Title
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 76902
Decision Date
Jan 30, 1990
Land Bank not liable for interest on retired bonds; unilateral notation in conversion forms unenforceable, remedy lies with transferees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29419)

Factual Background

Respondents held three Land Bank Interim Bond Certificates, with face values totaling P623,340.00, which were issued to them as partial payment for their agricultural lands. Following their necessity to convert these registered bonds to bearer bonds in 1975 for easier transfer to third parties, they requested this change while explicitly noting on the transfer form that interest accrued until the conversion date (November 21, 1974, to March 17, 1975) would accrue to them as transferors.

Initial Demand and Legal Proceedings

On May 20, 1975, the respondents demanded payment of P11,877.24 from the Land Bank, representing accrued interest on the registered bonds. However, the Land Bank refused to pay the interest without the presentation of the bearer bond certificates, adhering to its Implementing Guidelines requiring such documentation for payment.

Subsequently, the respondents filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila to enforce this claim. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the Land Bank to pay the claimed interest, alongside attorney’s fees.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision. It maintained that the Land Bank was bound by the notation made by the respondents in the transfer forms, dismissing the Bank's reasons for withholding payment as unfounded.

Issues Raised in Petition for Review

In the Petition for Review, the critical legal question was whether the Land Bank was liable for the payment of interest. The Petitioner contended that the unilateral notation regarding interest allocation did not bind the Land Bank and that the requirements for bond regulation must be adhered to for legitimate payment processing.

Findings on Interest Payment

The Supreme Court found that the notation inserted by the respondents did not impose an obligation on the Land Bank to pay them interest. The notation addressed the distribution of interest between the transferors and potential transferees and did not clearly direct the Bank to pay the respondents specifically.

Legal Compliance and Regulatory Authority

The Land Bank’s requirements for presenting bond certificates prior to payment were deemed reasonable and lawful. These guidelines were established per the statutory authority granted to the Bank and thus binding to all parties engaging with it, including prior bondholders like the respondents.

Conclusion on Estoppel

The Court rejected the res

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.