Apique vs. Apique Fahnenstich

In a joint "OR" bank account, while each co-depositor has an undivided right to the entire balance as far as the bank is concerned, as between the co-depositors themselves, the authority to withdraw is circumscribed by the purpose for which the account was opened and any agreement between them, and a co-depositor who withdraws funds beyond such agreed purpose without justification is liable to return the amount to the other co-depositor.

Dominador and Evangeline Apique are siblings who maintained a joint savings account at Equitable PCI Bank (formerly PCI Bank, now Banco de Oro) in Davao City. Evangeline resided in Germany and had appointed Dominador as her attorney-in-fact through General and Special Powers of Attorney executed in 1995 to manage her business affairs in the Philippines. The joint account was opened in 1999 specifically to facilitate the transfer of funds for Evangeline's business projects, with the understanding that Dominador could withdraw only when necessary to meet her financial obligations arising from such projects.

• The Joint Account: On January 18, 1999, Evangeline and Dominador opened Savings Account No. 1189-02819-5 at the Claveria Branch of PCI Bank (later Equitable PCI Bank, now Banco de Oro) in Davao City. The account was established as a joint "OR" account to facilitate the transfer of funds needed for Evangeline's business projects in the Philippines, with Dominador authorized to withdraw only when necessary to meet financial obligations arising from such projects.
• The Contested Withdrawal: On February 11, 2002, Dominador withdrew ₱980,000.00 from the subject account and deposited the same to his personal savings account (Savings Account No. 1189-00781-3) with the same bank. Evangeline discovered the withdrawal only on February 23, 2003, upon inquiry with the bank manager. She subsequently had the passbook updated, confirming the withdrawal and discovering that Dominador had made various subsequent withdrawals from his personal account.
• Demand and Complaint: Evangeline demanded the return of the withdrawn amount, but Dominador refused. On May 7, 2002, Evangeline filed a complaint for sum of money, damages, and attorney's fees before the RTC, impleading EPCIB as a party defendant. She claimed sole ownership of the deposited funds and alleged that Dominador lacked authority to withdraw the same. She secured a temporary restraining order against the bank on the same date.
• Dominador's Defense: Dominador asserted that as a joint account holder and attorney-in-fact, he was authorized to withdraw funds to answer for Evangeline's project expenses. During trial, he claimed that the withdrawn amount belonged to him, alleging that he contributed ₱100,000.00 as initial deposit and that Holgar Schwarzfeller (Evangeline's common-law husband) had deposited ₱900,000.00 pursuant to a verbal promise to compensate Dominador ₱1,000,000.00 for his services as administrator of the couple's business affairs. His sister Marietta Apique corroborated this testimony.
• Bank's Position: EPCIB denied violating banking rules, contending that the "OR" account allowed either holder to transact without the other's signature, and that "no passbook" transactions were permitted upon verification of technicalities, identity, signature authenticity, and fund sufficiency. EPCIB was later dropped as a party defendant pursuant to a joint motion filed by Evangeline and the bank, which the RTC granted on April 5, 2004.

• Absolute Authority as Joint Account Holder: Dominador maintained that as a joint "OR" account holder and attorney-in-fact, he possessed absolute authority to withdraw funds from the account without Evangeline's consent, arguing that the nature of the account gave him unbridled license to withdraw any amount at any time.
• Ownership and Compensation: He argued that the withdrawn funds belonged to him, asserting that he contributed ₱100,000.00 to the initial deposit and that ₱900,000.00 represented partial payment of the ₱1,000,000.00 compensation promised by Holgar Schwarzfeller for his administrative services.
• Quantum Meruit: Dominador claimed entitlement to payment as administrator of Evangeline's business affairs based on the principle of quantum meruit, arguing that he had rendered valuable services deserving compensation.

• Limited Authority: Evangeline countered that while the account was joint, Dominador's authority to withdraw was strictly limited to the purpose of facilitating her business projects, and that no such project existed at the time of the February 11, 2002 withdrawal.
• Failure of Proof: She argued that Dominador failed to discharge his burden of proving his claims regarding the compensation agreement with Holgar and his ownership of the funds, rendering his allegations bare, self-serving, and unsubstantiated.
• Waiver of Defense: Evangeline maintained that Dominador's claim for compensation under quantum meruit was barred for having been raised only during appeal and not as an affirmative defense or counterclaim in his answer.

• Authority to Withdraw: Whether Dominador had the right to withdraw the ₱980,000.00 from the joint account given its specific purpose and the agreement between the siblings.
• Ownership of Funds: Whether Dominador proved his ownership over the withdrawn funds or his entitlement thereto as compensation for administrative services.
• Interest Rate: Whether the 12% per annum interest imposed by the Court of Appeals should be modified to 6% per annum.

• Authority to Withdraw: Dominador's authority to withdraw from the joint account was limited to the necessity of funds for Evangeline's projects. Since no project was being undertaken at the time of the February 11, 2002 withdrawal, the withdrawal exceeded the scope of his authority as between the co-depositors, notwithstanding his technical right to withdraw as far as the bank was concerned.
• Ownership of Funds: Dominador failed to substantiate his claim that Holgar Schwarzfeller promised ₱1,000,000.00 compensation or that the withdrawn amount constituted partial payment thereof. The claim regarding his ₱100,000.00 contribution was credited, but the remaining ₱880,000.00 was found to belong to Evangeline and liable for return.
• Quantum Meruit: The claim for compensation under quantum meruit was deemed waived for not having been pleaded as an affirmative defense or counterclaim in Dominador's answer, pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.
• Interest Rate: The interest rate was modified to 6% per annum from the filing of the complaint until full payment, in accordance with BSP-MB Circular No. 799 and the ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, replacing the bifurcated rate (6% until finality, 12% thereafter) imposed by the Court of Appeals.

• Joint Bank Accounts (Inter se Relationship): While joint "OR" account holders each possess an undivided right to the entire balance as far as the bank is concerned, as between the co-depositors themselves, the right to withdraw depends upon their agreement and the purpose for which the account was opened. The co-depositor's authority to withdraw is circumscribed by such purpose, and withdrawals beyond that scope require justification to avoid liability for conversion or unjust enrichment.
• Burden of Proof in Civil Cases: The party asserting the affirmative of an issue bears the burden of proof by preponderance of evidence. Mere allegations unsupported by competent evidence fail to discharge this burden.
• Waiver of Defenses and Counterclaims: Defenses not raised in the answer are deemed waived, and counterclaims not set up in the answer are barred and cannot be entertained for the first time on appeal.
• Legal Interest Rate: Pursuant to BSP-MB Circular No. 799 and Nacar v. Gallery Frames, the legal rate of interest in the absence of stipulation is 6% per annum, whether the obligation consists of the payment of a sum of money or otherwise, replacing the previous 12% rate.

• "Nevertheless, as between the account holders, their right against each other may depend on what they have agreed upon, and the purpose for which the account was opened and how it will be operated."
• "Hence, while Dominador is a co-owner of the subject account as far as the bank is concerned — and may, thus, validly deposit and/or withdraw funds without the consent of his co-depositor, Evangeline — as between him and Evangeline, his authority to withdraw, as well as the amount to be withdrawn, is circumscribed by the purpose for which the subject account was opened."
• "Settled is the rule that defenses which are not raised in the answer are deemed waived, and counterclaims not set up in the answer shall be barred."

• Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013: Cited for the modification of the legal interest rate from 12% to 6% per annum pursuant to BSP-MB Circular No. 799.
• Rivera v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co., 73 Phil. 546 (1942): Cited regarding the nature of joint accounts and the rights of co-depositors as joint owners.
• Bank of the Phil. Islands v. Sps. Royeca, 581 Phil. 188 (2008): Cited regarding the burden of proof in civil cases and the definition of preponderance of evidence.
• Dela Cruz v. Hermano, G.R. No. 160914, March 25, 2015: Cited as basis for the Court's authority to resolve factual issues where the findings of the RTC differ from those of the CA.

• Article 485, Civil Code: Presumes equal shares for co-owners unless the contrary is proved.
• Section 97, National Internal Revenue Code: Regarding the requirement of BIR certification for withdrawal from accounts of deceased depositors.
• Section 1, Rule 9, Rules of Court: Defenses not raised in the answer are deemed waived.
• Section 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court: Counterclaims not set up in the answer are barred.
• BSP-MB Circular No. 799, Series of 2013: Reduced the legal rate of interest from 12% to 6% per annum in the absence of stipulation.

Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perez, JJ.