By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
RULE OF LAW
By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Deposit splitting is not covered by PDIC insurance
In the case of Linsangan v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, petitioner Carlito B. Linsangan is also one of the recipients of the account originating from the account of Atty. Linsangan. The Court held that the petitioner therein cannot be considered the beneficial owner of the deposit account because there is no document evidencing the donation in the custody of CRBBI upon takeover of the PDIC, and petitioner is not a Qualified Relative of Atty. Linsangan, to wit:
Petitioner’s argument is erroneous. In deposit splitting, there is a presumption that the transferees have no beneficial ownership considering that the source account, which exceeded the maximum deposit insurance coverage, was split into two or more accounts within 120 days immediately preceding bank closure. On the other hand, in cases wherein the transfer into two or more accounts occurred before the 120-day period, the PDIC does not discount the possibility that there may have been a transfer for valid consideration, but in the absence of transfer documents found in the records of the bank at the time of closure, the presumption arises that the source account remained with the transferor. Consequently, even if the transfer into different accounts was not made within 120 days immediately preceding bank closure, the grant of deposit insurance to an account found to have originated from another deposit is not automatic because the transferee still has to prove that the transfer was for a valid consideration through documents kept in the custody of the bank.
In this case, even assuming that Cornelio donated the amount contained in the subject savings account to petitioner, not one document evidencing the alleged donation is in the custody or possession of the bank upon takeover by PDIC. Thus, the PDIC properly relied on the records of the bank which showed that Cornelio’s accounts remained in his name and for his account. Moreover, even if the Court disregards the submission of transfer documents, petitioner could not be considered the beneficial owner of the resulting deposit account because he is not a qualified relative of the transferor. Being the son of Cornelio’s cousin, petitioner is already a fifth degree relative of the transferor, far from the requirement that the transferee must be a relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity.
As regards petitioner’s contention that the provisions of PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03 do not apply to him because he was not personally notified of the contents thereof by CRBBI, the same deserves scant consideration. Ignorantia legis non excusat remains a valid dictum. Here, it is settled that PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03 was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Hence, the publication operated as constructive notice to all owners of bank deposits. Personal notice to all citizens of promulgated laws and regulations is not required.
Considering the above disquisitions, it is sufficiently established that the PDIC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s claim for deposit insurance.
(Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Dionisio-Esguerra, G.R. No. 236240 (Notice), [February 8, 2023])