RCBC vs. Hi-Tri Development Corp. and Luz R. Bakunawa, G.R. No. 19 !

1", #une 1", $1 %a&t'( Millan paid the spouses Bakunawa P1,019,514.29 as down payment for the pur hase of si! "#$ lots with the %pouses Bakunawa &ivin& Millan the 'wner(s )opies of *)*s of said lots. +ue to some o,sta les, the sale did not push throu&h- so %pouses Bakunawa res inded the sale and offered to return to Millan her down. .owever, Millan refused to a ept ,a k the down payment. )onse/uently, the %pouses Bakunawa, throu&h their ompany, .i0*ri took out on ' to,er 21, 1991, a Mana&er(s )he k from 2)B)03rmita in the amount of P 1,019,514.29, paya,le to Millan(s ompany 2osmil and used this as one of their ,asis for a omplaint a&ainst Millan. *he %pouses Bakunawa retained ustody of 2)B) Mana&er(s )he k and refrained from an ellin& or ne&otiatin& it. Millan was also informed that the Mana&er(s )he k was availa,le for her withdrawal, she ,ein& the payee. 'n 4anuary 51, 2005, without the knowled&e of %pouses Bakunawa, 2)B) reported the 6P 1,019,514.290 redit e!istin& in favor of 2osmil to the Bureau of *reasury as amon& its 6un laimed ,alan es6 as of 4anuary 51, 2005. 'n +e em,er 14, 200#, the 2epu,li , throu&h the 'ffi e of the %oli itor 7eneral "'%7$, filed with the 2*) the a tion for 3s heat. 'n 8pril 50, 2001, %pouses Bakunawa settled ami a,ly their dispute with Millan. %pouses Bakunawa tried to re over the P1,019,514.29 under Mana&er(s )he k ,ut they were informed that the amount was already su,9e t of the es heat pro eedin&s ,efore the 2*). *he trial ourt ordered the deposit of the es heated ,alan es with the *reasurer and redited in favor of the 2epu,li . 2espondents laim that they were not a,le to parti ipate in the trial, as they were not informed of the on&oin& es heat pro eedin&s. :ater motion for re onsideration was denied. )8 reversed the 2*) rulin&. )8 pronoun ed that 2*) )lerk of )ourt failed to issue individual noti es dire ted to all persons laimin& interest in the un laimed ,alan es. )8 held that the +e ision and 'rder of the 2*) were void for want of 9urisdi tion. ;ssue< =hether or not the allo ated funds may ,e es heated in favor of the 2epu,li .eld< *here are suffi ient &rounds to affirm the )8 on the e! lusion of the funds allo ated for the payment of the Mana&er(s )he k in the es heat pro eedin&s. 8n ordinary he k refers to a ,ill of e! han&e drawn ,y a depositor "drawer$ on a ,ank "drawee$, re/uestin& the latter to pay a person named therein "payee$ or to the order of the payee or to the ,earer, a named sum of money. *he issuan e of the he k does not of itself

operate as an assi&nment of any part of the funds in the ,ank to the redit of the drawer. .ere, the ,ank ,e omes lia,le only after it a epts or ertifies the he k. 8fter the he k is a epted for payment, the ,ank would then de,it the amount to ,e paid to the holder of the he k from the a ount of the depositor0drawer. *here are he ks of a spe ial type alled mana&er(s or ashier(s he ks. *hese are ,ills of e! han&e drawn ,y the ,ank(s mana&er or ashier, in the name of the ,ank, a&ainst the ,ank itself. *ypi ally, a mana&er(s or a ashier(s he k is pro ured from the ,ank ,y allo atin& a parti ular amount of funds to ,e de,ited from the depositor(s a ount or ,y dire tly payin& or depositin& to the ,ank the value of the he k to ,e drawn. %in e the ,ank issues the he k in its name, with itself as the drawee, the he k is deemed a epted in advan e. 'rdinarily, the he k ,e omes the primary o,li&ation of the issuin& ,ank and onstitutes its written promise to pay upon demand. >evertheless, the mere issuan e of a mana&er(s he k does not ipso fa to work as an automati transfer of funds to the a ount of the payee. ;n ase the pro urer of the mana&er(s or ashier(s he k retains ustody of the instrument, does not tender it to the intended payee, or fails to make an effe tive delivery, we find the followin& provision on undelivered instruments under the >e&otia,le ;nstruments :aw appli a,le< %e . 1#. +elivery- when effe tual- when presumed. ? 3very ontra t on a ne&otia,le instrument is in omplete and revo a,le until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of &ivin& effe t thereto. 8s ,etween immediate parties and as re&ards a remote party other than a holder in due ourse, the delivery, in order to ,e effe tual, must ,e made either ,y or under the authority of the party makin&, drawin&, a eptin&, or indorsin&, as the ase may ,e- and, in su h ase, the delivery may ,e shown to have ,een onditional, or for a spe ial purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferrin& the property in the instrument. But where the instrument is in the hands of a holder in due ourse, a valid delivery thereof ,y all parties prior to him so as to make them lia,le to him is on lusively presumed. 8nd where the instrument is no lon&er in the possession of a party whose si&nature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery ,y him is presumed until the ontrary is proved. Petitioner a knowled&es that the Mana&er(s )he k was pro ured ,y respondents, and that the amount to ,e paid for the he k would ,e sour ed from the deposit a ount of .i0*ri. =hen 2osmil did not a ept the Mana&er(s )he k offered ,y respondents, the latter retained ustody of the instrument instead of an ellin& it. 8s the Mana&er(s )he k neither went to the hands of 2osmil nor was it further ne&otiated to other persons, the instrument remained undelivered. Petitioner does not dispute the fa t that respondents retained ustody of the instrument. %in e there was no delivery, presentment of the he k to the ,ank for payment did not o ur. 8n order to de,it the a ount of respondents was never made. ;n fa t, petitioner onfirms that the Mana&er(s )he k was never ne&otiated or presented for payment to its 3rmita Bran h, and that the allo ated fund is still held ,y the ,ank. 8s a result, the assi&ned fund is deemed to remain part of the a ount of .i0*ri, whi h pro ured the Mana&er(s )he k. *he do trine that the deposit represented ,y a mana&er(s he k automati ally passes to the payee is inappli a,le, ,e ause the instrument ? althou&h a epted in advan e ? remains undelivered. .en e,

respondents should have ,een informed that the deposit had ,een left ina tive for more than 10 years, and that it may ,e su,9e ted to es heat pro eedin&s if left un laimed.