Apique v. Fahnenstich, GR No 205705 [Case Digest]

 

Apique v. Fahnenstich,

GR No 205705, August 5, 2015

Facts:

Dominador and Evangeline are siblings who used to live with their parents at Babak, Island Garden City of Samal, Davao, until Evangeline left for Germany to work. Evangeline executed General and Special Powers of Attorney instituting Dominador as her attorney-in-fact to purchase real property for her, and to manage or supervise her business affairs in the Philippines.

As Evangeline was always in Germany, she opened a joint savings account on January 18, 1999 with Dominador at the Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCI Bank) in Davao City nd now Banco de Oro.

Dominador withdrew the amount of P980,000.00 from the subject account and, thereafter, deposited the money to his own savings account with the same bank. When Evangeline learned of such withdrawal; she then had the passbook updated, which reflected the said withdrawal. She likewise discovered that Dominador had deposited the amount withdrawn to his own account with the same bank.

Evangeline demanded the return of the amount withdrawn from the joint account, but to no avail. Hence, she filed a complaint for sum of money, damages, and attorney's fees, with prayer for preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction and temporary restraining order against Dominador before the RTC. Evangeline claimed to be the sole owner of the money deposited in the subject account, and that Dominador has no authority to withdraw the same.

Dominador asserted, among others, that he was authorized to withdraw funds from the subject account to answer for the expenses of Evangeline's projects, considering: (a) that it was a joint account, and (b) the general and special powers of attorney executed by Evangeline in his favor.

 

Issue:

Whether or not Dominador and Evangeline are co-owners of the said account.

 

Held:

Yes.

 

Ratio:

A joint account is one that is held jointly by two or more natural persons, or by two or more juridical persons or entities. nder such setup, the depositors are joint owners or co-owners of the said account,[32] and their share in the deposits shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved, pursuant to Article 485 of the Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.

The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved.