Professional Documents
Culture Documents
told her to deliver it to him so consider the evidence, the record fails to establish delivery of
or leave it with him, and if she wanted to, to turn it over to appellant. appellant's note during the lifetime of the deceased.
MILLER, J.
Apparently the trial court held that the claim should be denied because [4] Appellant did not present to the trial court and does not present to this
Appellant, Mabel Martens Bonk, filed a claim, based on a note for $1,500, the record failed to establish legal delivery of the note, which formed the court the question involving what rights, if any, she might have had had
against the administrator of this estate. The claim being denied, a petition basis of appellant's claim. We hold that there was no error in this decision. she undertaken to file a claim based upon the alleged indebtedness of the
was filed to secure the allowance thereof, to which the administrator filed decedent to her independent of the note. Her claim and her petition are
answer in the form of a general denial. Various issues were presented by based solely upon the note. At page 8 of appellant's argument, counsel
the evidence. We deem it necessary to consider only one of them, namely, states: "Under this record, as we view it, there is but one issue to submit
whether or not the action of the trial court, in denying appellant's claim, [1] Section 9476 of the Code provides that every contract on a negotiable
instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument to this court, and that is the sufficiency of the delivery of the note." As
was proper because of the failure to establish that the note was delivered above pointed out, the trial court's decision on that issue was right. The
during the lifetime of the deceased. for the purpose of giving effect thereto. This was the common law rule.
In the case of Bell v. Mahin, 69 Iowa 408, 29 N.W. 331, this court judgment entered pursuant thereto must be and it is affirmed. —
commences its opinion with the following statement: Affirmed.
At the trial, appellant testified that she is the daughter of the deceased.
She identified Exhibit A as a note in the handwriting of her mother, dated MITCHELL, C.J., and BLISS, SAGER, STIGER, OLIVER, and HALE,
March 1, 1930, promising to pay appellant $1,500 on December 1, 1930, "The first defense set up by Petty to the note is that it was executed upon
Sunday. It seems to be undisputed that the note was signed on Sunday, JJ., concur.
signed by the decedent. On the back of the note was the endorsement:
"This money is coming to her for teaching $1,000, and $500. is what the but it was not intended to be delivered on that day, and was not in fact
rest got also. Mother." delivered until Monday. A promissory note becomes a contract at the time
of its delivery. This contract, then, was made on Monday, and is not
subject to the objection urged that it is a Sunday contract."
The decedent died January 2, 1936. The administrator qualified on March
1, 1936. Appellant testified that, about March 11, 1936, in examining the
contents of her mother's safe, she discovered an envelope on which, in [2] Obviously, the note here sued upon could not be made the basis of a
her mother's handwriting, was the notation: "Please give this to S. Fisher valid claim against the estate unless there was a legal delivery of the same,
in case of death. Mabel Martens from Mother"; she delivered the envelope during the lifetime of the decedent. Our decisions, relative to analogous
to said Simon Fisher at his law office shortly after she discovered it; situations, are reviewed in the recent case of Orris v. Whipple, 224 Iowa
Fisher opened the envelope, which was sealed, in her presence and in the 1157, 1170, 280 N.W. 617, 623, wherein we state:
presence of the administrator; the note, Exhibit A, was found in the
envelope; her mother had told her that, in case of death, there was a letter
for her, but she knew nothing of any note; she found the envelope after "All there is to show delivery in this case is that the deed was prepared
the administrator had made an examination of the contents of the safe and and executed by Miss Aken; that she told others that she wanted the
had not discovered it; she had loaned her parents $1,000 from time to time plaintiffs to have the property, and that she had prepared papers so
out of money earned teaching school; her brothers and sisters each had providing. She put the deeds in her safety deposit box and retained the
received $500 when they were married; she married subsequent to March key. We do not think these admitted facts show a legal delivery of the
1, 1930, and did not receive her $500. deed in question."
