GR NO.

146918
Citibank N. A vs. Sps. Luis and Carmelita Cabamonan and t!eir sons Luis
Cabamonan "r. And Lito Cabamonan
#AC$S%
Cabamongan Spouses filed a complaint against Citibank before the RTC of
Makati for specific performance with damages.
On August 16 1!!" spouses #uis and Carmelita Cabamongan opened a $oint
%and&or' foreign currenc( time deposit in trust for their sons #uis )r. And #ito at the
Citibank *. A. Makati +ranch in the amount of ,--.16.6! for a term of 1/. da(s or
until 0ebruar( 11 1!!1 at ..-6.- percent interest per annum. 2rior to maturit( or on
*o3ember 141!!" a person who claimed to be Carmelita went to the Makati
branch and sought the pre5termination of the account. She presented a passport
+ank of America 6ersatele Card an ATM card and a Mabuha( Credit Card to
ascertain her identit( to the account officer. She filled up the forms for pre5
termination of deposits with the assistance of the account officer. 7hile the
transaction was being processed she was inter3iewed b( the account officer about
her personal circumstances and in3estment plans. Since the person failed to
surrender the original certificate of deposit she need to e8ecute a notari9ed release
and wai3er document in fa3or of the bank. :owe3er the documen t was not
notari9ed but the mone( was release to the person. #ater on the account officer
reali9ed that the person who sought the pre5termination of the account left an
identification card. :e called to the said address The spouses and their family knew
of the incident. They were presently residing in the US and there was a prior
incident wherein they got robbed in their house with the jewelry box and cards
stolen. Spouses made several demands for the return of the amount but Citibank
refused to do so.

Citibank contended that it was not negligent on his duties since the mone( was
release onl( upon proper identification. The RTC ruled in fa3or of the Cabamongan
Spouses. ;espite a fa3orable decision the Cabamongan spouses filed a motion to
partiall( reconsider their pra(er for an increas of the damages awarded. Citibank
opposed the motion. The RTC granted the motion for partial reconsideration.
Citibank filed an appeal with the CA. CA sustained the decision of the RTC that
Citibank was negligent.
&ssue%
'!et!er or not t!e time deposit (as a )ontra)t o* loan and t!ere*ore t!e 1+,
interest is appli)able
Rulin%
<es. The court held that the the time deposit is a simple loan. The pro3isions of the
*ew Ci3il Code on simple loan go3ern the contract between a bank and its depositor.
Specificall( Article 1!/4 categoricall( pro3ides that sa3ings deposit of mone( in banks
and similar institutions shall be go3erned b( the pro3isions concerning simple loan.
Thus the relationship between a bank and a depositor is that of a debtor5creditor the
depositor being the creditor as it lends the bank mone( and the bank is the debtor which
agrees to pa( the depositor on demand.
The court also held that '!en t!e obliation is brea)!ed- and it )onsists in t!e
pa.ment o* a sum o* mone.-i.e loan or *orbearan)e o* mone.- t!e interest due
s!ould be t!at (!i)! ma. !ave been stipulated in (ritin. #urt!ermore- t!e
interest due s!all itsel* earn leal interest *rom t!e time it is /udi)iall. demanded.
&n t!e absen)e o* stipulation-t!e rate o* interest o* 1+, per annum to be )omputed
*rom de*ault i.e.- *rom /udi)ial or e0tra/udi)ial demand under and sub/e)t to t!e
provisions o* Arti)le 1169 o* t!e Civil Code.
=n this case the stipulated interest rate of ..-6.> per annum shall appl( for the 1/.
da( contract period from august 161!!" to 0ebruar( 11 1!!1. 0or the period from the
date of e8tra$udicial demand September 161!!1 the rate of interest of 1.> shall appl(.
As for the inter3ening period between 0ebruar( 11 1!!1 the rate of interest then
pre3ailing granted b( Citibank shall appl( since the time deposit pro3ided for roll o3er
upon maturit( of the principal and interest.
GR NO. L111226
Ramon Gon3ales vs. Go $ion and Lu3on Suret. Co. &n).
