G.R. No. 214415. October 15, 2018.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF MIGUELITA C. PACIOLES, EMMANUEL C. CHING, PETITIONER, V. EMILIO B. PACIOLES, JR., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Upon the death of Miguelita Ching Pacioles, her husband, respondent Emilio B. Pacioles, Jr., filed a petition for the settlement of her estate. Among the assets was a foreign currency deposit account at BPI, which had been consolidated into a single joint account under the names of Emilio and Miguelita’s mother, Miguela Chuatoco (or, per the bank’s notation, her brother Emmanuel Ching, the petitioner). Emilio, as administrator of the estate, filed a motion to withdraw funds from this account to pay for estate property taxes. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), acting as the intestate court, granted the motion and ordered BPI to release the funds.
BPI sought clarification, citing the Foreign Currency Deposit Act (Republic Act No. 6426), which provides absolute confidentiality for such deposits and exempts them from court processes unless the depositor gives written consent. The RTC reiterated its order, directing Emilio to personally express his conformity to the bank, which it deemed sufficient for the withdrawal. Emmanuel Ching, a co-depositor, opposed the order, arguing it violated the law by proceeding without his written consent.

ISSUE

Whether the intestate court properly ordered the release of funds from a joint foreign currency deposit account without securing the written consent of a co-depositor.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the order was improper. The legal logic centers on the mandatory and absolute nature of the confidentiality provision under Section 8 of the Foreign Currency Deposit Act. The law explicitly states that foreign currency deposits “are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature” and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, “in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into.” The Court emphasized that this provision admits of no exception and establishes a blanket prohibition against any court order or process, including attachment or garnishment, that would compel a bank to allow examination or withdrawal without the depositor’s written consent.
While the intestate court has jurisdiction over all estate properties, this general jurisdiction yields to the specific, non-impairment clause of the special law governing foreign currency deposits. The account being a joint deposit, the written consent of all depositors is required. The RTC’s order, which deemed the administrator’s unilateral consent sufficient, effectively bypassed this statutory mandate. The proper procedure is for the intestate court to first determine, through appropriate proceedings, the nature of the joint account and whether the funds belong to the estate or are held in trust, all while respecting the bank secrecy law. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ affirmance and remanded the case to the intestate court for proper proceedings consistent with this ruling.