[27] Polido v.

CA (Recio) administrator of the estate or any one (1) of the heirs of the decedent may, upon
July 10, 2007 | CARPIO-MORALES, J. | Estate Tax/Transfer Tax authorization by the Commissioner, withdraw an amount not exceeding Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000) without the said certification. For this purpose, all
PETITIONER​: EUGENIA D. POLIDO withdrawal slips shall contain a statement to the effect that all of the joint
RESPONDENTS​: HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIANO P. GASAT depositors are still living at the time of withdrawal by any one of the joint
depositors and such statement shall be under oath by the said depositors.
SUMMARY​: After the death of her husband Jacinto Polido (Polido), Eugenia
Duque Polido, petitioner, tried to withdraw the joint savings deposit they FACTS:
maintained at the Philippine National Bank, Camiling, Tarlac Branch, but failed 1. After the death of her husband Jacinto Polido (Polido), Eugenia Duque
because one Mariano Gasat (Gasat), herein respondent who claimed to be the Polido, petitioner, tried to withdraw the ​joint savings deposit they
couple's adopted child, objected thereto. Polido prayed for the issuance of a writ maintained at the Philippine National Bank, Camiling, Tarlac Branch, but
of a preliminary injunction enjoining and restraining the defendant and all failed because one Mariano Gasat (Gasat), herein respondent who ​claimed
persons acting under him from preventing the officers or employee[s] of the to be the couple's adopted child, objected thereto​.
Philippine National Bank, Camiling, Tarlac Branch from releasing in favor of 2. Petitioner thus filed on January 21, 2004 a complaint before the Regional
the plaintiff Polido the money deposited with the said bank. Gasat alleges that Trial Court of Tarlac, with Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Jacinto Polido’s properties up for inheritance were exclusively his property, and Injunction, against Gasat.
that Gasat is their adopted son. Moreover, even assuming Gasat’s adoption was 3. In her complaint, Polido prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
not valid, Gasat argues that as a surviving nephew of Jacinto, the Estate of injunction ​enjoining and restraining the defendant and all persons acting
Jacinto will be split as: ½ to his wife (petitioner) and ½ to Gasat and his siblings under him ​from preventing the officers or employee[s] of the Philippine
as Jacinto’s nephews. Thus, Gasat moved to convert the case to an action for National Bank, Camiling, Tarlac Branch from releasing in favor of the
partition, at his instance, of the estate of his grandfather Narciso Polido, father of plaintiff Polido the money deposited with the said bank upon posting of a
petitioner's husband and Gasat's mother, and to require Polido to file income tax bond by the plaintiff in an amount to be fixed by the Court.
returns and pay the estate tax due. RTC issued the preliminary injunction in 4. In his Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, Gasat alleged that Polido
favor of Polido. ​W/N Polido should be allowed to withdraw the money.​ - ​NO​. and her late husband had adopted him as their child, annexing as proof
The SC ruled that even assuming that the court will issue an Order restraining thereof a photocopy of an MTC order for the adoption of Gasat;
defendant Gasat from claiming the bank account, Polido still cannot withdraw a. Gasat further alleged that Polido cannot withdraw any amount
any amount thereof, because it is a part of the ESTATE of Jacinto Polido, and as from the bank account because she should ​follow legal
provided for by laws before the bank the allows any withdrawal, the plaintiff has procedures governing settlement of the estate of a deceased​,
to follow certain procedures required by other laws governing estate settlement, unless a competent court issues an order allowing her to withdraw
that is, from said account.
(a) Payment of Estate Tax, if any; 5. Gasat also alleged that even assuming that his adoption was ineffective, still
(b) BIR Tax Clearance; he cannot be deprived of his inheritance from the Estate of Jacinto Polido,
(c) Present a duly published Extrajudicial Partition executed by the heirs because [​get ready for Succession stuff​]:
adjudicating said amount to such heir, unless a competent Court issues an Order a. All the properties subject to inheritance are exclusive properties of
allowing Polido to withdraw from said account. the late Jacinto Polido. The same properties were inherited by
Since Polido has not paid the estate tax nor has he presented any extrajudicial Jacinto from the estate of Narciso Polido.
partition executed by her and Gasat as Jacinto’s surviving heirs, she cannot b. The Estate of Narciso was inherited by his 2 children: JACINTO
withdraw the money. and PETRA.
c. Herein respondent Gasat is one of the children of PETRA. [​so tito
DOCTRINE​: Section 97 of the National Internal Revenue Code states: niya si Jacinto​]
If a bank has knowledge of the death of a person, who maintained a bank deposit d. Thus, by virtue of the Civil Code which reads: “ "ART. 1001.
account alone, or jointly with another, it shall not allow any withdrawal from the Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the
said deposit account unless the Commissioner had certified that the taxes widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the
imposed thereon by this Title have been paid; Provided, however, That the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the
 other half."
e. THUS: The heirs of the late Jacinto Polido are his WIFE RATIO:
(plaintiff) who is entitled to one-half (1/2) and Petra P. Gasat's Polido should not be allowed to withdraw from the bank account.
