Law Dictionary

Question XII, Civil Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Notice: The following suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide as an answer to a bar exam question. Thus, specific citations (i.e., republic acts, articles/sections, jurisprudence, etc.) are not provided because it is not required in the bar exam. For purposes other than answering the bar exam, please be reminded that proper referencing or legal citation is required.

Question XII, Civil Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Saachi opened a savings bank account with Shanghainese Bank. He made an initial deposit of PhP100,000. Part of the bank opening forms that he was required to sign when he opened the account was a Holdout Agreement which provided that, should he incur any liability or obligation to the bank, the bank shall have the right to immediately and automatically take over his savings account deposit. After he opened his deposit account, the Shanghainese Bank discovered a scam wherein the funds in the account of another depositor in the bank was withdrawn by an impostor. Shanghainese Bank suspected Saachi to be. the impostor, and filed a criminal case of estafa against him. While the case was still pending with the Prosecutor’s office, the bank took over Saachi’s savings deposit on the basis of the Holdout Agreement.

(a) What kind of contract is created when a depositor opens a deposit account with a bank? (2.5%)

(b) In this case, did the bank have the right to take over Saachi’s bank deposit? (2.5%)

Suggested Answer:

A simple loan contract is created when a depositor opens a deposit account with a bank. Under the Civil Code, fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan.

(b) No. Answer

Under jurisprudence, the “Hold Out” clause applies only if there is a valid and existing obligation arising from any of the sources of obligation enumerated in Article 1157 of the Civil Code, to wit: law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delict, and quasi-delict.. Rule

In the case at bar, there is no valid and existing obligation arising from any of the sources of the obligation by Sacchi in favor of the bank. The filing of the criminal case is not one of the sources of obligation as the case is pending and no final judgment of conviction has been rendered. Apply

Thus, the bank did not have the right to take over Saachi’s bank deposit. Conclusion

Disclaimer: All information is for educational and general information only. These should not be taken as professional legal advice or opinion. Please consult a competent lawyer to address your specific concerns. Any statements or opinions of the author are solely his own and do not reflect that of any organization he may be connected.

Suggested Answers

Question XIX, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam

President Alfredo died during his third year in office. In accordance with the Constitution, Vice President Anastasia succeeded him. President Anastasia then nominated the late

Question IX, Labor Law, 2017 Bar Exam

Section 255 (245) of the Labor Code recognizes three categories of employees, namely: managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-file. (a) Give the characteristics of each category of

Question I, Civil Law, 2017 Bar Exam

State whether the following marital unions are valid, void, or voidable, and give the corresponding justifications for your answer: (a) Ador and Becky’s marriage wherein

Top Read

Data privacy principles

1. General Data Privacy Principles The processing of personal data shall be allowed, subject to compliance with the requirements of the Act and other laws

Espionage, Revised Penal Code

1. Concept Article 117. Espionage. – The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon any person who: 1. Without authority therefor, enters a warship,

Video Lessons

Legal Maxims

nemo tenetur seipsum accusare

Latin maxim. • “No one is bound to accuse himself.” (Google Translate; See Villaflor v. Summers, En Banc, G.R. No. 16444, September 8, 1920) •

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

• “false in one thing, false in everything” (Frondarina v. Malazarte, G.R. No. 148423, December 6, 2006) NB: 1) Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

ex dolo malo non oritur actio

Latin maxim. • “The law will not aid either party to an illegal agreement; it leaves the parties where it finds them.” (Bough v. Cantiveros,

Read more


You cannot copy content of this page