TORBELA VS.

SPOUSES ROSARIO

FACTS:

Petitioners, Torbela siblings, separately reside in barangay Macalong,

Urdaneta Pangasinan;Pangil, Laguna; Chicago, USA and Canada while respondents
Rosario are residents of Poblacion, Urdaneta Pangasinan.

Petitioners filed before the RTC of Urdaneta, Pangasinan a complaint for

recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land in Urdaneta, Pangasinan
plus damages against the spouses Rosario. The RTC ordered Rosario to reconvey the
land to Torbela siblings and to pay damages. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC.
Rosario, on appeal to the SC avers that Torbela siblings failed to avail of barangay
conciliation, a pre- requisite to filing this case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the case is covered by barangay conciliation requirement

HELD:

No. Sections 2 and 3 of PD No.1508, which was then still in effect when the
case was instituted, state that the Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority
to bring together the parties actually residing in the same barangay for amicable
settlement, or in different barangays within the same city or municipality. Lupon
shall have no authority over disputes involving parties who actually reside in
barangays of different cities or municipalities except where such barangays adjourn
each other. Torbela siblings and spouses Rosario do not reside in the same barangay
, or in different barangays within the city or municipality or in different barangays of
different cities or municipalities but are adjoining each other.The Lupon had no
jurisdiction over the dispute and barangay conciliation was not a pre-condition for
the filing of the said case.
 RCBC vs. Hi Tri Development

FACTS:

Millan paid the spouses Bakunawa a downpayment for the purchase of 6

lots.The sale did not push through so Bakunawa rescinded the sale and offered to
return the downpayment of Millan but the latter refused. Consequently, spouses
Bakunawa through their company Hi tri took out a managers check from RCBC
payable to Millans company, Rosmil and used this as the basis of their complaint
against Millan. Spouses Bakunawa retained custody of RCBC managers check and
refrained from cancelling or negotiating it informing Millan that it was available for
her withdrawal as the payee.

Without the knowledge of the sps. Bakunawa, RCBC reported the credit
existing in favor of Rosmil to the Bureau of Treasury as among its unclaimed balance
as of January 31, 2003 .In 2006, the Republic filed with the RTC an action for
Escheat. In 2008, sps. Bakunawa settled amicably with Millan then tried to recover
the amount under the managers check but was informed that it is already subject
to escheat. The trial court ordered the deposit of the escheated balances with the
Treasurer and credited in favor of the Republic. The CA reversed the RTC ruling.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the funds may be escheated in favor of the Republic

HELD:

No. The issuance of a managers check does not ipso facto work as an
automatic transfer of funds to the account of the payee. As stated in Sec.16 of
Negotiable Instruments Law, Every contract on a negotiable instrument is
incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving
effect thereto.The managers check was procured by respondents and amount to
be paid for the check would be sourced from the deposit account of Tri-Hi. When
Rosmil did not accept the managers check offered by respondents, the later
retained custody instead of cancelling the instrument. The instrument remained
undelivered. Since there was no delivery, presentment of the check to the bank for
payment did not occur. As a result, the assigned fund is deemed to remain part of
the account of Hi-tri. Respondents should have been informed that the deposit had
been left inactive for more than 10 years, and that it may be subjected to escheat
proceedings if left unclaimed. Hence, the funds cannot be escheated in favor of the
Republic.