 27, 200 per the C% deision! id at 9"

5 he amount deposited as P1,45,35"09 per the C% deision dated .ebruar$ 20, 2007" Per the attahed

op$ of CP's reord pertainin- to the %CC6, and CP's omment, the %CC6 as opened on a$

/1, 1993" %lso, per CP's omment, the initial deposit on the %CC6 as P17/,250"00, ith subseuent

deposits made in the sueedin- months, the last of hih as on tober 2, 19938 id " at 30 and 77"

3 .rom the dispositive portion of the RC deision, as uoted b$ the C%8 id. at 10"

7 Id. at 15"

Supra note /"

9 Rollo, pp" //#/5, 11/#1148 op$ of the letters at pp" 59 and 31"

10 he petitioner ites the Courts rulin- in Estate of Edward Grimm v. Estate of Charles Parsons and Patrick

C. Parsons, "R" 6o" 15910, tober 9, 2003, 504 SCR% 378 id. at /3" he petitioner also ites Galvez v.

Court of Appeals, 45 SCR% /438 id. at 115#113"

11 Rollo, pp" /4#/3, 115#113"

12 "R" 6o" 144513, .ebruar$ 11, 2004, 422 SCR% 459"

1/ Rollo, pp" /5, 113#117"

14 Id " at /3#40, 119#12/"

15 Andrada v. Pilhino Sales Corporation, "R" 6o" 15344, .ebruar$ 2/, 2011, 344 SCR% 1, #98 Philippine

Commercial International ank v. almaceda, "R" 6o" 1514/, September 21, 2011, 35 SCR% //, 42#

4/8 !orzano v. "a#a$a%, &r., "R" 6o" 19347, .ebruar$ 3, 2012, 335 SCR% /, 43#478 and Repu#lic v. 'e

Guzman, "R" 6o" 175021, &une 15, 2011, 352 SCR% 101, 11/"

13 !orzano v. "a#a$a%, &r. supra note 15, at 43#478 Repu#lic v. 'e Guzman, supra note 15, at 11/" See

also (eirs of Pacencia Racaza, etc. v. Spouses )lorencio A#a$*a#a$, et al. , "R" 6o" 19402, &une 1/, 2012"

17 !orzano v. "a#a$a%, &r., supra note 15, at 43#478 Republi v. 'e Guzman, supra note 15, at 11/"

1 See (eirs of Pacencia Racaza, etc. v. Spouses )lorencio A#a$*a#a$, supra note 13"

19 Id "

20 %mon- the reo-ni(ed e*eptions to the restrition are! ralalibrar$

:a;


7/9

:e;


8/9

* * * our client will be constrained to bring an action before the court for interpleader to ompel

the laimants to interplead and liti-ate their several laims amon- themselves" :emphasis ours; ???@r?bl?A??rB??l l?? l?br?r

// Id. at 31" o uote P%++! ESine the mone$ is intat and safe in the ban> read$ for turn#over to the

ri-hteous oner, so ith all the douments of the investment in our possession, we would like to request

your goodself to please trust us for its safekeeping"E :emphasis ours;

/4 Id. at 32#34" CP's itness testified that the %CC6 as oned b$ P%++ and that he as not

personall$ aare of an$ trust relation beteen P%++ and the F)+RS sine he as not $et the ban>s branh

mana-er at that time"

/5 Id. at 30" +n the op$ of the CP's reord, CP' .orm 6o" 4#111, under the headin- EGP) .

%CC6,E the option ESavin-s %ountE bears a he> mar>" %lso, on the reverse side, under the headin-

EGP) . %CC"E ESavin-s %t"E as ritten" %lso the %CC6s authori(ed si-nator$ as onl$ Crisanto

Pesadero, P%++s -eneral mana-er"

/3 See "or#ela v. Rosario, supra note 23, at 331"

/7

See PI )amil$ ank v. )ranco, "R" 6o" 12/49, 6ovember 2/, 2007, 5/ SCR% 14, 19"

/ Consolidated ank and "rust Corporation v. Court of Appeals, "R" 6o" 1/539, September 11, 200/, 457

Phil" 3, 707"

/9 Id. at 705"

40 %rtile 190 of the Civil Code provides!ralalibrar$

%rt" 190" .i*ed, savings, and urrent deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be

governed by the provisions concerning simple loan" :emphasis ours; ???@r?bl?A??rB??l l?? l?br?r

41

See Central ank of the Philippines v. Cit$trust ankin% Corporation, "R" 6o" 141/5, .ebruar$ 4, 2009,57 SCR% 27, /2, uotin- Consolidated ank and "rust Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note / at,

574#5758 !ucman v. +alawi , 540 Phil" 29, /00 :2003;8 and Allied ankin% Corporation v. !im Sio

/an, "R" 6o" 1//179, arh 27, 200, 549 SCR% 504, 515" See Samsun% Construction Co. Phils., Inc. v.

)E"C , 40 Phil" /9, 49 :2004;"

42 Consolidated ank and "rust Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note /, at 705"

4/ Samsun% Construction Co. Phils., Inc. v. )E"C , supra note 41, at 498 and Central ank of the Philippines

v. Cit$trust ankin% Corporation, supra note 41, at /2"

44 %rtile 117/" Civil Code of the Philippines provides!E6e-li-ene onsists in the omission of that dili-ene

hih is reuired b$ the nature of the obli-ation, and orresponds ith the irumstanes of the persons, of

the time and of the plae"E 'ad faith implies a onsious or intentional desi-n to do a ron-ful at for a

dishonest purpose or moral obliuit$" : Arenas v. CA, "R" 6o" 123433, &anuar$ 14, 1999, /45 SCR% 317;

45 55 Phil" 208 213#217 :19/0;"

43 I#id.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt44http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt44http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt45http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt45http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt46http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt46http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt44http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt45http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt46


9/9

47 -AI Rathschild Sons 0Australia1 !imited v. !epanto Consolidated +inin% Compan$,"R" 6o" 175799,

6ovember 2, 2011, 334 SCR% /2 //#//98 and +analo v. PAIC Savin%s ank , 49/ Phil" 54, 59, 2005;"

Setion 2 of the Rules of Court provides!ralalibrar$

SEC. 2. Cause of action defined 3A cause of action is the act or omission #$ which a part$ violates a ri%ht of

another. ???@r?bl?A ??rB??l l??l?br?r

4 Caezo v. Ro4as, "R" 6o" 447, 6ovember 2/, 2007, 5/ SCR% 242, 25/8 and'uran v. Court of

Appeals" 522 Phil" /99, 407 :2003;"
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt47http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt47http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt48http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt48http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt47http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=178#rnt48

Documents

Goyanko vs UCPB 690s79