Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    ESCHEAT Rule 91

    Uploaded by

    Stalin Leningrad
    This case involves a managers check for ₱1,019,514.29 issued by RCBC to Rosmil Realty and Development Corporation (Rosmil) in 1991 as part of a land sale transaction. However, the check was never delivered or presented for payment. In 2003, without notifying the parties, RCBC reported the unclaimed balance to the Bureau of Treasury, which initiated escheat proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled the escheat was improper because the managers check, though accepted in advance by the bank, remained undelivered and the assigned funds remained in the account of the party that procured the check. RCBC should have informed the parties that the deposit was inactive for over 10 years before es

    Copyright:

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

    ESCHEAT Rule 91

    Uploaded by

    Stalin Leningrad
    35 views2 pages
    This case involves a managers check for ₱1,019,514.29 issued by RCBC to Rosmil Realty and Development Corporation (Rosmil) in 1991 as part of a land sale transaction. However, the check was never delivered or presented for payment. In 2003, without notifying the parties, RCBC reported the unclaimed balance to the Bureau of Treasury, which initiated escheat proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled the escheat was improper because the managers check, though accepted in advance by the bank, remained undelivered and the assigned funds remained in the account of the party that procured the check. RCBC should have informed the parties that the deposit was inactive for over 10 years before es

    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 managers check for ₱1,019,514.29 issued by RCBC to Rosmil Realty and Development Corporation (Rosmil) in 1991 as part of a land sale transaction. However, the check was never delivered or presented for payment. In 2003, without notifying the parties, RCBC reported the unclaimed balance to the Bureau of Treasury, which initiated escheat proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled the escheat was improper because the managers check, though accepted in advance by the bank, remained undelivered and the assigned funds remained in the account of the party that procured the check. RCBC should have informed the parties that the deposit was inactive for over 10 years before es

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    35 views2 pages

    ESCHEAT Rule 91

    Uploaded by

    Stalin Leningrad
    This case involves a managers check for ₱1,019,514.29 issued by RCBC to Rosmil Realty and Development Corporation (Rosmil) in 1991 as part of a land sale transaction. However, the check was never delivered or presented for payment. In 2003, without notifying the parties, RCBC reported the unclaimed balance to the Bureau of Treasury, which initiated escheat proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled the escheat was improper because the managers check, though accepted in advance by the bank, remained undelivered and the assigned funds remained in the account of the party that procured the check. RCBC should have informed the parties that the deposit was inactive for over 10 years before es

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ESCHEAT Rule 91

    RCBC vs. Hi-Tri Dev. Corp. , et. al,

    G.R. No. 192413; June 13, 2012

    Facts: 

    Luz Bakunawa and her husband Manuel, now deceased (Spouses


    Bakunawa) are registered owners of six (6) parcels of land in Quezon City. These
    lots were sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Government
    [(PCGG)]. Sometime in 1990, a certain Teresita Millan (Millan), through her
    representative, Jerry Montemayor, offered to buy said lots for ₱6,724,085.71, with
    the promise that she will take care of clearing whatever preliminary obstacles there
    may be to effect a completion of the sale.

    The Spouses Bakunawa gave to Millan the Owners Copies of said TCTs and in
    turn, Millan made a downpayment of ₱1,019,514.29 for the intended purchase.
    However, for one reason or another, Millan was not able to clear said obstacles. As
    a result, the Spouses Bakunawa rescinded the sale and offered to return to Millan
    her downpayment of ₱1,019,514.29. However, Millan refused to accept back the
    ₱1,019,514.29 down payment.

    Consequently, the Spouses Bakunawa, through their company, the Hi-Tri


    Development Corporation (Hi-Tri) took out on October 28, 1991, a Managers Check
    from RCBC-Ermita in the amount of ₱1,019,514.29, payable to Millan’s company
    Rosmil Realty and Development Corporation (Rosmil) c/o Teresita Millan and used
    this as one of their basis for a complaint against Millan and Montemayor which they
    filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 99.

