GONZALES, Jerome DP.

BSLM 3C

DOMINADOR M. APIQUE, Petitioner,

vs.
. EVANGELINE APIQUE FAHNENSTICH, Respondent.

G.R. No. 205705, August 05, 2015

DOCTRINE:
It is assumed that the portions of a joint account belonging to the joint owners are equal unless
proven otherwise.

FACTS:
Evangeline, the respondent, granted Dominador, the petitioner, a General and Special Power of
Attorney and opened a joint savings account with him to assist with purchasing property and
managing her business in the Philippines. In February, Dominador withdrew P980,000 from the
joint account and deposited it in his own account without Evangeline's consent. Evangeline filed
a complaint for the return of the money and damages. The RTC ruled in favor of Dominador,
stating that the withdrawal was valid because it was a joint account. But the CA overturned the
RTC's ruling, ordering Dominador to return the P980,000 plus interest, and Dominador filed a
petition for reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUE:
Is the respondent entitled to have the money which the petitioner withdrew from their joint
savings account returned?

RULING:
The respondent is entitled to the return of P980,000 that the petitioner withdrew from the joint
savings account, along with legal interests. As per Art. 485 of the Civil Code, the proportion of
the benefits and charges of the co-owners shall be proportional to their interests, and any contract
provision to the contrary shall be void. In this case, the joint account was opened for a specific
purpose: to enable the transfer of money required for Evangeline's business projects, meaning
that the petitioner may only withdraw the funds to meet the financial obligations necessary for
Evangeline’s business projects. Therefore, while the petitioner is a co-owner of the joint account
and can validly withdraw money without the consent of Evangeline, the reason for which the
joint account was formed limits both his right to withdraw and the amount to be withdrawn.