Bank of Commerce, petitioner v.

Planters Development Bank and Bangko Sentral

ng Pilipinas, respondents/Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, petitioner v. Planters
Development Bank, respondent
Facts: For the 1st set of CB bills, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) was the
registered owner of 7 Central Bank (CB) bills with a total face value of Php 70 million, which
were eventually sold to Bank of Commerce (BOC), which, in turn, sold these CB bills to
Planters Development Bank
(PDB) as evidenced by a Detached Assignment. A week later, PDB so
ld to the BOC Treasury Bills worth Php 70 million as evidenced by a Trading Order and
Confirmation of Sale. For the 2nd set of CB bills, RCBC sold 2 CB bills with a total face value
of Php 20 million to the PDB and delivered to PDB the corresponding Detached Assignment.
PDB delivered to Bancap the 2 CB bills which in turn sold the CB bills to Al-Amanah Islamic
Investment Bank of the Philippines, which also sold it to the BOC. Upon learning of the
transfers involving the CB Bills, the PDB informed the officer-in-charge of the BSPs
Government Securities Deparment of the PDBs claim over these CB bills, based on the
Detached Assignments in its possession. The requests of PDB were denied by the officer-incharge which prompted the petitioner to file an action so as to compel the BSP to determine
the party legally entitled to the proceeds of the subject CB bills.
Issue: Whether or not the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has jurisdiction in determining the
party legally entitled to the proceeds of the CB bills.
Decision: Under the New Central Bank Act (RA 7653), the BSP is given the responsibility of
providing policy directions in the areas of money, banking and credit; it is given the primary
objective of maintaining price stability, conducive to a balanced and sustainable growth of
the economy and of promoting and maintaining monetary stability and convertibility of the
peso. Moreover, the Constitution expressly grants the BSP the power of supervision over the
operation of banks. While RA 7653 empowers the BSP to conduct administrative hearings
and render judgment for or against an entity under its supervisory and regulatory powers,
the grant of quasi-judicial authority to the BSP cannot possibly extend to situation which do
not call for the exercise by the BSP of its supervisory or regulatory functions over entities
within its jurisdiction. The fact alone that the parties involved are banking institutions does
not necessarily call for the exercise by the BSP of its quasi-judicial powers under the law.

PEREZ VS ZULUETA GR L-10374

CASE DIGEST:
Appeal from an order requiring defendant to permit plaintiffs to repurchase their land.
FACTS:
1

On December 27, 1959, Magtangol P. Pedro and others (hereafter named plaintiffs)
sold a parcel of land in Quezon City to Jose C. Zulueta for P10,000.00 with a deed
stating their right to repurchase within one year.

As the vendors failed to repurchase, defendant took steps to consolidate his title to
the land in January 1952 which resulted to a suit in Quezon City wherein vendors
(plaintiffs), alleged the contract to be a mortgage disguised a pacto de retro, asked
for a declaration to that effect plus other appropriate remedies. The court gave
judgment for plaintiffs, holding the contract to be mortgage.

The Court of appeals in its decision of May 13, 1955, reversed and held the contract
to be a true pacto de retro sale, however, it added "without prejudice to plaintiffs'
(vendors) right to make the repurchase in accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 1606
of the New Civil Code".

The plaintiffs applied for review on certiorari, but was denied on June 24, 1955.
Notice of which they received on June 29, 1955.

On August 2, 1955, defendant renewed his efforts to consolidate his title by filing a
petition in the Quezon court alleging that the plaintiffs had failed to exercise their
reserved right to repurchase within thirty days.

On August 9, 1955, the plaintiffs opposed the claim, maintaining that the 30-day
period had not yet elapsed. They demanded reconveyance from the defendant
through a letter of August 10, 1955 with an offer to repay the price.

Upon defendants refusal, plaintiffs filed in court on August 13, 1955, a petition that
he be required to reconvey.

ISSUE:
WON the plaintiffs had failed to exercise their reserved right to repurchase within the
prescribed 30 days period from the time that a judgment has been issued.
RULING:
This petition was granted on the basis that a judgment becomes final and executor only
after the expiration of the time allowed by law for appeal. Thus, Mr. Jose Zulueta was
ordered to execute a deed of reconveyance over the parcel of land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 8762 in favor of the petitioners Gavina Perez, et al. within five days
from receipt of a copy of the order.