Simon Fisher testified that he first saw the envelope and the note after the [3] The position taken by this court in the Orris case is controlling here.
death of the decedent; he opened the envelope in the presence of the It is not necessary to review the evidence introduced by appellees. We
appellant and the administrator; in 1930 appellant agreed to accept a note recognize that this case is not triable de novo; the determination of the
from her mother in satisfaction of $1,500 owed by her father's estate, credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the testimony were matters
which was not paid because of insufficient funds; the decedent told him for the trial court to decide. In re Smith's Estate, 223 Iowa 172, 271 N.W.
she had executed a note in favor of appellant for $1,500, and she would 888. Our statement of the facts herein is more favorable to appellant than
bring it to the office and leave it with him; later she told him she had the record warrants. However, the decisive factor is that, even when we
placed it in a box or safe at home and for him to get it and give it to
On the other hand, on 19 January 1993 petitioner moved to quash Petitioner reiterates his position that the salary checks were not
the notice of garnishment claiming that he was not in possession owned by Mabanto, Jr., because they were not yet delivered to
of any money, funds, credit, property or anything of value him, and that petitioner as garnishee has no legal obligation to hold
G.R. No. 111190 June 27, 1995 belonging to Mabanto, Jr., except his salary and RATA checks, but and deliver them to the trial court to be applied to Mabanto, Jr.'s
that said checks were not yet properties of Mabanto, Jr., until judgment debt. The thesis of petitioner is that the salary checks still
LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA, as City Fiscal of Mandaue City delivered to him. He further claimed that, as such, they were still formed part of public funds and therefore beyond the reach of
and in his personal capacity as garnishee, petitioner, public funds which could not be subject to garnishment. garnishment proceedings.
vs.
HON. JOSE P. BURGOS, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. XVII, Cebu On 9 March 1993 the trial court denied both motions and ordered Petitioner has well argued his case.
City, and RAUL H. SESBREÑO, respondents. petitioner to immediately comply with its order of 4 November
1992. 3 It opined that the checks of Mabanto, Jr., had already been Garnishment is considered as a species of attachment for reaching
released through petitioner by the Department of Justice duly credits belonging to the judgment debtor owing to him from a
signed by the officer concerned. Upon service of the writ of stranger to the litigation. 6 Emphasis is laid on the phrase
BELLOSILLO, J.: garnishment, petitioner as custodian of the checks was under "belonging to the judgment debtor" since it is the focal point in
obligation to hold them for the judgment creditor. Petitioner resolving the issues raised.
RAUL H. SESBREÑO filed a complaint for damages against became a virtual party to, or a forced intervenor in, the case and
Assistant City Fiscals Bienvenido N. Mabanto, Jr., and Dario D. the trial court thereby acquired jurisdiction to bind him to its orders
As Assistant City Fiscal, the source of the salary of Mabanto, Jr.,
Rama, Jr., before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. After trial and processes with a view to the complete satisfaction of the
is public funds. He receives his compensation in the form of checks
judgment was rendered ordering the defendants to pay judgment. Additionally, there was no sufficient reason for petitioner
from the Department of Justice through petitioner as City Fiscal of
P11,000.00 to the plaintiff, private respondent herein. The decision to hold the checks because they were no longer government funds
Mandaue City and head of office. Under Sec. 16 of the Negotiable
having become final and executory, on motion of the latter, the trial and presumably delivered to the payee, conformably with the last Instruments Law, every contract on a negotiable instrument is
court ordered its execution. This order was questioned by the sentence of Sec. 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the
defendants before the Court of Appeals. However, on 15 January purpose of giving effect thereto. As ordinarily understood, delivery
1992 a writ of execution was issued. With regard to the contempt charge, the trial court was not morally means the transfer of the possession of the instrument by the
convinced of petitioner's guilt. For, while his explanation suffered maker or drawer with intent to transfer title to the payee and
On 4 February 1992 a notice of garnishment was served on from procedural infirmities nevertheless he took pains in recognize him as the holder thereof.7
petitioner Loreto D. de la Victoria as City Fiscal of Mandaue City enlightening the court by sending a written explanation dated 22
where defendant Mabanto, Jr., was then detailed. The notice July 1992 requesting for the lifting of the notice of garnishment on
According to the trial court, the checks of Mabanto, Jr., were
directed petitioner not to disburse, transfer, release or convey to the ground that the notice should have been sent to the Finance
already released by the Department of Justice duly signed by the
any other person except to the deputy sheriff concerned the salary Officer of the Department of Justice. Petitioner insists that he had
officer concerned through petitioner and upon service of the writ of
checks or other checks, monies, or cash due or belonging to no authority to segregate a portion of the salary of Mabanto, Jr. garnishment by the sheriff petitioner was under obligation to hold
Mabanto, Jr., under penalty of law. 1 On 10 March 1992 private The explanation however was not submitted to the trial court for them for the judgment creditor. It recognized the role of petitioner
respondent filed a motion before the trial court for examination of action since the stenographic reporter failed to attach it to the as custodian of the checks. At the same time however it
the garnishees. record. 4
considered the checks as no longer government funds and
presumed delivered to the payee based on the last sentence of
