BPI vs. CA and Eastern Plywood

BPI (successor-in-interest of CBTC) v.
CA, Eastern Plywood and Lim Facts

Private respondents held at least one and/or joint account with CBTC. A joint
checking an account was opened by Lim and Mariano Velasco in the amount of
Php120,000, which funds deposited came from the and/or joint account of private
respondents. Various amounts were later deposited or withdrawn from the and
account of Lim & Velasco. Velasco died, and at the time of his death the outstanding
balance of the and account was Php662,522.87. By virtue of an indemnity
undertaking executed by Lim, one-half of this amount was provisionally transferred
to one the accounts of Eastern with CBTC. Eastern obtained a loan of Php73,000
from CBTC, for which loan Eastern issued PNs payable on demand at the order of
CBTC. Eastern also signed a hold-out agreement which provided that Eastern and
Lim conferred upon
CBTC sufficient power to retain the account balance of the an account (current
account of Lim and Velasco) and to apply same for the purpose of liquidating the
load of Php73,000 in respect of the principal and/or interest.
In the meantime, a case for the settlement of Velascos estate was filed in the RTC
of Pasig. The RTC granted the claim of the estate from the and account of Lim and
Velasco and allowed the heirs to withdraw the amount of Php331,261.44. When
CBTC merged with BPI, the latter filed a complaint against Lim and Eastern
demanding the payment of the loan. Lim and Eastern filed a counterclaim against
BPI for the return of the balance in the disputed account subject of the holdout
agreement; the balance of which and account was permitted by BPI to be
withdrawn by the heirs of Velasco.
Issue Is BPI still liable to the private respondents on the and account subject of
the holdout agreement after its withdrawal by the heirs of Velasco?
Held Yes. The award of Php331,264.44 in favor of private respondents shall bear
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the filing of the counterclaim.
The counterclaim of private respondents for the return of the Php331,261.44 was
equivalent to a demand that they be allowed to withdraw their deposit with the
bank. Article 1980 of the Civil Code provides that fixed, savings, current deposits of
money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions
concerning simple loan.
In Serrano v. Central Bank, bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits;
they are really loans because they earn interest. The relationship then between a
depositor and a bank is one of creditor and debtor.
The deposit under the questioned and account was an ordinary bank deposit;
hence, it was payable on demand of the depositor. The account was proven and
established to belong to Eastern even it was deposited in the names of Lim and
Velasco. As the real creditor of the BPI,
Eastern had the right to withdraw it or to demand payment thereof. BPI cannot be
relieved of its duty to pay Eastern simply because it already allowed the heirs of
Velasco to withdraw the whole balance of the account. The petitioner should have
not allowed such withdrawal because it had admitted in the holdout agreement the
questioned ownership of the money deposited in the account. As early as May 12
1979, CBTC was notified by the corporate secretary of Eastern that the deposit in
the and account of Lim and Velasco was being claimed by them and that one-half
was being claimed by the heirs of Velasco. Moreover, the order of the RTC of Pasig
merely authorized the heirs of Velasco to withdraw the account. BPI was not
specifically ordered to release the account to the said heirs; hence, it was under no
judicial compulsion to do so. The authorization given to the heirs of Velasco cannot
be construed as a final determination or adjudication that the account belonged to
Velasco. When the ownership of a particular property is disputed, the determination
by a probate court of whether that property is included in the estate of a deceased
is merely provisional in character and cannot be the subject of execution. Because
the ownership of the deposit remained undetermined, BPI, as the debtor, had no
right to pay to persons other than those in whose favor the obligation was
constituted or whose right or authority to receive payment is indisputable. The
payment of the money deposited with BPI that will extinguish its obligation to the
creditor-depositor is payment to the person of the creditor or to one authorized by
him or by the law to receive it. The payment of BPI to the heirs of Velasco even if
done in good faith did not extinguish its obligation to the true depositor, Eastern.

BPI vs. CA and Eastern Plywood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BPI vs. CA and Eastern Plywood

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BPI vs. CA and Eastern Plywood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BPI (successor-in-interest of CBTC) v.

CA, Eastern Plywood and Lim Facts

You might also like