Intestate Estate of Emilio Camon; Ereneta V
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SPCL- BANKING ATC BANKING A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 1. Register of Deeds of Manila v. China Banking Corporation, 4 SCRA 145 (1962) 2. Republic Bank v. Security Credit and Acceptance Corporation, 19 SCRA 58 (1967) 3. Perez v. Monetary Board, 20 SCRA 443 (1979) 4. Simex International (Manila) Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 360 (1990) 5. Fidelity and Savings and Mortgage Bank c. Cenzon, 184 SCRA 141 (1990) 6. Sia v. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 24 (1993) 7. Banas v. Asia Pacific Finance Corporation, 343 SCRA 527 (2000) 8. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 363 SCRA 51 (2001) 9. Banco de Oro v. JAPRL Development Corporation, 551 SCRA 342 (2008) 10. Philippine National Bank v. Erlando T. Rodriguez, et al, 556 SCRA 27 (2009) 11. Bank of America, NT and SA v. Associated Citizens Bank B. CLOSURE OF BANKS 1. Ramos v. Central Bank of the Philippines, 41 SCRA 565 (1971) 2. Central Bank v. Court of Appeals, 106 SCRA 143 (1981) 3. Salud v. Central Bank, 143 SCRA 590 (1986) 4. Lipana v. Development Bank of Rizal, 154 SCRA 257 (1987) 5. Overseas Bank of Manila v. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 521 (1989) 6. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Central Bank, 204 SCRA 767 (1991) 7. Central Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 652 (1992) 8. First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 259 (1996) 9. Ong v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 105 (1996) 10. Manalo v. Court of Appeals, 366 SCRA 753 (2001) 11. Rural Bank of Sta. Catalina v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 435 SCRA 183 (2004) Page 1 of 35 SPCL- BANKING ATC 12. Miranda v. PDIC, 501 SCRA 288 (2006) C. POWERS OF A RECEIVER 1. Abacus Real Estate Development Center Inc. v. Manila Banking Corporation, 455 SCRA 97 (2005) 2. In Re: Petition for Assistance in the Liquidation in the Rural Bank of Bokod (Benguet), PDIC v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, 511 SCRA 123 (2006) 3. Rural Bank of San Miguel v. Monetary Board, 516 SCRA 154 (2007) Page 2 of 35 SPCL- BANKING ATC BANKING A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 1. Register of Deeds of Manila v. China Banking Corporation, 4 SCRA 145 (1962) FACTS: -Alfonso Pangilinan and Guillermo Chua, former employees of China Banking Corporation were charged with qualified theft. -Pangilinan admitted his civil liability in favor of china Banking Corporation . -Pangilinan, together with his wife, Belen Sta. Ana executed a public instrument entitled “DEED OF TRANSFER” whereby in relation to the charge of qualified theft he ceded and transferred to China Banking Corporation a residential lot in satisfaction of his civil liability. -The deed was presented for registration to the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila, but because the transferee — the China Banking Corporation — was alien-owned and, as such, barred from acquiring lands in the Philippines, in accordance with the provisions of Section 5, Article XIII of the Constitution of the Philippines, said officer submitted the matter of its registration to the Land Registration Commission for resolution. -The commission issued the resolution appealed from holding that the deed of transfer in favor of an alien bank, subject of the present consulta is unregistrable for being in contravention of the constitution of the Philippines. ISSUE: 1. May an alien-owned bank acquire lands in the Philippines; 2. Assuming it may, may it acquire land in satisfaction of a civil liability arising from a criminal offense. HELD: - Paragraph (c), Section 25 of Republic Act 337 allows a commercial bank to purchase and hold such real estate as shall be conveyed to it in satisfaction of debts previously contracted in the course of its dealings, We deem it quite clear and free from doubt that the "debts" referred to in this provision are only those resulting from previous loans and other similar transactions made or entered into by a commercial bank in the ordinary course of its business as such. Obviously, whatever "civil liability" — arising from the criminal offense of qualified theft — was admitted in favor of appellant bank by its former employee, Alfonso Pangilinan, was not a debt resulting from a loan or a similar transaction had between the two parties in the ordinary course of banking business. -Neither do the provisions of paragraph (d) of the Same section apply to the present case because the deed of transfer in question can in no sense be considered as a sale made by virtue of a judgment, decree, mortgage, or trust deed held by appellant bank. In the same manner it cannot be said that the real property in question was purchased by appellant "to secure debts due to it", considering that, as stated heretofore, the term debt employed in the pertinent legal provision can logically refer only to such debts as may become payable