Practice question
Under the historical rule analyzed in Linsangan, an unrelated transferee relies on a supposed sale but the bank held no supporting transfer documents upon takeover. He presents a newly produced agreement only after denial. Why is that timing legally material?
- Any later private document automatically binds PDIC retroactively.
- The valid-consideration route requires the supporting transfer evidence in the bank's custody at takeover, so later production alone does not satisfy that condition.
- Document custody is relevant only to the bank's rent.
- The timing automatically proves criminal guilt without trial.
- A transfer is always valid for insurance merely because an account bears a new name.
Legal references
- RA 10846, deposit splitting prohibition and definition: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2016/ra_10846_2016.html
- Linsangan v. PDIC, G.R. No. 228807, February 11, 2019, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/23/64987
- RA 11840, Section 4 amending PDIC Charter Section 5(k): https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/95626
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.