BPI FAMILY BANK v.

AMADO FRANCO AND COURT OF APPEALS By: Jelica

GR No. 123498 Topic: Movable or personal property and
Date: November 23, 2007 their classification

Facts
Franco opened 3 accounts (current, savings, and time deposit) with BPI-FB. The total amount used to open this
account is traceable to a check issued by TEVESTECO. In turn, the funding for the check was part of the P 80M
debited by BPI-FB from FMICs time deposit account and credited to TEVESTECOs current account. This is
pursuant to an Authority to Debit signed by FMICs officers. However, the signatures of FMICs officers appeared to
be forged.
TEVESTECO had already effected several withdrawals amounting to P 37.46M, including the P 2M paid to Franco.
In light of FMICs forgery claim, BPI-FB ordered to debit Francos savings and current accounts for the amounts
remaining therein.
BPI-FB filed an Order of Attachment before the Makati RTC to garnish Francos current account and recover the P
37.46M. Franco filed a Motion to Discharge Attachment which the Makati RTC granted.
Franco demanded from BPI-FB to release his funds in his savings and current accounts. However, BPI-FB could not
comply because Francos current account had already been debited because of FMICs forgery claim.
In light of BPI-FBs refusal to unfreeze Francos accounts and release his deposits, Franco filed a complaint before the
Manila RTC and prayed for the payment of the following:
o interest on the remaining balance of his current account
o balance on his savings account plus interest
o P 63, 189 deducted from his time deposit account upon pretermination
o actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
BPI-FB insisted that it was correct in freezing Francos accounts and that it has the right to the amounts, which
includes the money allegedly withdrawn fraudulently and ended up in Francos accounts.
RTC ruled in favor of Franco. Both parties filed their respective appeals before the CA. CA affirmed with modification
the RTCs decision.
BPI-FB filed for a petition for certiorari. It argued that its position is like that of an owner of personal property who
regains possession after it is stolen.
Issue/s
Does the BPI have better right to the deposit in Francos accounts?
Ruling - NO.

In this case, the deposit in Francos accounts consists of money which albeit characterized as a movable, is generic and
fungible. The quality of being fungible depends upon the possibility of the property, because of its nature or the will of the
parties, being substituted by others of the same kind, not having a distinct individuality.

While Art. 559 permits an owner who has lost or has been unlawfully deprived of a movable to recover the exact same thing
from the current possessor, BPI-FB simply claims ownership of the equivalent amount of money, that is, the value thereof,
which it had mistakenly debited from FMCIs account and credited to TEVESTECOs and subsequently traced to Francos
account.

Doctrine Notes
The movable property mentioned in Art. 559 of the Civil Code pertains to a BPI-FB BPI Family Bank
specific or determinate thing. A determinate or specific thing is one that is TEVESTECO Tevesteco
individualized and can be identified or distinguished from others of the same kind. Arrastre-Stevedoring Co., Inc.
FMIC First Metro Investment
Corporation
BPI-FB illustra