to appellant bank as a result of a banking transaction. Page 3 of 35 SPCL- BANKING ATC 2. Republic Bank v. Security Credit and Acceptance Corporation, 19 SCRA 58 (1967) FACTS: -Under its Articles of Incorporation registered with SEC, Security Credit and Acceptance Corporation was authorized to engage PRIMARILY- in financing agricultural, commercial and industrial projects; and SECONDARILY- in buying and selling stocks and bonds of any corporation -When it filed for their by-laws, the Superintendent of Banks of the Central Bank asked its legal counsel an opinion whether or not the corporation is a banking institution within the purview of RA 337. Legal Counsel resolved in the affirmative. -When the Corporation applied with SEC for the registration and licensing of its securities under the Securities Act, the application was referred to the Central Bank. -The Central Bank in turn, gave SEC a copy of the opinion of the Legal Counsel of the Superintendent of the Banks of the Central Bank, resolving in the affirmative the query of Whether or not the said corporation is a banking institution within the purview of RA 337. -In line with which, SEC advised the corporation to comply with the requirements of the General Banking Act. -By virtue of a search warrant, the premises of the corporation were searched and documents and records thereof relative to its business operations were seized. -Upon examination and evaluation, it was found that the corporation have been and still continuously performing functions and activities which have been declared to constitute illegal banking operations. -The corporation had established branches in principal cities and towns throughout the Philippines and through a systematic and vigorous campaign, had managed to induce the public to open savings deposit account which has been lent out to such persons as the corporation deemed suitable thereof. -Hence, an original quo warranto proceeding was initiated by the Solicitor General to dissolve Security Credit and Acceptance Corporation for engaging in banking operations without the authority required thereof by the general Banking Act. ISSUE: -Whether or not a bank may engage in banking business without first securing authority from the Central bank. HELD: -Security Credit and Acceptance Corporation violated the General banking Act because it is engaging in banking business without the administrative authority from the Central Bank. -Before a Corporation can engage in banking business it must first secure the administrative authority required by law. Page 4 of 35 SPCL- BANKING ATC 3. Perez v. Monetary Board, 20 SCRA 443 (1979) FACT: -Damaso Perez, for himself and on behalf of the Republic Bank denounced before the Central Bank, Paolo roman and several other republic Bank officials for violations of the General Banking Act and Central Bank Act, and for falsification of public or commercial documents in connection with certain anomalous loans. -The cases of alleged anomalous loans were referred by the Central Bank to the special Prosecutors of the Department of Justice for criminal investigation and prosecution. -Hence, Perez instituted mandamus proceedings in the CFI against the Monetary Board, the Superintendent of Banks, the Central Bank and the Secretary of Justice to compel them to prosecute criminally those alleged violators of the banking laws. ISSUE: -Whether or not mandamus may lie to compel the Central Bank or its officials to prosecute those alleged violatiors of the banking laws. HELD: -Although the Central bank and its officials may have the duty under the Central Bank Act and General Banking Law to cause the prosecution of alleged violators of Banking Laws, yet, there is nothing in said laws that imposes a clear and specific duty on the former to undertake the actual prosecution of the latter. -The Central Bank is a government corporation created principally to administer the monetary and banking system of the Republic. -It is not a prosecution agency like the fiscal’s office. Being an artificial person, the Central Bank is limited to its statutory Powers. -Its power to sue and be sued refers to Civil Cases only. -For the officials of the Central Bank to do the actual prosecuting themselves would be tantamount to performing an ULTRAVIRES ACT. -Mandamus may not lie. 4. Simex International (Manila) Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 360 (1990) FACTS: -Simex International engaged in the exportation of food products. It buys these products from various local suppliers and then sells them abroad, particularly in the United States, Canada and the Middle East. Most of its exports are purchased by Simex International on credit. -The Simex International was a depositor of the Traders Royal Bank and maintained a checking account in its branch at Romulo Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City. Simex International deposited to its account in the said bank the Page 5 of 35 SPCL- BANKING ATC amount of P100,000.00, thus increasing its balance as of that date to P190,380.74.