Case Summary (G.R. No. 205705)
Petitioner’s and Respondent’s Roles
Evangeline executed general and special powers of attorney in favor of Dominador (August 2, 1995). They opened a joint savings account (No. 1189‑02819‑5) at PCI Bank, Claveria Branch, Davao City on January 18, 1999, to facilitate funding for Evangeline’s business projects. Dominador, as attorney‑in‑fact and co‑depositor, withdrew P980,000.00 from the joint account on February 11, 2002 and later deposited it to his personal account at the same bank.
Key Dates
Power of attorney: August 2, 1995. Joint account opened: January 18, 1999. Withdrawal: February 11, 2002. Evangeline learned of withdrawal and updated passbook: February 23, 2003. Complaint filed (with TRO): May 7, 2002. RTC decision dismissing complaint: January 25, 2006. CA decision reversing RTC: July 31, 2012. CA denial of reconsideration: January 17, 2013. Supreme Court decision affirming with modifications: August 5, 2015.
Applicable Law and Authorities
Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date is later than 1990). Relevant statutes and rules appearing in the record: Civil Code Article 485 (presumption of equal shares in co‑ownership), Rules of Court (Section 1 & 2, Rule 9 regarding defenses and counterclaims), Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Circular No. 799 (rate of interest in absence of stipulation, 2013), and jurisprudence cited in the decision (e.g., Nacar v. Gallery Frames and other authorities referenced in the record).
Factual Background
Evangeline lived in Germany and authorized Dominador to manage certain Philippine affairs. The joint savings account was opened specifically to facilitate funding for Evangeline’s business projects; by bank practice it was a joint “OR” account permitting any named depositor to withdraw without the other’s signature. Dominador withdrew P980,000.00 on February 11, 2002 and transferred it to his personal account. Evangeline later discovered the withdrawal, updated the passbook, and demanded return; the bank’s withdrawal procedures and whether passbook was required were contested.
Procedural History — Trial Court
Evangeline sued for sum of money, damages, and attorney’s fees, and obtained a TRO on May 7, 2002 enjoining EPCIB from further withdrawals. RTC, Branch 16, Davao City (Decision dated January 25, 2006) ruled for Dominador, holding the February 11, 2002 withdrawal valid because (a) the account was a joint “OR” account allowing withdrawal without co‑depositor consent; and (b) Dominador purportedly withdrew the funds as compensation for his services as administrator of Evangeline’s business affairs. The RTC dismissed Dominador’s counterclaims for lack of proof of bad faith by Evangeline.
Procedural History — Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals (Decision dated July 31, 2012) reversed the RTC, finding Evangeline established her case by preponderance of evidence and ordering Dominador to return P980,000.00 plus interest (6% p.a. from filing of complaint to finality; then 12% p.a. thereafter until full satisfaction). The CA reasoned that although an “OR” account allows transactions by any depositor vis‑à‑vis the bank, the account in this case was opened for a specified purpose — financing Evangeline’s projects — and Dominador’s authority to withdraw was therefore subject to prior approval and limited by that purpose. The CA rejected Dominador’s claim that the funds or half thereof belonged to Holgar Schwarzfeller or constituted compensation because such allegations were unsubstantiated.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether Evangeline is entitled to the return of P980,000.00 withdrawn by Dominador from the joint account and the appropriate legal interest to be applied.
Standard of Review and Exception on Factual Re‑examination
The Supreme Court noted that Rule 45 petitions are generally limited to questions of law and that CA factual findings are usually conclusive. However, where the RTC and CA findings differ, the Court may resolve factual issues — an exception that applies in this case because the RTC and CA reached divergent factual conclusions.
Legal Analysis on Joint Accounts and Co‑ownership
The Court summarized the law on joint accounts: depositors are joint owners and shares are presumed equal under Civil Code Article 485 unless contrary is proved; banking practice normally allows any named holder of an “OR” account to withdraw the entire balance in dealings with the bank. Nevertheless, between account holders the right to withdraw may be governed by their agreement and the purpose for which the account was opened. Because the subject account was opened for a specific purpose (to fund Evangeline’s projects), Dominador’s right to withdraw vis‑à‑vis Evangeline was limited to amounts necessary to meet financial obligations for those projects.
Application of Law to the Facts — Withdrawal Invalid as Between Co‑depositors
The Court found that at the time of the P980,000.00 withdrawal there was no ongoing project requiring funds for Evangeline; thus Dominador’s authority to withdraw was not satisfied by necessity for projects. Dominador’s alternative contention that the funds represented compensation from Holgar (including an alleged P1,000,000.00 promise and P900,000.00 remittance to the account) was rejected for lack of competent evidence that Holgar undertook to pay or remitted such funds for Dominador’s benefit. Because Dominador failed to prove an affirmative right to the withdrawn funds, he is liable to return them.
