Digest - Goyanko, JR V United Coconut Planters Bank

Goyanko, Jr. v.
United Coconut Planters Bank

G.R. No. 179096, 6 February 2013
Second Division, Brion, J.

Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari

Facts: In 1995, the late Joseph Goyanko, Sr. invested 2,000,000.00 with Philippine Asia Lending
Investors, Inc. (PALII).
Goyanko, Sr.s legitimate family, represented by Joseph Goyanko, Jr. (petitioner), the
administrator of Goyanko, Sr.s Estate, and his illegitimate family presented conflicting claims to
PALII for the release of the investment. Pending the investigation of the conflicting claims, PALII
deposited the proceeds of the investment with UCPB on October 29, 1996 under the name Phil
Asia: ITF (In Trust For) The Heirs of Joseph Goyanko, Sr. (ACCOUNT). On September 27, 1997,
the deposit under the ACCOUNT was 1,509,318.76. On December 11, 1997, UCPB allowed
PALII to withdraw 1,500,000.00 from the Account, leaving a balance of only 9,318.76. When
UCPB refused the demand to restore the amount withdrawn plus legal interest from December 11,
1997, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In its answer to the
complaint, UCPB admitted, among others, the opening of the ACCOUNT under the name ITF (In
Trust For) The Heirs of Joseph Goyanko, Sr., (ITF HEIRS) and the withdrawal on December 11,
1997.
After trial, the RTC dismissed petitioners complaint. It did not consider the words ITF
HEIRS sufficient to charge UCPB with knowledge of any trust relation between PALII and
Goyankos heirs (HEIRS). It concluded that UCPB merely performed its duty as a depository bank
in allowing PALII to withdraw from the ACCOUNT, as the contract of deposit was officially only
between PALII, in its own capacity, and UCPB.
Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed his case to the Court of Appeals (CA). Before the CA, the
petitioner maintained that by opening the ACCOUNT, PALII established a trust by which it was the
trustee and the HEIRS are the trustors-beneficiaries; thus, UCPB should be liable for allowing
the withdrawal.
After due consideration, the CA held that no express trust was created between the HEIRS
and PALII. For a trust to be established, the law requires, among others, a competent trustor and
trustee and a clear intention to create a trust, which were absent in this case. Quoting the RTC with
approval, the CA noted that the contract of deposit was only between PALII in its own capacity and
UCPB, and the words ITF HEIRS were insufficient to establish the existence of a trust. The CA
concluded that as no trust existed, expressly or impliedly, UCPB is not liable for the amount
withdrawn.

Issue: Whether or not UCPB should be held liable for the amount withdrawn because a trust
agreement existed between PALII and UCPB, in favor of the HEIRS, when PALII opened the
ACCOUNT with UCPB?

Held: No. A trust, either express or implied, is the fiduciary relationship x x x between one person
having an equitable ownership of property and another person owning the legal title to such
property, the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties
and the exercise of certain powers by the latter. Express or direct trusts are created by the direct
and positive acts of the trustor or of the parties. No written words are required to create an express
trust. This is clear from Article 1444 of the Civil Code, but, the creation of an express trust must be
firmly shown; it cannot be assumed from loose and vague declarations or circumstances capable of
other interpretations.
In Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. v. CA [329 Phil. 789], we laid down the requirements before an
express trust will be recognized:
Basically, these elements include a competent trustor and trustee, an
ascertainable trust res, and sufficiently certain beneficiaries. xxx each of the above
elements is required to be established, and, if any one of them is missing, it is fatal to
the trusts (sic). Furthermore, there must be a present and complete disposition of the
trust property, notwithstanding that the enjoyment in the beneficiary will take place
in the future. It is essential, too, that the purpose be an active one to prevent trust
from being executed into a legal estate or interest, and one that is not in
contravention of some prohibition of statute or rule of public policy. There must
also be some power of administration other than a mere duty to perform a contract
although the contract is for a third-party beneficiary. A declaration of terms is
essential, and these must be stated with reasonable certainty in order that the trustee
may administer, and that the court, if called upon so to do, may enforce, the trust.
Under these standards, we hold that no express trust was created. First, while an
ascertainable trust res and sufficiently certain beneficiaries may exist, a competent trustor and trustee
do not. Second, UCPB, as trustee of the ACCOUNT, was never under any equitable duty to deal
with or given any power of administration over it. On the contrary, it was PALII that undertook the
duty to hold the title to the ACCOUNT for the benefit of the HEIRS. Third, PALII, as the trustor,
did not have the right to the beneficial enjoyment of the ACCOUNT. Finally, the terms by which
UCPB is to administer the ACCOUNT was not shown with reasonable certainty. While we agree
with the petitioner that a trusts beneficiaries need not be particularly identified for a trust to exist,
the intention to create an express trust must first be firmly established, along with the other elements
laid above; absent these, no express trust exists.

Digest - Goyanko, JR V United Coconut Planters Bank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest - Goyanko, JR V United Coconut Planters Bank

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Digest - Goyanko, JR V United Coconut Planters Bank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Goyanko, Jr. v.

United Coconut Planters Bank

You might also like