G.R. No.

228807

CARLITO B. LINSANGAN, Petitioner

DECISION

REYES, J. JR., J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari are the March 31, 2016 Decision 1 and the December 19, 2016 Resolution2 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 137172 which affirmed the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation's (PDIC's)
denial of petitioner Carlito B. Linsangan's (petitioner's) deposit insurance claim on July 12, 2013.

The Antecedents

In a Resolution dated May 23, 2013, the Monetary Board (MB) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) ordered the closure of the
Cooperative Rural Bank of Bulacan, Inc. (CRBBI) and placed it under PDIC's receivership. PDIC took over CRBBI's assets and
affairs and examined its records in order to determine the insured deposits.

Petitioner filed a claim for payment of deposit insurance for his Special Incentive Savings Account (SISA) No. 00-44-10750-9,
which had a balance of ₱400,000.00 at the time of CRBBI's closure.

Upon investigation, PDIC found that petitioner's account originated from the account of "Cornelio Linsangan or Ligaya
Linsangan" (source account) with an opening balance of ₱1,531,993.42. On December 13, 2012, the source account was closed
and its balance of ₱1,544,081.48 was transferred and distributed to four accounts.

PDIC then conducted a tracing of relationship for the purpose of determining beneficial ownership of accounts and it discovered
that petitioner is not a qualified relative3 of Cornelio Linsangan and Ligaya Linsangan (Cornelio and Ligaya).

Consequently, pursuant to the provisions of PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03, par. V, petitioner's account was
consolidated with the other legitimate deposits of Cornelio and Ligaya for purposes of computing the insurable deposit. PDIC
considered the source account holders Cornelio and Ligaya as the real owners of the four resulting accounts. Thus, they were
only entitled to the maximum deposit insurance of ₱500,000.00.

On July 12, 2013, PDIC denied petitioner's claim. Then, on August 6, 2014, it also denied petitioner's request for reconsideration.
The PDIC ruled that under PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03, the transferee is considered the beneficial owner of the
deposit provided that (a) the transfer is for valid consideration as shown by the documents supporting the transfer which should
be in the custody of the bank upon takeover by PDIC; or (b) he/she is a qualified relative of the transferor. It held that CRBBI was
not furnished a copy of any document which could prove the transfer of the deposit from the transferors to petitioner.

The PDIC added that the documents which petitioner submitted did not show that he is a relative of documents which petitioner
submitted did not show that he is a relative of Cornelio and Ligaya within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity. It
concluded that the transferors should be considered the beneficial owners of the transferred deposit.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision dated March 31, 2016, the CA ruled that the PDIC did not act with grave abuse of discretion because it merely
followed the applicable law in determining whether petitioner's account was insurable or not. It noted that both petitioner and
the transferor failed to provide CRBBI of the details regarding the splitting of deposit and the circumstances behind such
transfer. The appellate court declared that PDIC had sufficient reason to doubt the validity of the splitting of accounts and
subject them to scrutiny as there were indicators that the source account was divided and distributed to newly-opened and
existing accounts to make them covered under the PDIC insurance. It held that PDIC's denial of insurance deposit does not
invalidate the alleged donation, nor will it result in the total non-payment of said deposit because the latter may still be paid
from the assets of CRBBI. Thus, it disposed:
 WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari [is] hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the denial of Carlito B.
Linsangan's claim for Deposit Insurance from the Philippine Deposit Insurance [Corporation] is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.4

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated December 19, 2016. Hence, this
petition for review on certiorari wherein petitioner assails the denial of his deposit insurance claim.

Petitioner argues that the transfer of funds to his account is not deposit splitting because the transfer took place more than 120
days prior to the closure of the bank; that as stated in PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03, splitting of deposits occurs
whenever an account is broken down and transferred into two or more accounts in the name/s of natural or juridical person/s or
entity/entities who have no beneficial ownership on transferred deposits in their names within 120 days immediately preceding
or during bank-declared bank holiday, or immediately preceding a closure order issued by the MB of the BSP; and that he was
not informed of the requirement that the documents proving transfer must be in the records of the bank at the time of its closure.5

In its Comment,6 respondent counters that the joint account of Cornelio and Ligaya was split and transferred to different
persons, thus, the provisions of PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03, which was published in the Philippine Star on October
10, 2009, find application in determining the beneficial ownership of the resulting deposit accounts; that the alleged donation
was not supported by documents evidencing transfer of account in the records of the bank; and that there is no premium if the
splitting of deposit was done within 120 days preceding a bank closure, because if an account was split prior to the 120-day
period, PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03 steps in and determines the beneficial ownership of the resulting accounts,
whereas, if the splitting of deposit was made within 120 days preceding the bank closure, the act is a criminal offense and the
director, officer, employee, or agent of the bank who facilitated the splitting would be held liable. In his Reply, 7 petitioner
contends that the bank failed to inform him of PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03, thus, the provisions thereof are not
binding upon him; that requiring the submission of transfer documents prior to the takeover by PDIC of the bank violates his
constitutional right against deprivation of property without due process; and that demanding the transfer documents to be kept
in a particular location adds another requisite for the validity of donation.

