Case Digest (G.R. No. 179096)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 179096)
Facts:
Joseph Goyanko, Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Goyanko, Sr. v. United Coconut Planters Bank, Mango Avenue Branch, G.R. No. 179096, February 06, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.In 1995 the late Joseph Goyanko, Sr. invested P2,000,000.00 with Philippine Asia Lending Investors, Inc. (PALII) but died before the investment matured. Conflicting claims to the proceeds arose between Goyanko’s legitimate family (represented by petitioner Joseph Goyanko, Jr.) and his illegitimate family. While the claims were being investigated, PALII deposited the investment proceeds with United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), Mango Avenue Branch under the account name “Phil Asia: ITF (In Trust For) The Heirs of Joseph Goyanko, Sr.” (the ACCOUNT). By September 27, 1997, the ACCOUNT balance was P1,509,318.76; on December 11, 1997 PALII withdrew P1,500,000.00, leaving P9,318.76.
When UCPB refused the petitioner’s demand to restore the withdrawn funds with legal interest, the petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, Cebu City (Civil Case No. CEB-22277). UCPB admitted opening the ACCOUNT under the ITF name and that PALII made the December 11, 1997 withdrawal, but it defended on the ground that the ACCOUNT was a deposit in PALII’s name and not a trust vesting obligations in UCPB toward the heirs.
The RTC rendered judgment on August 27, 2003 dismissing the complaint and even awarded UCPB attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs; the RTC held that the words “ITF Heirs” were insufficient to charge UCPB with knowledge of any trust relationship and that the contractual relation was between PALII and UCPB as depositor and depository. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On February 20, 2007 the CA in CA-G.R. CV. No. 00257 affirmed the RTC’s dismissal but deleted the award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses; the CA held that no express trust existed because essential elements (competent trustor and trustee, clear intention and sufficiently certain terms) were absent and that the ACCOUNT was a deposit in PALII’s name. The CA denied reconsideration on July 31, 2007.
The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (petition dated September 25, 2007 and filed September 24, 2007) seeking nullification of the CA decision and resolution. He argued that (a) PALII’s March 28, 1996 and November 15, 1996 letters showed an express trust with PALII as trustee and the heirs as beneficiaries (or, in his later position, with PALII as trustor and UCPB as trustee), and (b) UCPB acted negligently and in bad faith in allowing the withdrawal. UCPB insisted the ACCOUNT was an ordinary deposit in PALII’s name and denied any trust relationship with PALII and the heirs.
Issues:
- Is a petition under Rule 45 a proper vehicle to review the factual question whether an express trust existed between PALII and UCPB?
- May the petitioner change the theory of the case on appeal by asserting a different trust relationship than that presented below?
- Did an express trust exist between PALII and UCPB in favor of the heirs such that UCPB became liable for the withdrawal?
- Was UCPB negligent or in bad faith in allowing PALII’s withdrawal from the ACCOUNT, giving rise to a cause of action against the bank?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)