CHILDREN which would include herein respondent GASAT, 1. [​NOTE: The SC mainly tackled CivPro issues, but in the interest of justice,
who are entitled to one-half (1/2). it decided to rule on the merits of the preliminary injunction requested by
6. Gasat subsequently filed an Omnibus Motion withdrawing 1) the allegation Polido to enjoin Gasat and PNB’s employees from preventing her to
he had made in various pleadings that he is an adopted son of the couple withdraw the money from the bank.]
and 2) his Motion to Set the Affirmative Defenses for Preliminary Hearing. 2. In Polido’s prayer for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Gasat and PNB’s
a. He moved to convert the case to an action for partition, at his employees from preventing her to withdraw the money from the bank, she
instance, of the estate of his grandfather Narciso Polido, father of alleged:
petitioner's husband and Gasat's mother, and to require Polido to a. “Unless an injunction be issued against the defendant restraining
file income tax returns and pay the estate tax due​. him from claiming in the bank account, the plaintiff would suffer
7. In response to Gasat's prayer to convert the action to one for partition and to irreparable damage. The plaintiff is willing to post a bond in an
require her to file Estate Tax Returns, Polido filed an Opposition. amount to be fixed by the Honorable Court.”
8. RTC: Ruled in favor of Polido and granted the writ of preliminary 3. The SC finds this allegation UNFOUNDED and BASELESS​.
injunction. 4. According to the SC, even assuming that the court will issue an Order
9. CA: Dismissed Gasat’s motion initially due to late payment of docket fees, restraining defendant Gasat from claiming the bank account, ​Polido still
but then reversed itself by relaxing the rule on late payment of docket fees, cannot withdraw any amount thereof, because it is a part of the ESTATE of
because CA believed that it would serve substantial justice. Hence, this Jacinto Polido, and as provided for by laws before the bank the allows any
petition. withdrawal, the plaintiff has to follow certain procedures required by other
a. [​Note: ​There was a part of the case which talked about Gasat’s late laws governing estate settlement, that is, —
payment of the docket fees. I’m not gonna add it, but in case sir a. (a) Payment of Estate Tax, if any;
asks: Gasat failed to pay the docket fee due to “being jobless” and b. (b) BIR Tax Clearance;
that he “had to borrow at an exorbitant interest rate”. The CA c. (c) Present a duly published Extrajudicial Partition executed
initially dismissed Gasat’s motion immediately, but upon MR, CA by the heirs adjudicating said amount to such heir, unless a
allowed the late payment of the docket fee. competent Court issues an Order allowing Polido to withdraw
from said account.
Hence, this present Petition for ​Certiorari and Prohibition with 5. It bears noting that petitioner and her deceased husband Polido were
Urgent Motion for Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order by childless; hence, Gasat, who is a son of Polido's sister Petra P. Gasat, could
petitioner Polido, alleging that CA committed grave abuse of inherit from Polido.
discretion ​in relaxing the rule on the payment of docket fees on the 6. Parenthetically, Section 97 of the National Internal Revenue Code states:
ground of substantial justice​. a. If a bank has knowledge of the death of a person, who maintained
a bank deposit account alone, or ​jointly with another​, it shall ​not
ISSUE: allow any withdrawal from the said deposit account ​unless the
1. WoN petitioner Polido should be allowed to withdraw the money deposited Commissioner had certified that the taxes imposed thereon by
(Estate of her late husband, Jacinto) - ​NO. this Title have been paid; Provided, however, That the
administrator of the estate or any one (1) of the heirs of the
RULING: WHEREFORE, the assailed petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals decedent may, upon authorization by the Commissioner, withdraw
Resolution admitting respondent's payment of docket fee is upheld. an amount not exceeding Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000)
The Order of the Regional Trial Court of Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68 dated without the said certification. For this purpose, all withdrawal slips
December 7, 2004 granting petitioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is shall contain a statement to the effect that all of the joint depositors
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. are still living at the time of withdrawal by any one of the joint
Let the case be REMANDED to the trial court which is directed to continue with depositors and such statement shall be under oath by the said
dispatch its proceedings on and/or resolve the case in light of the foregoing depositors.
discussions. 7. Thus, the RTC erred in issuing the writ of a preliminary injunction.