On 25 May 1992 the petition pending before the Court of Appeals On 20 April 1993 the motion for reconsideration was denied. The Sec. 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which states: "And
was dismissed. Thus the trial court, finding no more legal obstacle trial court explained that it was not the duty of the garnishee to where the instrument is no longer in the possession of a party
to act on the motion for examination of the garnishees, directed inquire or judge for himself whether the issuance of the order of whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery
petitioner on 4 November 1992 to submit his report showing the execution, writ of execution and notice of garnishment was by him is presumed." Yet, the presumption is not conclusive
amount of the garnished salaries of Mabanto, Jr., within fifteen (15) justified. His only duty was to turn over the garnished checks to the because the last portion of the provision says "until the contrary is
days from receipt 2 taking into consideration the provisions of Sec. trial court which issued the order of execution. 5 proved." However this phrase was deleted by the trial court for no
12, pars. (f) and (i), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. apparent reason. Proof to the contrary is its own finding that the
Petitioner raises the following relevant issues: (1) whether a check checks were in the custody of petitioner. Inasmuch as said checks
On 24 November 1992 private respondent filed a motion to require still in the hands of the maker or its duly authorized representative had not yet been delivered to Mabanto, Jr., they did not belong to
petitioner to explain why he should not be cited in contempt of court is owned by the payee before physical delivery to the latter: and, him and still had the character of public funds. In Tiro
for failing to comply with the order of 4 November 1992. (2) whether the salary check of a government official or employee v. Hontanosas 8 we ruled that —
funded with public funds can be subject to garnishment.
The salary check of a government officer or employee such as a
teacher does not belong to him before it is physically delivered to
him. Until that time the check belongs to the government. Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Accordingly, before there is actual delivery of the check, the
payee has no power over it; he cannot assign it without the
consent of the Government.
SO ORDERED.
mathematically by the numerical superiority of the DECISION
witnesses testifying to a given fact. It depends upon its
[G.R. No. 102784. February 28, 1996] practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
trying the case.
This is a petition to review the Decision of the Court of
4. ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY; FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL AND Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 10290, entitled People v. Rosa Lim,
ROSA LIM, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and APPELLATE COURTS GENERALLY NOT INTERFERED promulgated on August 30, 1991.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. WITH ON APPEAL. - In the case at bench, both the trial
court and the Court of Appeals gave weight to the testimony On January 26, 1989, an Information for Estafa was filed
SYLLABUS of Vicky Suarez that she did not authorize Rosa Lim to against petitioner Rosa Lim before Branch 92 of the Regional
return the pieces of jewelry to Nadera. We shall not disturb Trial Court of Quezon City.[1] The Information reads:
1. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; this finding of the respondent court. It is well settled that we
CONTRACTS ARE OBLIGATORY IN WHATEVER FORM should not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in That on or about the 8th day of October 1987, in Quezon City,
ENTERED; PLACE OF SIGNATURE IMMATERIAL; determining the credibility of witnesses, unless there Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
PARTY BOUND THEREON THE MOMENT SHE appears in the record some fact or circumstances of weight said accused with intent to gain, with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of
AFFIXED HER SIGNATURE. - Rosa Lims signature and influence which has been overlooked or the confidence, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
indeed appears on the upper portion of the receipt significance of which has been misinterpreted. The reason defraud one VICTORIA SUAREZ, in the following manner, to wit:
immediately below the description of the items taken. We is that the trial court is in a better position to determine on the date and place aforementioned said accused got and received in
find that this fact does not have the effect of altering the questions involving credibility having heard the witnesses trust from said complainant one (1) ring 3.35 solo worth P169,000.00,
terms of the transaction from a contract of agency to sell on and having observed their deportment and manner of Philippine Currency, with the obligation to sell the same on
commission basis to a contract of sale. Neither does it testifying during the trial. commission basis and to turn over the proceeds of the sale to said
indicate absence or vitiation of consent thereto on the part complainant or to return said jewelry if unsold, but the said accused
of Rosa Lim which would make the contract void or 5. CRIMINAL LAW; ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF
once in possession thereof and far from complying with her
voidable. The moment she affixed her signature thereon, CONFIDENCE; ELEMENTS. - The elements of estafa with
obligation despite repeated demands therefor, misapplied,
petitioner became bound by all the terms stipulated in the abuse of confidence under this subdivision are as follows:
misappropriated and converted the same to her own personal use and
receipt. She, thus, opened herself to all the legal obligations (1) That money, goods, or other personal property be
benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party in the
that may arise from their breach. This is clear from Article received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for
amount aforementioned and in such other amount as may be awarded
1356 of the New Civil Code which provides: Contracts shall administration, or under any other obligation involving the
under the provisions of the Civil Code.
