in The Matter of The Intestate Estate of Reynaldo G. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

1. In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Reynaldo G. Rodriguez v.

Rodriguez
G.R. No. 230404 | Jan 31, 2018 | 1st Div | Tijam, J.
Classic Banking Functions – Deposit Taking and Lending

Facts:
• Respondents are the children of Reynaldo and Ester Rodriguez (both deceased). They left their properties
to their surviving children.
• Anita is a co-depositor in a BPI Joint Account under the name of Anita and Reynaldo.
o When he died, the account remained to be in active status.
• BPI informed Anita that her account will become dormant is no transaction is made. However, BPI required
her to submit additional requirement, including the extrajudicial settlement of the heirs of Reynaldo.
o Anita approached the respondents to ask them to sign a waiver to the rights, but they refused,
believing their father owned the funds in the joint account.
• Respondents then submitted the documents for the release of half of the funds deposited in the account.
o BPI withheld such release because of conflicting claims between Anita and the respondents.
• Anita then filed a Spec Pro case for the settlement of Reynaldo’s estate, and the issuance of letters of
administration to any competent neutral person, other than any of the heirs of Reynaldo.
o She alleged that the funds used to open the BPI account were her exclusive funds which came from
her East West account.
o She presented a Demit Memo from East West Bank, which was used for the issuance of a
Manager’s Check of P1,021,868.30, the exact amount deposited into the BPI account.
o She also presented testimony of the Branch Manager
• Respondents file a motion to dismiss, on the ground that the funds deposited exclusively belong to
Reynaldo
• RTC ruled in favor of Anita, stating that she adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the
funds were deposited under their names were owned in common.
• The CA reversed the ruling of the RTC, stating that the presumption of co-ownership as regards the nature
of joint accounts was not sufficiently overturned.

Issue: w/n the CA erred in declaring Anita and Reynaldo as co-owners of the subject bank account deposits despite
the evidence presented by Anita to prove otherwise.

Held:
A joint account is held jointly by 2 or more natural or juridical persons.
• The depositors are joint owners or co-owners of the account
• Governed by rule on co-ownership in Art. 485 of the Civil Code – “Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in
the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any stipulation in
a contract to the contrary shall be void.
The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary
is proved.”
• GR: Co-owners shares in the deposits are presumed equal
o X: The contrary is proved.

It is also indispensable to determined w/n there is a survivorship agreement between the co-depositors
• In such agreement, the co-depositors agree that upon the death of either of them, the share pertaining to
the deceased shall accrue to the surviving depositor, or he can withdraw the entire amount.
• ITCAB, there is no survivorship agreement.

The Court agrees with the findings of the lower court that Anita sufficiently proved that she exclusively owns the
funds in the BPI joint account.
• The money in the BPI joint account amounts to P1,021,868.30.
• It is undisputed that said amount came from Anita's personal account with East West.
• In East West, Anita opened a Trust Placement in August 2007 with P2,014,024.25.
• Based on East West's records, as testified to by its Branch Manager, two withdrawals were subsequently
made: first, in the amount of P1,021,868.30; and second, in the amount P1,003,111.11. In all such
withdrawals, manager's checks were issued.
• The exact amount which was first withdrawn from the East West account P1,021,868.30 was the exact
amount used to open the BPI joint account.
• The transactions occurred within the same day on November 14, 2007, and no further transaction in said
joint account was made after the same was opened until the death of Reynaldo.

Disposition: Petition granted. RTC decision reinstated.

Notes:

You might also like