Burden of Proof and Waiver of Unraised Defenses
The Court reiterated that the party asserting an affirmative matter bears the burden of proof by preponderance of evidence. Dominador fail
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 205705)
Parties and Case Caption
- Petitioner: Dominador M. Apique (Dominador).
- Respondent: Evangeline Apique Fahnenstich (Evangeline).
- Case citation: 765 Phil. 915, First Division, G.R. No. 205705, August 05, 2015.
- Decision authored by Justice Perlas-Bernabe; concurrence by Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perez, JJ.
- Question presented on petition for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals (CA) decisions in CA-G.R. CV No. 00740-MIN (Decision dated July 31, 2012; Resolution dated January 17, 2013) which set aside the RTC Decision dated January 25, 2006 in Civil Case No. 29,122-02.
Factual Background
- Dominador and Evangeline are siblings who formerly lived with their parents in Babak, Island Garden City of Samal, Davao; Evangeline left for Germany to work sometime in 1979.
- On August 2, 1995, Evangeline executed General and Special Powers of Attorney constituting Dominador as her attorney-in-fact to purchase real property and supervise/manage her business affairs in the Philippines.
- Because Evangeline lived in Germany, she and Dominador opened a joint savings account on January 18, 1999 at the Claveria Branch of Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCI Bank) in Davao City (later Equitable PCI Bank, now Banco de Oro) under Savings Account No. 1189-02819-5 (the subject account).
- On February 11, 2002, Dominador withdrew P980,000.00 from the subject account and deposited that amount to his own savings account at the same bank (Savings Account No. 1189-00781-3).
- Evangeline learned of the withdrawal on February 23, 2003 from the EPCIB manager; she had her passbook updated which reflected the withdrawal and discovered the subsequent deposit to Dominador’s account and various withdrawals from his account.
- Evangeline demanded return of the amount; when denied, she filed a complaint on May 7, 2002 for sum of money, damages, and attorney’s fees, and prayed for preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction and a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Dominador; she impleaded EPCIB as defendant and alleged sole ownership of the money in the subject account and that the bank violated rules by allowing withdrawal without presentation of the passbook.
- The court granted Evangeline’s TRO on May 7, 2002.
- Dominador, in his answer, asserted authority to withdraw funds because (a) the account was a joint account and (b) he held the general and special powers of attorney from Evangeline; he filed a counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit.
- EPCIB denied violating its rules, contending the account was an “OR” account permitting any account holder to transact without the signature of the other, and that “no passbook” transactions were permissible if technical documentities, identity of payee, authenticity of signatures, and sufficiency of funds were verified.
- Evangeline and EPCIB filed a joint motion to drop the bank as a party; the RTC granted the motion on April 5, 2004.
- During trial, Dominador claimed an initial personal deposit of P100,000.00 to the joint account when opened and asserted that Evangeline’s common-law husband, Holgar Schwarzfeller (Holgar), had deposited P900,000.00 pursuant to a verbal promise to compensate Dominador P1,000,000.00 for his services as administrator/manager of the couple’s business and properties; Dominador’s sister Marietta Apique corroborated the promise.
- A trial stenographic note (TSN) indicates that at the time of the contested withdrawal there was no project being undertaken for Evangeline.
RTC Ruling (Trial Court)
- Decision dated January 25, 2006, RTC, Branch 16, Davao City, Civil Case No. 29,122-02.
- The RTC dismissed Evangeline’s complaint and ruled in favor of Dominador.
- The RTC held the February 11, 2002 withdrawal of P980,000.00 was valid because:
- The subject account was a joint “OR” account allowing either depositor to transact without the other’s consent; and
- The withdrawal was justified as compensation for Dominador’s services as administrator of Evangeline’s business affairs.
- The RTC dismissed Dominador’s counterclaims for failure to prove that Evangeline acted in bad faith in filing the complaint.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- CA Decision dated July 31, 2012 (CA-G.R. CV No. 00740-MIN).
- The CA reversed the RTC, set aside the dismissal, and ordered Dominador to return P980,000.00 to Evangeline with interest:
- Six percent (6%) per annum from the filing of the complaint up to the finality of the decision; and
- Twelve percent (12%) per annum thereafter on the total amount demanded until full satisfaction.
- The CA found Evangeline proved her case by preponderance of evidence.
- The CA reasoned:
- Although the subject account was a joint “OR” account and Dominador need not present authorization from Evangeline to transact with the bank, that nature did not give him an unbridled license to withdraw any amount at any time.
- Dominador’s authority to withdraw was subject to Evangeline’s prior approval in light of the specific purpose for which the account was opened (i.e., to facilitate funds for Evangeline’s business projects).
- Dominador’s claim that part or all of the funds belonged to Holgar as compensation was rejected as bare, self-serving, and unsubstantiated.
- Dominador filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in a Resolution dated January 17, 2013.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
- Whether Evangeline is entitled to the return of P980,000.00 withdrawn by Dominador from their joint savings account with EPCIB, plus legal interest.
Standard of Review and Factual Review Exception
- The petition for revie