be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) That
into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or
present. In the case before us, the parties did not execute property by the offender or denial on his part of such CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
a notarial will but a simple contract of agency to sell on receipt; (3) That such misappropriation or conversion or
commission basis, thus making the position of petitioners denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) That there is a After arraignment and trial on the merits, the trial court
signature thereto immaterial. demand made by the offended party to the offender (Note: rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:
The 4th element is not necessary when there is evidence of
2. ID.; ID.; CONTRACT OF AGENCY; NO FORMALITIES misappropriation of the goods by the defendant). WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
REQUIRED. - There are some provisions of the law which
rendered:
require certain formalities for particular contracts. The first 6. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. All the elements
is when the form is required for the validity of the contract; of estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 1(b) of the Revised
the second is when it is required to make the contract Penal Code, are present in the case at bench. First, the 1. Finding accused Rosa Lim GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
effective as against the third parties such as those receipt marked as Exhibit A proves that petitioner Rosa Lim the offense of estafa as defined and penalized under Article 315,
mentioned in Articles 1357 and 1358; and the third is when received the pieces of jewelry in trust from Vicky Suarez to paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code;
the form is required for the purppose of proving the be sold on commission basis. Second, petitioner
existence of the contract, such as those provided in the misappropriated or converted the jewelry to her own use; 2. Sentencing her to suffer the Indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4)
Statute of Frauds in Article 1403. A contract of agency to and, third, such misappropriation obviously caused YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional as
sell on commission basis does not belong to any of these damaged and prejudice to the private respondent. minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor as maximum;
three categories, hence, it is valid and enforceable in
whatever form it may be entered into. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
3. Ordering her to return to the offended party Mrs. Victoria Suarez
Zosa & Quijano Law Offices for petitioner. the ring or its value in the amount of P169,000 without subsidiary
3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WEIGHT THEREOF NOT
The Solicitor General for respondents. imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
DETERMINED BY SUPERIORITY IN NUMBERS OF
WITNESSES. - Weight of evidence is not determined
4. To pay costs.[3]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Judgment of COMMITTED PRECISELY BY THE PERSON ON TRIAL portion thereof and not at the bottom where a space is provided
conviction with the modification that the penalty imposed shall UNDER SUCH AN EXACTING TEST SHOULD SENTENCE for the signature of the person(s) receiving the jewelry.[10]
be six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty- one (21) days to THUS REQUIRED THAT EVERY INNOCENCE BE DULY
twenty (20) years in accordance with Article 315, paragraph 1 of TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE PROOF AGAINST HIM MUST On October 12, 1987 before departing for Cebu, petitioner
the Revised Penal Code.[4] SURVIVE THE TEST OF REASON, THE STRONGEST called up Mrs. Suarez by telephone in order to inform her that
SUSPICION MUST NOT BE PERMITTED TO SWAY she was no longer interested in the ring and bracelet. Mrs.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the JUDGMENT. (People v. Austria, 195 SCRA 700)[5] Suarez replied that she was busy at the time and so, she
appellate court on September 20, 1991, but the motion was instructed the petitioner to give the pieces of jewelry to Aurelia
denied in a Resolution dated November 11, 1991. Nadera who would in turn give them back to the private
Herein the pertinent facts as alleged by the prosecution. complainant. The petitioner did as she was told and gave the two
In her final bid to exonerate herself, petitioner filed the pieces of jewelry to Nadera as evidenced by a handwritten
instant petition for review alleging the following grounds: On or about October 8, 1987, petitioner Rosa Lim who had
come from Cebu received from private respondent Victoria receipt, dated October 12, 1987.[11]
I Suarez the following two pieces of jewelry: one (1) 3.35 carat Two issues need to be resolved: First, what was the real
diamond ring worth P169,000.00 and one (1) bracelet worth transaction between Rosa Lim and Vicky Suarez - a contract of
THE RESPONDENT COURT VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION, P170,000.00, to be sold on commission basis.The agreement agency to sell on commission basis as set out in the receipt or a
THE RULES OF COURT AND THE DECISION OF THIS was reflected in a receipt marked as Exhibit A[6] for the sale on credit; and, second, was the subject diamond ring
HONORABLE COURT IN NOT PASSING UPON THE FIRST prosecution. The transaction took place at the Sir Williams returned to Mrs. Suarez through Aurelia Nadera?