#a)ts%
?o Tiong owned a ricemill and a warehouse located at Mabini @rdaneta
2angasinan. :e obtained a license to engage in the business of a bonded
warehouseman. To secure the performance of his obligations as a bonded
warehouseman the #u9on Suret( Co. A8ecuted ?uarant( bond no. .!1 in the sum
of 21/""1 conditioned particularl( on the fulfilment b( ?o Tiong of his obligation to
deli3er to the depositors in his storage warehouse the pala( recei3ed b( him for
storage. ?o Tiong insured the warehouse and the pala( with the Alliance Suret( and
=nsurance Compan(. :owe3er prior to the issuance of license to him he had
recei3ed se3eral pala( deposits from Ramon ?on9ales amounting to /64 sacks
3alued at /644 at the rate of 214 per sack for which he issued the corresponding
receipts.
On March 1-1!-" plaintiff demanded from ?o Tiong the 3alue of his deposits in
the amount of /644 but he was told to return after two da(s. A few da(s later the
warehouse was burned. +efore the fire ?o Tiong had been accepting deli3eries of
pala( from other depositors and at the time of the fire there were -/1B sacks of
pala( in the warehouse in e8cess of the -444 sacks authori9ed under his license.
The receipts issued to ?o Tiong were ordinar( receipts not the warehouse receipts
defined b( the 7arehouse Receipts Act.
So the depositors of pala( including the plaintiff field their claims with the
+ureau of Commerce and it appeared that with the proceeds of the insurance polic(
the +ureau of Commerce paid some of the claim. #ater on ?on9ales through his
counsel withdrew his claim with the +ureau of Commerce.
Thereafter ?on9ales filed a present action against ?o Tiong and the #u9on
Suret( for the sum of 2/644 the 3alue of his pala( with legal interest damages in
the sum of 2-444.44 A*; 21-44 as attorne(Cs fees. ?on9ales later renewed his
claim with the +ureau of Commerce. 7hile the case is pending in court ?on9ales
and ?o Tiong entered into a contract of amicable settlement to the effect that upon
the settlement of all accounts due to him b( ?o Tiong ?on9ales would ha3e all
actions pending against ?o Tiong dismissed. =nasmucha s ?o Tiong failed to settle
the accounts ?on9ales prosecuted his court action.
Appellants contended that the burning of the warehouse was a fortuitous
e3ent and not due to an( fault of ?o Tiong and conseDuentl( he should not be
held liable.
&ssue%
'!et!er or not t!e suret. )ompan. )annot be !eld liable *or *ailure o* t!e
(are!ouseman to issue a pres)ribed re)eipt.
Rulin%
*o. Section . of Act *o."/!" defined receipt as an( receipt issued b( a
warehouseman for commodit( deli3ered to him showing that the law does not reDuire as
indispensable that a warehouse receipt be issued. 0urthermore section B of the said law
pro3ieds that as long as the depositor is in$ured b( a breach of an( obligationof the
warehouseman which obligation is secured b( a bond said depositor ma( sue on said
bond.
The suret( compan( thereb( made itself responsible for the performance b( the
warehouseman of all the duties and obligations imposed upon him b( the statute and if
he failed to perform an( such dut( to the loss or detriment of those who deli3ered grain
for storage the suret( compan( become liable therefore. 7here the warehouseman
recei3es grain for storage and refuses to return or pa( it the fact that he failed to issue
the receipt when the statute reDuired him to issue on recei3ing it is not a3ailable to the
suret( as a defense against an action on the bond. The obligation of the suret( co3ers
the dut( of the warehouseman to issued the prescribed receipt as well as the other
duties imposed upon him b( the statute.
GR NO. 144824
Sps. Salva)ion Serrano Ladana and Austin Ladana vs. 5ernardo Aseneta
#a)ts%
2etitioner Sal3acion #adanga and respondent +ernardo Aseneta were first
cousins. The( were both reared and educated b( their aunt Clemencia Aseneta.
Respondent +ernardo was adopted b( Clemencia on )une "41!61 in a special
proceeding before the then )u3enile and ;omestic Relations CourtE);RCF of
Manila.
=n her lifetime Clemencia Aseneta owned se3eral parcels of land in Manila
Gue9on Cit( and Alba( from which she deri3ed rentals. Among these properties
was the disputed parcel of land located in ;iliman Gue9on Cit(.