The Court's Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

The PDIC was created by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3591 8 on June 22, 1963 as an insurer of deposits in all banks entitled to the
benefits of insurance under the PDIC Charter to promote and safeguard the interests of the depositing public by way of providing
permanent and continuing insurance coverage of all insured deposits. 9

Based on its charter, the PDIC has the duty to grant or deny claims for deposit insurance. "The term 'insured deposit' means the
amount due to any bona fide depositor for legitimate deposits in an insured bank net of any obligation of the depositor to the
insured bank as of the date of closure, but not to exceed Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00). x x x In determining such
amount due to any depositor, there shall be added together all deposits in the bank maintained in the same right and capacity
for his benefit either in his own name or in the names of others."10 To determine beneficial ownership of legitimate deposits
which are entitled to deposit insurance, the provisions of PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03 provides:

III. Determination of Beneficial Ownership of Legitimate Deposits

1. In determining the depositor entitled to insured deposit payable by the PDIC, the registered owner/holder of a
Legitimate Deposit in the books of the issuing bank shall be recognized as the depositor entitled to deposit insurance,
except as otherwise provided by this Issuance.

2. Where the records of the bank show that one or several deposit accounts in the name of one or several other persons
or entities are maintained in the same right and capacity for the benefit of a depositor, PDIC shall recognize said
depositor as the beneficial owner of the account/s entitled to deposit insurance.

3. Where a deposit account/s with an outstanding balance of more than the maximum deposit insurance coverage
is/are broken up and transferred to one or more account/s, PDIC shall recognize the transferor as the beneficial owner
of the resulting deposit accounts entitled to deposit insurance, unless the transferee/s can prove that:
 a. The break-up and transfer of Legitimate Deposit was made under all of the following conditions:

i. The break-up and transfer of Legitimate Deposit to the transferee is for a Valid Consideration;

ii. The details or information for the transfer, which establish the validity of the transfer from the transferor to the
transferee, are contained in any of the Deposit Account Records of the bank; and

iii. Copies of documents, which show the details or information for the transfer, such as[,] but not limited to[,] contracts,
agreements, board resolutions, orders of the courts or of competent government body/agency, are in the custody or
possession of the bank upon takeover by PDIC.

b. He/she is a Qualified Relative of the transferor, in which case PDIC shall recognize the transferee as the beneficial
owner of the resulting deposit accounts. Relationship shall be proven by relevant documents such as, but not limited
to, birth certificates and marriage certificates.

II. Definition of Terms

xxxx

f. Qualified Relative - means a relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity.

Petitioner, however, argues that the foregoing provisions are not applicable to him because the transfer did not occur within
120 days immediately preceding bank closure as stated in PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03, viz.:

IV. Deposit Splitting

xxxx

3. Elements. The elements of Deposit Splitting are as follows:

a. Existence of source account/s in a bank with a balance or aggregate balance of more than the MDIC;

b. There is a break up and transfer of said account/s into two or more existing or new accounts in the name of another
person/s or entity/entities;

c. The transferee/s have no Beneficial Ownership over the transferred funds; and

d. Transfer occurred within 120 days immediately preceding or during a bank-declared bank holiday, or immediately
preceding bank closure.

4. The PDIC shall deem that' there exists Deposit Splitting for the purpose of availing of the maximum deposit insurance
coverage when all of these elements are present.

5. The bank, its directors, officers, employees, or agents are prohibited from and shall not in any way participate or aid
in, or otherwise abet Deposit Splitting activities as herein defined, nor shall they promote or encourage the commission
of Deposit Splitting among the bank's depositors. The approval by a bank officer or employee of a transaction resulting
to Deposit Splitting shall be prima facie evidence of participation in Deposit Splitting activities.

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 Comelio's cousin,
petitioner is already a fifth degree relative of the transferor, 11 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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The March 31, 2016 Decision and the December 19, 2016 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 137172 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Hernando,* JJ., concur.