AND THIRD ASSIGNED ERRORS IN PETITIONERS BRIEF; Apartelle in Timog Avenue, Quezon City, where Rosa Lim was
temporarily billeted. Petitioner maintains that she cannot be liable for estafa
II since she never received the jewelries in trust or on commission
On December 15, 1987, petitioner returned the bracelet to basis from Vicky Suarez. The real agreement between her and
Vicky Suarez, but failed to return the diamond ring or to turn over the private respondent was a sale on credit with Mrs. Suarez as
THE RESPONDENT COURT FAILED TO APPLY THE the proceeds thereof if sold. As a result, private complainant, the owner-seller and petitioner as the buyer, as indicated by the
PRINCIPLE THAT THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE WAS aside from making verbal demands, wrote a demand letter [7] to fact that petitioner did not sign on the blank space provided for
WAIVED WHEN THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR CROSS- petitioner asking for the return of said ring or the proceeds of the the signature of the person receiving the jewelry but at the upper
EXAMINED THE PETITIONER AND AURELIA NADERA AND sale thereof. In response, petitioner, thru counsel, wrote a portion thereof immediately below the description of the items
WHEN COMPLAINANT WAS CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE letter[8]to private respondents counsel alleging that Rosa Lim had taken.[12]
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AS TO THE TRUE NATURE returned both ring and bracelet to Vicky Suarez sometime in
OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHEREIN IT September, 1987, for which reason, petitioner had no longer any The contention is far from meritorious.
WAS DISCLOSED THAT THE TRUE AGREEMENT OF THE liability to Mrs. Suarez insofar as the pieces of jewelry were
PARTIES WAS A SALE OF JEWELRIES AND NOT WHAT WAS concerned. Irked, Vicky Suarez filed a complaint for estafa The receipt marked as Exhibit A which establishes a
EMBODIED IN THE RECEIPT MARKED AS EXHIBIT A WHICH under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code for contract of agency to sell on commission basis between Vicky
WAS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT COURT IN which the petitioner herein stands convicted. Suarez and Rosa Lim is herein reproduced in order to come to
AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST a proper perspective:
HEREIN PETITIONER; and Petitioner has a different version.
Rosa Lim admitted in court that she arrived in Manila from THIS IS TO CERTIFY, that I received from Vicky
III Cebu sometime in October 1987, together with one Aurelia Suarez PINATUTUNAYAN KO na aking tinanggap kay
Nadera, who introduced petitioner to private respondent, and _______________ the following jewelries:
that they were lodged at the Williams Apartelle in Timog, Quezon ang mga alahas na sumusunod:
THE RESPONDENT COURT FAILED TO APPLY IN THIS CASE
THE PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT City. Petitioner denied that the transaction was for her to sell the
TO THE EFFECT THAT ACCUSATION IS NOT, ACCORDING two pieces of jewelry on commission basis. She told Mrs. Suarez Description Price
TO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW, SYNONYMOUS WITH that she would consider buying the pieces of jewelry for her own Mga Uri Halaga
GUILT: THE PROSECUTION MUST OVERTHROW THE use and that she would inform the private complainant of such
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WITH PROOF OF GUILT decision before she goes back to Cebu. Thereafter, the 1 ring 3.35 dolo P 169,000.00
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.TO MEET THIS STANDARD, petitioner took the pieces of jewelry and told Mrs. Suarez to 1 bracelet 170.000.00
THERE IS NEED FOR THE MOST CAREFUL SCRUTINY OF prepare the necessary paper for me to sign because I was not total Kabuuan P 339.000.00
THE TESTIMONY OF THE STATE, BOTH ORAL AND yet prepare(d) to buy it.[9] After the document was prepared,
DOCUMENTARY, INDEPENDENTLY OF WHATEVER petitioner signed it. To prove that she did not agree to the terms in good condition, to be sold in CASH ONLY within . . .days from
DEFENSE IS OFFERED BY THE ACCUSED. ONLY IF THE of the receipt regarding the sale on commission basis, petitioner date of signing this receipt na nasa mabuting kalagayan upang
JUDGE BELOW AND THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COULD insists that she signed the aforesaid document on the upper ipagbili ng KALIWAAN (ALCONTADO) lamang sa loob ng. . .
ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE CRIME HAD BEEN araw mula ng ating pagkalagdaan:
if I could not sell, I shall return all the jewelry within the period when it is required to make the contract effective as against third This was supported by Aurelia Nadera in her direct
mentioned above; if I would be able to sell, I shall immediately parties such as those mentioned in Articles 1357 and 1358; and examination by petitioners counsel:
deliver and account the whole proceeds of sale thereof to the owner of the third is when the form is required for the purpose of proving
the jewelries at his/her residence; my compensation or commission the existence of the contract, such as those provided in the Q: Do you know if Rosa Lim in fact returned the
shall be the over-price on the value of each jewelry quoted above. I Statute of Frauds in Article 1403.[13] A contract of agency to sell jewelries ?
am prohibited to sell any jewelry on credit or by installment; deposit, on commission basis does not belong to any of these three A: She gave the jewelries to me.
give for safekeeping; lend, pledge or give as security or guaranty categories, hence it is valid and enforceable in whatever form it
under any circumstance or manner, any jewelry to other person or may be entered into. Q: Why did Rosa Lim give the jewelries to you?
persons.
Furthermore, there is only one type of legal instrument A: Rosa Lim called up Vicky Suarez the following
where the law strictly prescribes the location of the signature of morning and told Vicky Suarez that she was going
kung hindi ko maipagbili ay isasauli ko ang lahat ng alahas sa loob ng home to Cebu and asked if she could give the
the parties thereto. This is in the case of notarial wills found in
taning na panahong nakatala sa itaas; kung maipagbili ko naman ay Article 805 of the Civil Code, to wit: jewelries to me.
dagli kong isusulit at ibibigay ang buong pinagbilhan sa may-ari ng
mga alahas sa kanyang bahay tahanan; ang aking gantimpala ay ang Q: And when did Rosa Lim give to you the jewelries?
mapapahigit na halaga sa nakatakdang halaga sa itaas ng bawat alahas Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at
the end thereof by the testator himself x x x. A: Before she left for Cebu.[15]
HIND I ko ipinahihintulutang ipa-u-u-tang o ibibigay na hulugan ang
alin mang alahas, ilalagak, ipagkakatiwala; ipahihiram; isasangla o On rebuttal, these testimonies were belied by Vicky Suarez
ipananagot kahit sa anong paraan ang alin mang alahas sa ibang mga The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the herself:
tao o tao. instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each
and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin x x x. Q: It has been testified to here also by both Aurelia
I sign my name this . . . day of. . . 19 . . . at Manila, NILALAGDAAN Nadera and Rosa Lim that you gave authorization
ko ang kasunduang ito ngayong ika____ ng dito sa Maynila. In the case before us, the parties did not execute a notarial to Rosa Lim to turn over the two (2) pieces of
will but a simple contract of agency to sell on commission basis, jewelries mentioned in Exhibit A to Aurelia
thus making the position of petitioners signature thereto Nadera, what can you say about that?
Signature of Persons who
received jewelries (Lagda immaterial. A:. That is not true sir, because at that time Aurelia
ng Tumanggap ng mga Petitioner insists, however, that the diamond ring had been Nadera is highly indebted to me in the amount of
Alahas) returned to Vicky Suarez through Aurelia Nadera, thus relieving P 140,000.00, so if I gave it to Nadera, I will be
her of any liability. Rosa Lim testified to this effect on direct exposing myself to a high risk.[16]
Address: . . . . . . . . . . . examination by her counsel: The issue as to the return of the ring boils down to one of
Q: And when she left the jewelries with you, what did credibility. Weight of evidence is not determined mathematically
Rosa Lims signature indeed appears on the upper portion by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given
you do thereafter?
of the receipt immediately below the description of the items fact. It depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the
taken. We find that this fact does not have the effect of altering A: On October 12, I was bound for Cebu. So I called part of the judge trying the case.[17] In the case at bench, both
the terms of the transaction from a contract of agency to sell on up Vicky through telephone and informed her that the trial court and the Court of Appeals gave weight to the
commission basis to a contract of sale. Neither does it indicate I am no longer interested in the bracelet and ring testimony of Vicky Suarez that she did not authorize Rosa Lim
absence or vitiation of consent thereto on the part of Rosa Lim and that 1 will just return it. to return the pieces of jewelry to Nadera. The respondent court,
which would make the contract void or voidable. The moment in affirming the trial court, said:
she affixed her signature thereon, petitioner became bound by Q: And what was the reply of Vicky Suarez?
