Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    BPI Vs CA Deposit

    Uploaded by

    Arzaga Dessa BC
    This case involves a disputed bank account held jointly by Eastern Plywood Corporation, Benigno Lim, and Mariano Velasco. After Velasco's death, half the funds were transferred to Eastern's account. Eastern then took out a loan from the bank, using the disputed account as collateral. However, a court ruled the entire balance of the joint account belonged to Velasco's estate. The bank paid the heirs but refused to return the collateral to Eastern. The court ruled the bank remained liable to Eastern as the real creditor, as the account was established to belong to Eastern, even if in others' names. Bank deposits create a creditor-debtor relationship between the bank and depositor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    BPI Vs CA Deposit

    Uploaded by

    Arzaga Dessa BC
    1K views1 page
    This case involves a disputed bank account held jointly by Eastern Plywood Corporation, Benigno Lim, and Mariano Velasco. After Velasco's death, half the funds were transferred to Eastern's account. Eastern then took out a loan from the bank, using the disputed account as collateral. However, a court ruled the entire balance of the joint account belonged to Velasco's estate. The bank paid the heirs but refused to return the collateral to Eastern. The court ruled the bank remained liable to Eastern as the real creditor, as the account was established to belong to Eastern, even if in others' names. Bank deposits create a creditor-debtor relationship between the bank and depositor.

    Original Description:

    BPI vs CA

    Original Title

    BPI vs CA Deposit Copy (2)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a disputed bank account held jointly by Eastern Plywood Corporation, Benigno Lim, and Mariano Velasco. After Velasco's death, half the funds were transferred to Eastern's account. Eastern then took out a loan from the bank, using the disputed account as collateral. However, a court ruled the entire balance of the joint account belonged to Velasco's estate. The bank paid the heirs but refused to return the collateral to Eastern. The court ruled the bank remained liable to Eastern as the real creditor, as the account was established to belong to Eastern, even if in others' names. Bank deposits create a creditor-debtor relationship between the bank and depositor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    BPI Vs CA Deposit

    Uploaded by

    Arzaga Dessa BC
    This case involves a disputed bank account held jointly by Eastern Plywood Corporation, Benigno Lim, and Mariano Velasco. After Velasco's death, half the funds were transferred to Eastern's account. Eastern then took out a loan from the bank, using the disputed account as collateral. However, a court ruled the entire balance of the joint account belonged to Velasco's estate. The bank paid the heirs but refused to return the collateral to Eastern. The court ruled the bank remained liable to Eastern as the real creditor, as the account was established to belong to Eastern, even if in others' names. Bank deposits create a creditor-debtor relationship between the bank and depositor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs HON.

    COURT OF APPEALS

    G.R. No. 104612. May 10, 1994.

    Facts

    Eastern Plywood Corporation (Eastern) had a joint bank account with Benigno D. Lim
    (Lim), an officer and stockholder of Eastern held in Commercial Bank and Trust Co. (CBTC),
    the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). A joint checking
    account with Lim in the amount of P120,000.00 was opened by Mariano Velasco with funds
    withdrawn from the account of Eastern and/ or Lim. When Velasco died, one half of the account
    was transferred and signed by Lim to the bank account of Eastern. Thereafter, Eastern obtained
    a loan of P73,000.00 from CBTC signed by Lim as President and General Manager of Eastern.
    The loan was unsecured as it was subject to “HoldOut Agreement,” which refers to the account
    of Velasco and Lim.

    In the meantime, a case for the settlement of Velasco’s estate was filed. In the said case,
    the whole balance of P331.261.44 in the aforesaid joint account of Velasco and Lim was being
    claimed as part of Velasco’s estate, which the intestate court granted. BPI filed a complaint
    against Lim and Eastern demanding the payment. Lim and Eastern, in turn, filed a counterclaim
    against BPI for the return of the balance in the disputed account subject of the Holdout
    Agreement and the interests thereon after deducting the amount due on the promissory note.

    Issue

    Whether BPI is still liable to the private respondents on the account subject of the
    Holdout Agreement after its withdrawal by the heirs of Velasco.

    Ruling

    Yes. The account was proved and established to belong to Eastern even if it was
    deposited in the names of Lim and Velasco. As the real creditor of the bank, Eastern has 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.

    Article 1980 of the Civil Code expressly provides that “fixed, savings, and current
    deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions
    concerning simple loan.” 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 account was an ordinary bank deposit;
    hence, it was payable on demand of the depositor.

    You might also like