Rivera v Peoples Bank

•

•

•

#ntrar$ t the trial (urts ruling, the sur)i)rship agree!ent in this (ase is neither a per * attrne$ nr a dnatin !rtis (ausa. -he trial (urts (n(lusin as predi(ated n the assu!ptin that &tephensn as the e'(lusi)e ner * the *unds depsited in the /an. e)er, &tephensn and +i)era /e(a!e 0int ners hen the *r!er su/seuentl$ trans*erred the a((unt t the na!e * hi!sel* and6 r Ana +i)era. o ;t is nt unusual *r a persn t depsit !ne$ in the /an in the na!e * r in the a((unt * anther. ;n this (ase, &tephensn trans*erred the !ne$ in a 0int a((unt. Bhile the #urt (an n lnger n the reasn /ehind &tephensns e'e(utin * the sur)i)rship agree!ent, the #urt is * the (n(lusin that su(h trans*er as 0usti3ed, (nsidering that +i)era ser)ed &tephensn, her !aster, *r a/ut 19 $ears ithut a(tuall$ re(ei)ing her salar$ *r hi!. On its *a(e, the sur)i)rship agree!ent is )alid. ;t is (nsidered an aleatr$ (ntra(t supprted /$ a la*ul (nsideratin C the !utual agree!ent * the 0int depsitr s per!itting either * the! t ithdra the hle depsit during their li*eti!e, and trans*erring the /alan(e t the sur)i)r upn the death * ne * the!. #i)il #de, Arti(le 1791. $ an aleatr$ (ntra(t ne * the o parties /inds hi!sel*, r /th re(ipr(all$ /ind the!sel)es t gi)e r t d s!ething as an eui)alent *r that hi(h the ther part$ is t gi)e r d in (ase * the ((urren(e * an e)ent hi(h is un(ertain r ill happen at an indeter!inate ti!e. o  Macam v Gatmaitan: -he partiesE re(ipr(all$ assigned their respe(ti)e prpert$ t ne anther (nditined upn h !ight die 3rst, the ti!e * death deter!ining the e)ent upn hi(h the a(uisitin * su(h right /$ the ne r the ther depended. -his (ntra(t, as an$ ther (ntra(t, is /inding upn the parties.  F urther, it is esta/lished that a /an a((unt !a$ /e (reated herein t persns ill /e 0int ners there* during their

1 NOTE: This case was decided in 1942, which meant that when they were referring to the Civil Code, they were referring to the old one, not the new one which took eect in 19!"# Conse$%ently, &rticle 1'9" is now &rticle 2"1" of the New Civil Code( the te)t of the *rovision, however, remains the same#

•

!utual li)es, and the sur)i)r taes the hle n the death * the ther. -he right t !ae 0int dep sits has generall$ /een held nt t /e dne aa$ ith /$ statutes a/lishing 0int tenan($ and sur)i)rship generall$ as the$ e'isted at (!!n la. %)en (nsidering the peratin r e@e(t * the sur)i)rship agree!ent 5r, in si!ple ter!s, as8applied, the agree!ent in this (ase re!ains )alid. -here as n shing that there as *raud r )itiatin * (nsent as t nulli*$ the (ntra(t.  An agree!ent hi(h is per se nt (ntrar$ t la ill /e o  )ilati)e * the la i* it /e shn in a gi)en (ase that su(h agree!ent is a !ere (la t hide an in@i(ius dnatin, t trans*er prpert$ in *raud * (reditrs, r t de*eat the legiti!e * a *r(ed heir.

NOTES: Fr thse details hi(h are nt i!prtant /ut see!s i!prtant. •