all the terms stipulated in the receipt. She, thus, opened herself A: She told me that she could not come to the apartelle x x x This claim (that the ring had been returned to Suarez thru
to all the legal obligations that may arise from their breach. This since she was very busy. So, she asked me if Nadera) is disconcerting. It contravenes the very terms of Exhibit
is clear from Article 1356 of the New Civil Code which provides: Aurelia was there and when I informed her that A. The instruction by the complaining witness to appellant to deliver
Aurelia was there, she instructed me to give the the ring to Aurelia Nadera is vehemently denied by the complaining
Contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have been pieces of jewelry to Aurelia who in turn will give it witness, who declared that she did not authorize and/or instruct
entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are back to Vicky. appellant to do so. And thus, by delivering the ring to Aurelia without
present. x x x. the express authority and consent of the complaining witness,
Q: And you gave the two (2) pieces of jewelry to appellant assumed the right to dispose of the jewelry as if it were
Aurelia Nadera? hers, thereby committing conversion, a clear breach of trust,
However, there are some provisions of the law which require
certain formalities for particular contracts. The first is when the A: Yes, Your Honor.[14] punishable under Article 315, par. 1(b), Revised Penal Code.
form is required for the validity of the contract; the second is
We shall not disturb this finding of the respondent court. It WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Decision of
is well settled that we should not interfere with the judgment of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.
the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses, unless
there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight Costs against petitioner.
and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of SO ORDERED.
which has been misinterpreted. The reason is that the trial court
is in a better position to determine questions involving credibility
having heard the witnesses and having observed their
deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[18]
Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Escheat proceedings refer to the judicial process in which the In case the bank complies with the provisions of the law and
state, by virtue of its sovereignty, steps in and claims abandoned, left the unclaimed balances are eventually escheated to the Republic, the
vacant, or unclaimed property, without there being an interested person bank shall not thereafter be liable to any person for the same and any
having a legal claim thereto.[15] In the case of dormant accounts, the (c) The date when the person in whose favor the action which may be brought by any person against in any bank xxx
state inquires into the status, custody, and ownership of the unclaimed unclaimed balance stands died, if known, or the for unclaimed balances so deposited xxx shall be defended by the
balance to determine whether the inactivity was brought about by the date when he made his last deposit or Solicitor General without cost to such bank.[21] Otherwise, should it fail
fact of death or absence of or abandonment by the depositor.[16] If after withdrawal; and to comply with the legally outlined procedure to the prejudice of the
the proceedings the property remains without a lawful owner interested depositor, the bank may not raise the defense provided under Section 5
to claim it, the property shall be reverted to the state to forestall an open of Act No. 3936, as amended.
invitation to self-service by the first comers.[17] However, if interested
parties have come forward and lain claim to the property, the courts
shall determine whether the credit or deposit should pass to the (d) The interest due on such unclaimed balance, if Petitioner asserts[22] that the CA committed a reversible error
claimants or be forfeited in favor of the state. [18] We emphasize that any, and the amount thereof. when it required RCBC to send prior notices to respondents about the
escheat is not a proceeding to penalize depositors for failing to deposit
forthcoming escheat proceedings involving the funds allocated for the
to or withdraw from their accounts. It is a proceeding whereby the state
A copy of the above sworn statement shall be payment of the Managers Check. It explains that, pursuant to the law,
compels the surrender to it of unclaimed deposit balances when there
posted in a conspicuous place in the premises of only those whose favor such unclaimed balances stand are entitled to
is substantial ground for a belief that they have been abandoned,
the bank, building and loan association, or trust receive notices. Petitioner argues that, since the funds represented by
forgotten, or without an owner.[19]
corporation concerned for at least sixty days from the the Managers Check were deemed transferred to the credit of the payee
date of filing thereof: Provided, That immediately upon issuance of the check, the proper party entitled to the notices was
before filing the above sworn statement, the bank, the payee Rosmil and not respondents. Petitioner then contends that, in
Act No. 3936, as amended, outlines the proper procedure to building and loan association, and trust any event, it is not liable for failing to send a separate notice to the
be followed by banks and other similar institutions in filing a sworn corporation shall communicate with the person in payee, because it did not have the address of Rosmil. Petitioner avers
statement with the Treasurer concerning dormant accounts: whose favor the unclaimed balance stands at his that it was not under any obligation to record the address of the payee
last known place of residence or post office of a Managers Check.
address.
