G.R. No. 47757; April 7, 1942
ANA RIVERA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PEOPLES BANK AND TRUST CO., defendant-appellee. MINNIE STEPHENSON, in her capacity as administratix of the intestate estate of EDGAR STEPHENSON, intervenor-appellee.

FACTS

Edgar Stephenson employed Ana Rivera as a housekeeper from 1920 until his death in 1939. On December 24, 1924, Stephenson opened a savings account with the defendant bank in his name with an initial deposit of P1,000. On October 17, 1931, when the account balance was P2,072, Stephenson and Rivera executed a “Survivorship Agreement” with the bank. The agreement stipulated that all money deposited in their savings account was the property of both as joint tenants, payable to either during their joint lives, and upon the death of one, the balance would become the sole property of the survivor. The account was then transferred to the name of “Edgar Stephenson and/or Ana Rivera.” At Stephenson’s death, the account balance was P701.43, which Rivera claimed. The bank refused payment, doubting the agreement’s validity. Rivera sued the bank. Minnie Stephenson, administratrix of Edgar’s estate, intervened, claiming the money belonged exclusively to the estate. The trial court held the agreement was, during the parties’ lives, a mere power of attorney (terminating upon death) and, as to the balance upon death, an invalid donation mortis causa for lack of testamentary formalities.

ISSUE

Is the survivorship agreement executed by Edgar Stephenson and Ana Rivera valid?

RULING

Yes, the survivorship agreement is valid. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. The agreement is not a mere power of attorney nor a donation mortis causa. The trial court’s assumption that Stephenson was the exclusive owner of the funds, based on the account’s origin and the master-servant relationship, is negated by the subsequent transfer of the account to joint names and the execution of the survivorship agreement. In the absence of clear proof to the contrary, the certificate of deposit must be given faith, indicating joint ownership. The agreement constitutes an aleatory contract under Article 1790 of the Civil Code, supported by the lawful consideration of mutual promises: each party bound themselves, reciprocally, to permit withdrawals by the other during their joint lives and to transfer the balance to the survivor upon death—an uncertain event. The Court cited Macam vs. Gatmaitan, which upheld a similar agreement as an aleatory contract. Furthermore, such joint bank accounts with right of survivorship are generally recognized. While such an agreement could be assailed if used to hide an inofficious donation, defraud creditors, or defeat a forced heir’s legitime, no such vice was imputed or established here. The bank was ordered to pay the balance to Ana Rivera.