Lucia Barrameda v. Rural Bank Case Digest
Uploaded by
CheCheLucia Barrameda v. Rural Bank Case Digest
Uploaded by
CheCheLucia Barrameda vda.
De Ballesteros
v.
Rural Bank of Canaman, Inc., represented by its liquidator, The Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corporation
G.R. No. 176260
November 24, 2010
Facts:
This petition involves a suit instituted by the petitioner (Lucia) against the Rural Bank of
Canaman, Inc. (RBCI) for annulment of the foreclosure sale it instituted against the lot occupied
by the petitioner, which the latter claims to involve a mortgage acquired through fraud. While
the case was pending in the RTC-Iriga, RBCI was closed and was placed under the receivership of
Philippine Deposit Insurance (PDI) . Subsequently, PDI filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
that the RTC-Iriga has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, since by virtue of R.A.
No. 7653, jurisdiction is vested with RTC-Makati, being the liquidation court assisting PDI in the
liquidation of RBCI. RTC-Iriga granted the motion and dismissed the case, which was subsequently
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not RTC Makati (liquidation court) can take cognizance of a case which main
action does not involve a simple money claim against a bank under receivership.
Ruling: Yes.
Lucia’s complaint involving annulment of deed of mortgage and damages falls within the
purview of a disputed claim in contemplation of Section 30 of R.A. 7653 (The New Central Bank
Act) which refers to all claims, whether they be against the assets of the insolvent bank, for
specific performance, breach of contract, damages, or whatever. As a consequence, jurisdiction
should be lodged with the liquidation court.
It has been held that after the Monetary Board has declared that a bank is insolvent and
has ordered it to cease operations, the Board becomes the trustee of its assets for the equal
benefit of all the creditors, including depositors. The assets of the insolvent banking institution
are held in trust for the equal benefit of all creditors, and after its insolvency, one cannot obtain
an advantage or a preference over another by an attachment, execution or otherwise. Thus, to
allow Lucias case to proceed independently of the liquidation case, a possibility of favorable
judgment and execution thereof against the assets of RBCI would not only prejudice the other
creditors and depositors but would defeat the very purpose for which a liquidation court was
constituted as well.