In contrast, respondents Hi-Tri and Bakunawa allege[23] that and as regards a remote party other than a holder in respondents retained ownership of the funds. As it is obvious from their
they have a legal interest in the fund allocated for the payment of the due course, the delivery, in order to be effectual, foregoing actions that they have not abandoned their claim over the
Managers Check. They reason that, since the funds were part of the must be made either by or under the authority of fund, we rule that the allocated deposit, subject of the Managers Check,
Compromise Agreement between respondents and Rosmil in a separate the party making, drawing, accepting, or should be excluded from the escheat proceedings. We reiterate our
civil case, the approval and eventual execution of the agreement indorsing, as the case may be; and, in such case, the pronouncement that the objective of escheat proceedings is state
effectively reverted the fund to the credit of respondents. Respondents delivery may be shown to have been conditional, or forfeiture of unclaimed balances. We further note that there is nothing
further posit that their ownership of the funds was evidenced by their for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of in the records that would show that the OSG appealed the assailed CA
continued custody of the Managers Check. transferring the property in the instrument. But judgments. We take this failure to appeal as an indication of disinterest
where the instrument is in the hands of a holder in in pursuing the escheat proceedings in favor of the Republic.
due course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties
prior to him so as to make them liable to him is
An ordinary check refers to a bill of exchange drawn by a conclusively presumed. And where the instrument is
depositor (drawer) on a bank (drawee),[24] requesting the latter to pay a no longer in the possession of a party whose WHEREFORE the Petition is DENIED. The 26 November
person named therein (payee) or to the order of the payee or to the signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional 2009 Decision and 27 May 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
bearer, a named sum of money.[25] The issuance of the check does not delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is CA-G.R. SP No. 107261 are hereby AFFIRMED.
of itself operate as an assignment of any part of the funds in the bank proved. (Emphasis supplied.)
to the credit of the drawer.[26] Here, the bank becomes liable only after
it accepts or certifies the check.[27] After the check is accepted for
payment, the bank would then debit the amount to be paid to the holder
of the check from the account of the depositor-drawer.
Petitioner acknowledges that the Managers Check was procured by
respondents, and that the amount to be paid for the check would be
sourced from the deposit account of Hi-Tri.[32]When Rosmil did not
There are checks of a special type accept the Managers Check offered by respondents, the latter retained
called managers or cashiers checks. These are bills of exchange drawn custody of the instrument instead of cancelling it. As the Managers
by the banks manager or cashier, in the name of the bank, against the Check neither went to the hands of Rosmil nor was it further negotiated
bank itself.[28] Typically, a managers or a cashiers check is procured to other persons, the instrument remained undelivered. Petitioner does
from the bank by allocating a particular amount of funds to be debited not dispute the fact that respondents retained custody of the
from the depositors account or by directly paying or depositing to the instrument.[33]
bank the value of the check to be drawn. Since the bank issues the
check in its name, with itself as the drawee, the check is deemed
accepted in advance.[29] Ordinarily, the check becomes the primary
Since there was no delivery, presentment of the check to the
obligation of the issuing bank and constitutes its written promise to pay
bank for payment did not occur. An order to debit the account of
upon demand.[30]
respondents was never made. In fact, petitioner confirms that the
Managers Check was never negotiated or presented for payment to its
Ermita Branch, and that the allocated fund is still held by the
Nevertheless, the mere issuance of a managers check does bank.[34] As a result, the assigned fund is deemed to remain part of the
not ipso facto work as an automatic transfer of funds to the account of account of Hi-Tri, which procured the Managers Check. The doctrine
the payee. In case the procurer of the managers or cashiers check that the deposit represented by a managers check automatically passes
retains custody of the instrument, does not tender it to the intended to the payee is inapplicable, because the instrument although accepted
payee, or fails to make an effective delivery, we find the following in advance remains undelivered. Hence, respondents should have been
provision on undelivered instruments under the Negotiable informed that the deposit had been left inactive for more than 10 years,
Instruments Law applicable:[31] and that it may be subjected to escheat proceedings if left unclaimed.
Sec. 16. Delivery; when effectual; when After a careful review of the RTC records, we find that it is
presumed. Every contract on a negotiable no longer necessary to remand the case for hearing to determine
instrument is incomplete and revocable until whether the claim of respondents was valid. There was no contention
delivery of the instrument for the purpose of that they were the procurers of the Managers Check. It is undisputed
giving effect thereto. As between immediate parties that there was no effective delivery of the check, rendering the
instrument incomplete. In addition, we have already settled that