Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49852:gr-170632-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:50:10+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 170632 - Eugenia D. Polido v. Hon. CA et al.
EUGENIA D. POLIDO, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIANO P. GASAT, Respondents.
After the death of her husband Jacinto Polido (Polido), Eugenia Duque Polido, petitioner, tried to withdraw the joint savings deposit they maintained at the Philippine National Bank, Camiling, Tarlac Branch, but failed because one Mariano Gasat (Gasat), herein respondent who claimed to be the couple's adopted child, objected thereto.
Petitioner thus filed on January 21, 2004 a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac, with Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, against Gasat.
3. Directing the defendant to pay plaintiff attorney's fees and litigation expenses in the amount of P100,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
3. Even assuming but without admitting that the defendant's adoption paper is ineffective, still he cannot be deprived of his inheritance from the Estate of Jacinto Polido because said deceased and the plaintiff are childless and all the properties subject of inheritance are exclusive properties of the late Jacinto Polido, the same being inherited from his late father, NARCISO POLIDO[,] who died in Hawaii, USA.
"ART. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half."
[T]he heirs of the late Jacinto Polido are his WIFE (plaintiff) [who is entitled to] one-half (1/2) and Petra P. Gasat's SEVEN (7) CHILDREN which would include the defendant[, who are entitled to] one-half (1/2).
Gasat subsequently filed an Omnibus Motion8 withdrawing 1) the allegation he had made in various pleadings that he is an adopted son of the couple and 2) his Motion to Set the Affirmative Defenses for Preliminary Hearing. And he moved to convert the case to an action for partition, at his instance, of the estate of his grandfather Narciso Polido,9 father of petitioner's husband and Gasat's mother, and to require petitioner to file income tax returns and pay the estate tax due.
On November 30, 2004, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the ground that by withdrawing all his allegations that he is [an] adopted child of the plaintiff, defendant practically admitted all the material allegations in the complaint and prayed that judgment be rendered as the complaint may warrant.
3. Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff moral damages in the amount of P25,000.00 and attorney's fee[s] in the amount of P25,000.00.
Gasat filed a Notice of Appeal.16 On May 26, 2005, before the Court of Appeals, he filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Payment of Docket Fee,17 explaining that being jobless, it took some time for him to raise the docket fee. He added that he had to borrow at an exorbitant interest rate. Finally, he explained that when he went to the trial court to pay the docket fee, he was advised to pay the same at the Court of Appeals, the records having already been forwarded to it.
While the cause of action of the private respondent was supposed to prescribe in four (4) years, he was allowed to pay; and he in fact paid the docket fee in a year's time. We do not see how this period can be deemed unreasonable. Moreover, on his part there is no showing of any pattern or intent to defraud the government of the required docket fee.
Indeed, jurisprudence allows the relaxation of the Rule on non-payment of appellate docket fees.
Instead of remanding the case to the appellate court, however, this Court, in the interest of speedy dispensation of justice,26 especially given that the main issue is a question of law, now passes on the merits of the appeal of Gasat.
x x x The answer would fail to tender an issue x x x if it does not comply with the requirements for a specific denial set out in Section 10 (or Section 8) of Rule 8; and it would admit the material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings not only where it expressly confesses the truthfulness thereof but also if it omits to deal with them at all.
In the case at bar, the trial court granted petitioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings on petitioner's argument that in withdrawing Gasat's allegation of her having adopted him, he "practically admitted her material allegations [in her Complaint] that [he] is not an adopted child."
Gasat's Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim raised otherissues, however, which are independent of his claim of adoptive filiation and which would defeat petitioner's main cause of action - for the court to enjoin Gasat "and all persons acting under him from preventing the officers or employees of the [PNB] from releasing" the deposit to her.
11. . . Further, defendant has all the rights to prohibit the plaintiff from personally withdrawing [from] the said bank account because, it is mandated by law that after the death of the owner of the said account, any withdrawal is prohibited except by order of the Court or upon presentation of an Extrajudicial Settlement executed by the legal heirs and after compliance with all the requirements of the law. Likewise the bank is prohibited to allow any withdrawal without submitting to it said requirements.
Unless an injunction be issued against the defendant restraining him from claiming in the bank account, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable damage. The plaintiff is willing to post a bond in an amount to be fixed by the Honorable Court.
It bears noting that petitioner and her deceased husband Polido were childless; hence, Gasat, who is a son of Polido's sister Petra P. Gasat, could inherit from Polido.
If a bank has knowledge of the death of a person, who maintained a bank deposit account alone, or jointly with another, it shall not allow any withdrawal from the said deposit account unless the Commissioner had certified that the taxes imposed thereon by this Title have been paid; Provided, however, That the administrator of the estate or any one (1) of the heirs of the decedent may, upon authorization by the Commissioner, withdraw an amount not exceeding Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) without the said certification. For this purpose, all withdrawal slips shall contain a statement to the effect that all of the joint depositors are still living at the time of withdrawal by any one of the joint depositors and such statement shall be under oath by the said depositors.
WHEREFORE, the assailed petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Resolution admitting respondent's payment of docket fee is upheld.
The Order of the Regional Trial Court of Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68 dated December 7, 2004 granting petitioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Let the case be REMANDED to the trial court which is directed to continue with dispatch its proceedings on and/or resolve the case in light of the foregoing discussions.
1 RTC records, pp. 4-5.
6 Id. at 28-34. Note: page numbering in the RTC records starts again from p. 26 after p. 50.
17 CA rollo, pp. 8-9.
20 Id. at 75-76. Resolution of December 1, 2005, penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, with the concurrences of Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Hakim S. Abdulwahid.
24 La Salette College v. Pilotin, 463 Phil. 785, 794 (2003).
25 Vide Far Corporation v. Magdaluyo, G.R. No. 148739, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 218, 228: "Rules of Procedure must be faithfully followed. But the rules may be relaxed, for persuasive and weighty reasons, to relieve a litigant of an injustice [un]commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure."
26 Vide Apuyan v. Haldeman, G.R. No. 129980, September 20, 2004, 438 SCRA 402, 420.
27 Vergara, Sr. v. Suelto, G.R. No. L-74766, December 21, 1987, 156 SCRA 753, 761-762.
If a bank has knowledge of the death of a person, who maintained a bank deposit account alone, or jointly with another, it shall not allow any withdrawal from the said deposit account, unless the Commissioner has certified that the taxes imposed thereon by this Title have been paid; Provided, however, That the administrator of the estate or any one (1) of the heirs of the decedent may, upon authorization by the Commissioner, withdraw an amount not exceeding Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) without the said certification. For this purpose, all withdrawal slips shall contain a statement to the effect that all of the joint depositors are still living at the time of withdrawal by any one of the joint depositors and such statement shall be under oath by the said depositors.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.