Respondent +ernardo alleged that sometime in 1!B1 Clemencia
complained that she was not recei3ing the rentals from petitioner spouses to
whom she entrusted the administration of her properties. +ernardo in3estiigated
the matter and found out that Clemencia sold nine parcels of land to petitioner
Sps on April 61!B1. Among them was the land in ;iliman Gue9on Cit(. The
said land was sold to petitioner spouses b( 3irtue of a deed of sale for the
amount of 2.4444.44. A transfer certificate of title was then issued b( the
Register of ;eeds of Gue9on Cit( to petitioner Sal3acion Serrano #adanga. The
consideration for the / other properties sold to petitioner spouses amounted to
264.44 which was supposedl( paid in cash to Clemencia.
Respondent +ernardo also found out that a parcel of land in Cubao Gue9on
Cit( and also co3ered b( a transfer certificate of title had been sold b(
Clemencia to peitioner Sal3acion on *o3ember /1!B1. The lot was priced at
1.444 although itCs market 3alue in the ta8 declaration was 21.444. A TCT
*O..414!4 was correspondingl( issued in the name of petitioner Sal3acion
#adanga for this propert(. :e then confronted Clemencia about the incredulous
sales to petitioner but the latter denied selling the properties to and recei3ing
pa(ment from them. This prompted respondent to file guardianship proceedings
for Clemencia before the );RC of Gue9on Cit(. The );RC of GC declared
Clemencia Aseneta a B65(ear old spinster an incompetent and an eas( 3ictim
of deceit and e8ploitation. =t further directed the issuance of #etters of
?uardianship to respondent +ernardo for the person and properties of
Clemencia. +ernardo as guardian filed in 3arious courts actions for
recon3e(ance and accounting of rentals against petitioner spouses for the ten
sales.
=n their answer petitioner spouses alleged that Clemencia was disgusted
with respondent +ernardo who was purportedl( cheating her of the rentals from
her properties. She therefore appointed petitioner Sal3acionCs husband ;r.
Agustin #adanga as administrator for the properties in Alba( in 1!6! Manila
and Gue9on Cit( in 1!B.. 2etitioner Agustin paid the income and realt( ta8es on
the properties. :e also paid the necessar( repairs on the leased properties and
all other fees in behalf of Clemencia. Spouses also claimed that Clemencia sold
her properties to them because of her bitterness with respondent and also out of
gratitude tot hem for taking care of her. The( further alleged that a certain Att(.
Arambulo prepared for all the deeds of sale and that the( paid Clemencia in the
presence of the law(ers who notari9ed the documents.. 7hen Clemencia died
during the pendenc( of the proceedings respondent +ernardo substituted her in
the actiona s legal heir.
The court a Duo rendered $udgment declaring that no contract of sale was
perfected either for the ;iliman or Cubao propert(. There was no clear
agreement between the parties on the sub$ect matter and consideration. The
court ruled in fa3or of plaintiffs.
=n the meantime the parties entered into a compromise agreement ont he
Cubao propert( and after securing court appro3al sold it to a third part( in 1!/B.
;uring the pendenc( of the appeal respondent bernardo filed a motion to
cite petitioners in contempt after the( sold the diliman propert( to a certain
+ernardo :i9on on )ul( 61!!6 in spite of the annotation of lis pendens at the
back of the title.. The CA denied the motion.
&ssue%
'!et!er or not t!ere (as a per*e)ted )ontra)t o* sale
Rulin%
No. The court held that a contract of sale is 3oid and produces of no effect
whatsoe3er where the price which appears therein as paid has in fact ne3er been paid
b( the purchaser to the 3endor. Such a sale is ine8istent and cannot be considered
consummated.. =t was bot shown that Clemencia intended to donated the propert( to the
#adangas. :er testimon( and the notar(Hs testimon( destro(ed an( presumption that the
sale was fair and regular and for a true consideration.
=n this case the #adangaCs abused ClemenciaCs confidence and defrauded her of
properties with a market 3alue of 2"!"--!..- when she was alread( B/ (ears old.
As to the issue of contempt the CA was correct. A notice of lis pendens is an
announcement to the whole world that a particular real propert( is in litigation and ser3es
as a warning that one who acDuires an interest o3er said propert( does so at hiw own
risk or that he gambles at the result of the litigation. The propert( sub$ect of the litigation
is not b( the fact alone in custodia legis. =t is onl( when propert( is lawful taken b( 3irtue
of legal process that it becomes in custodia legis and not otherwise.