In Goyanko, Jr. v. UCPB, G.R. No. 179096,
6 February 2013, the Petitioners filed a complaint against UCPB for
recovery of sum of money.
Specifically, Petitioners claim
that UCPB should not have allowed Philippine Asia Lending Investors, Inc. (“Phil
Asia” or "PALII") to have withdrawn the money deposited with the said bank since it was made
under the name of “Phil Asia: ITF (In Trust For) the Heirs of Joseph Goyanko, Sr.
According to the Petitioners,
when Phil Asia opened the said account with UCPB, using the words “ITF”, the
bank was charged with the knowledge that it was being opened in trust for the
heirs. Thus, when UCPB allowed Phil Asia to withdraw almost the entire amount
deposited, the bank acted negligently or in bad faith, thus making it liable to
return the amount withdrawn.
In disposing of the case, the
Supreme Court examined the factual milieu and ruled that no express trust was
created. Contrary to the petitioners’ (heirs) argument, the mere use of the
words “ITF” is not sufficient to establish an express trust in favor of the
heirs:
“A
trust, either express or implied, is the fiduciary relationship ". . .
between one person having an equitable ownership of property and another person
owning the legal title to such property, the equitable ownership of the former
entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain
powers by the latter." Express or direct trusts are created by the direct
and positive acts of the trustor or of the parties. No written words are
required to create an express trust. This
is clear from Article 1444 of the Civil Code, but, the creation of an express
trust must be firmly shown; it cannot be assumed from loose and vague
declarations or circumstances capable of other interpretations.
In Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. v. CA, we
laid down the requirements before an express trust will be recognized:
Basically,
these elements include a competent
trustor and trustee, an ascertainable trust res, and sufficiently certain
beneficiaries. . . . each of the above elements is required to be
established, and, if any one of them is missing, it is fatal to the trusts (sic).
Furthermore, there must be a present
and complete disposition of the trust property, notwithstanding that the
enjoyment in the beneficiary will take place in the future. It is
essential, too, that the purpose be an active one to prevent trust from being
executed into a legal estate or interest, and one that is not in contravention
of some prohibition of statute or rule of public policy. There must also be some power of administration other than a
mere duty to perform a contract although the contract is for a third-party
beneficiary. A declaration of terms is essential, and these must be stated
with reasonable certainty in order that the trustee may administer, and that
the court, if called upon so to do, may enforce, the trust. [emphasis ours]
Under
these standards, we hold that no express trust was created. First, while an ascertainable trust res
and sufficiently certain beneficiaries may exist, a competent trustor and
trustee do not. Second, UCPB, as
trustee of the ACCOUNT, was never under any equitable duty to deal with or
given any power of administration over it. On the contrary, it was PALII that
undertook the duty to hold the title to the ACCOUNT for the benefit of the
HEIRS. Third, PALII, as the trustor,
did not have the right to the beneficial enjoyment of the ACCOUNT. Finally, the terms by which UCPB is to
administer the ACCOUNT was not shown with reasonable certainty. While we agree
with the petitioner that a trust's beneficiaries need not be particularly
identified for a trust to exist, the intention to create an express trust must
first be firmly established, along with the other elements laid above; absent
these, no express trust exists.
Contrary
to the petitioner's contention, PALII's letters and UCPB's records established
UCPB's participation as a mere depositary of the proceeds of the investment. In
the March 28, 1996 letter, PALII manifested its intention to pursue an active
role in and up to the turnover of those proceeds to their rightful owners, while
in the November 15, 1996 letter, PALII begged the petitioner to trust it with
the safekeeping of the investment proceeds and documents. Had it been PALII's intention to create a trust in favor of the HEIRS,
it would have relinquished any right or claim over the proceeds in UCPB's favor
as the trustee. As matters stand, PALII never did. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)”
In absence of the above elements
indicating the creation of an express trust, the Supreme Court held that UCPB
did not become a trustee by the mere opening of a deposit account. Hence, as no
trust was created, the relationship between UCPB and Phil Asia remained to be
that of a creditor and debtor, and UCPB rightfully paid Phil Asia upon the
latter’s demand in accordance with its deposit contract.
No comments:
Post a Comment