Title
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Onate
Case
G.R. No. 192371
Decision Date
Jan 15, 2014
Land Bank unilaterally debited Oaate’s trust accounts to recover miscredited funds; SC ruled improper, ordering return of debited amounts and undocumented withdrawals with adjusted interest rates.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192371)

Petitioner

Land Bank of the Philippines seeks review of the Court of Appeals’ affirmation, with modification, of the Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of its complaint and award in favor of OAate.

Respondent

Emmanuel C. OAate maintained seven express trust accounts with Land Bank and counterclaimed for restoration of debited funds and undocumented withdrawals, claiming breach of Land Bank’s fiduciary duties and contractual obligations under the IMAs.

Key Dates

• 1978–1980: OAate opened seven trust accounts.
• October 8, 1981: Land Bank demanded return of P4 million.
• June 21, 1991: Land Bank unilaterally set off account balances.
• September 7, 1992: Land Bank filed Complaint for Sum of Money.
• May 31, 2006: RTC dismissed complaint; ordered return of P1,471,416.52.
• December 18, 2009: CA affirmed dismissal and ordered payment of additional P60,663,488.11 and US$3,210,222.85.
• January 15, 2014: Supreme Court promulgated decision under the 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (due to decision date post-1990)
• Civil Code obligations and trust law
• Investment Management Agreements (IMAs)
• Section 43, Rule 130, Rules of Court (business entries)
• BSP Manual of Regulations for Banks (MORB) and subsequent Circulars

Factual Background

OAate’s seven trust accounts, each governed by an IMA with full discretionary power to Land Bank, required quarterly statements, accurate record-keeping, and client access to audit records. In late 1980, Land Bank credited P4 million to one account, later asserting it represented proceeds of pre-terminated borrower loans. OAate denied knowledge or receipt of such funds. After failed negotiations, Land Bank in 1991 set off total trust account balances—recovering only P1,528,583.48—and filed suit for the remaining P8,222,687.89 plus interest.

Proceedings Below

OAate answered with a compulsory counterclaim for account balances and damages. The RTC appointed a Board of Commissioners to audit the accounts, uncovering extensive undocumented withdrawals and over-drawings. The RTC dismissed Land Bank’s complaint for failure to prove miscrediting and ordered restoration of P1,471,416.52, but denied OAate’s counterclaim. The CA denied Land Bank’s appeal, granted OAate’s, and modified the RTC decision to award P60,663,488.11 and US$3,210,222.85 for undocumented withdrawals, plus P1,471,416.52, with 12% interest compounded annually from June 21, 1991.

Issues for Resolution

  1. Whether passbook entries satisfy the presumption of regularity under Section 43, Rule 130.
  2. Whether OAate’s failure to plead restitution in his answer precludes restoration of debited funds.
  3. Whether undocumented withdrawals are recoverable absent compliance with MORB standards.
  4. Whether OAate must join an undisclosed principal for accounts 01-014 and 01-017.
  5. Whether the award of 12% per annum compounded yearly violates Article 1959 of the Civil Code.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The petition was denied. The Court held that all contested issues were factual and not reviewable under Rule 45. Land Bank failed to prove the source of the P4 million miscrediting, did not maintain accurate records or timely quarterly statements as required by the IMAs, and did not identify or justify


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.