Case Digest: RCBC Vs.

Hi Tri Development Corporation and Luz Bakunawa Facts: Luz and Manuel Bakunawa are registered owners of 6 parcels of land. Sometime in 1990, Teresita Millan offered to buy said lots for P 6, 724,085.71 with a promise that she will take care of clearing whatever preliminary obstacles to effect completion of sale. Millan failed to comply with the condition. Spouses Bakunawa rescinded the sale and filed a complaint docketed as Civil Case No. Q91-10719 against Millan to return the copies of Transfer of Certificate Titles and ordered to receive the Managers check of P 1,019,514.29 for the down payment made by the latter. Upon advice of their counsel, the spouses retained the custody of the check and are refrained from negotiating and canceling it. Millan was informed that it was available for her withdrawal. On January 31, 2003, during pendency of the above mentioned case and without the knowledge of Hi tri, RCBC reported P 1,019,514.29- credit existing in favor Rosmil to Bureau of Treasury as among its unclaimed balances. On December 14, 2006, OSG filed in the RTC for escheat proceedings. On April 30, =2008, Bakunawa and Millan settled amicably, the former agreed to pay Rosmil and Millan P 3,000,000.00 inclusive of the P 1,019,514.29. However when Bakunawa inquired from RCBC the availability of P 1,019,514.29 the amount was already subject for escheat proceedings. On May 19, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision pursuant to PD 679 declaring the amount as subject for escheat proceedings and ordered the amount to be deposited in favor of the Republic. Consequently, respondents filed an Omnibus Motion seeking partial reconsideration contending that the said amount was subject to an ongoing dispute and that they be include as party defendants allowed to intervene. Motion was denied. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of RTC and ruled that the banks failure to notify respondents deprived them of an opportunity to intervene in the escheat proceedings and to present evidence to substantiate their claim, in violation of their right to due process. Furthermore, the CA pronounced that the Makati City RTC Clerk of Court failed to issue individual notices directed to all persons claiming interest in the unclaimed balances, as well as to require them to appear after publication and show cause why the unclaimed balances should not be deposited with the Treasurer of the Philippines. Thus, herein a petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the allocated funds may be escheated in favor of the Republic.