Vintola vs Vintola

F AC T S : P e t i t i o n e r s p o u s e s V i n t o l a o w n s a n d m a n a g e s m a n u
f a c t u r i n g o f r a w s e a shells into finished products, under their business
name, Dax kin International. They applied for domestic letter of credit by
respondent Insular Bank of Asia and America which was granted. Then,
executed a Trust Receipt Agreement with Insular bank stipulating that the
Vintolas shall hold the goods in trust for IBAA. Having defaulted in its
payment, the Vintolas offered to return the goods to IBAA, but the latter
refused. Due to their continued refusal, IBAA charged them with estafa.
The Court acquitted the Vintolas.

I S S U E : W h e t h e r o r n o t I B A A b e c a m e t h e r e a l owners of the
goods held in trust by the Vintolas.

RULING: No. Insular bank of Asia and America did not become the
holder or realowner of the goods. The Vintola’s retained ownership of the
goods. TheCourt held that the trust receipt arrangement did not convert the
IBAA intoan investor, it remained a lendor and creditor. Under the law, a
trust receipt is a document wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold
thedesignated goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster to
sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, to the amount owing to the
entruster.