    On January 31, 2003, during the pendency of the above mentioned case and
    without the knowledge of [Hi-Tri and Spouses Bakunawa], RCBC reported the
    ₱1,019,514.29-credit existing in favor of Rosmil to the Bureau of Treasury as
    among its unclaimed balances as of January 31, 2003. Allegedly, a copy of the
    Sworn Statement executed by Florentino N. Mendoza, Manager and Head of RCBCs
    Asset Management, Disbursement & Sundry Department (AMDSD) was posted
    within the premises of RCBC-Ermita.

    On December 14, 2006, x x x Republic, through the [Office of the Solicitor


    General (OSG)], filed with the RTC the action below for Escheat [(Civil Case No. 06-
    244)].

    On April 30, 2008, [Spouses Bakunawa] settled amicably their dispute with
    Rosmil and Millan. Instead of only the amount of ₱1,019,514.29, [Spouses
    Bakunawa] agreed to pay Rosmil and Millan the amount of ₱3,000,000.00, [which
    is] inclusive [of] the amount of []₱1,019,514.29. But during negotiations and
    evidently prior to said settlement, [Manuel Bakunawa, through Hi-Tri] inquired from
    RCBC-Ermita the availability of the ₱1,019,514.29 under RCBC Managers Check No.
    ER 034469. [Hi-Tri and Spouses Bakunawa] were however dismayed when they
    were informed that the amount was already subject of the escheat proceedings
    before the RTC.

    1
    Issue:

    Whether or not the escheat (the reversion of property to the state on the owner’s
    dying without legal heirs) of the account in RCBC is proper.

    Held:

    No. There are checks of a special type called managers or cashiers checks.


    These are bills of exchange drawn by the banks manager or cashier, in the name of
    the bank, against the bank itself. Typically, a managers or a cashiers check is
    procured from the bank by allocating a particular amount of funds to be debited
    from the depositors account or by directly paying or depositing to the bank the
    value of the check to be drawn. Since the bank issues the check in its name, with
    itself as the drawee, the check is deemed accepted in advance. Ordinarily, the
    check becomes the primary obligation of the issuing bank and constitutes its written
    promise to pay upon demand.

    Nevertheless, the mere issuance of a managers check does not ipso facto
    work as an automatic transfer of funds to the account of the payee. In case the
    procurer of the managers or cashiers check retains custody of the instrument, does
    not tender it to the intended payee, or fails to make an effective delivery, we find
    the following provision on undelivered instruments under the Negotiable
    Instruments Law applicable:

    Sec. 16. Delivery; when effectual; when presumed. Every contract on


    a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of
    the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. As between
    immediate parties and as regards a remote party other than a holder
    in due course, the delivery, in order to be effectual, must be made
    either by or under the authority of the party making, drawing,
    accepting, or indorsing, as the case may be; and, in such case, the
    delivery may be shown to have been conditional, or for a special
    purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring the property in
    the instrument. But where the instrument is in the hands of a holder in
    due course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties prior to him so as to
    make them liable to him is conclusively presumed. And where the
    instrument is no longer in the possession of a party whose signature
    appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed
    until the contrary is proved.

    Since there was no delivery, presentment of the check to the bank for
    payment did not occur. An order to debit the account of respondents was never
    made. In fact, petitioner confirms that the Managers Check was never negotiated or
    presented for payment to its Ermita Branch, and that the allocated fund is still held
    by the bank. As a result, the assigned fund is deemed to remain part of the account
    of Hi-Tri, which procured the Managers Check. The doctrine that the deposit
    represented by a managers check automatically passes to the payee is inapplicable,
    because the instrument although accepted in advance remains undelivered. Hence,
    respondents should have been informed that the deposit had been left inactive for
    more than 10 years, and that it may be subjected to escheat proceedings if left
    unclaimed.

    You might also like