Expressio unius est exclusio alterius


This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and accordingly resolved to DENY the same for: (a) lack of an affidavit of service stating that a copy of the petition for review on certiorari was sent to the Court of Appeals (CA) and the adverse party in accordance with Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 3, Rule 45 of the said Rules; (b) failure to attach clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the judgment and resolution of the CA as required under Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; and (c) failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in its Decision dated April 20, 2016 and Resolution dated September 21, 2016 and there being no special and important reason to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction to review pursuant to Section 6, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioner argues that the CA erred in declaring the contested bank account as a joint deposit account between Cornelio, Ligaya and Lani (all surnamed Linsangan). Petitioner insists that the same should be considered an individual bank account of Cornelio in view of (1) Ligaya's death on May 20, 2010; and (2) Lani's execution of Confirmation of Waiver of Any Claim, Share, Interest, or Participation in Bank Deposit[1].[2] Thus, petitioner concludes that Cornelio validly donated the entire deposit account to her.[3] This is a factual issue beyond the ambit of the instant petition. Even if the Court were to accept petitioner's allegations as true, the same will not necessarily render the subject bank account as an individual deposit account by reason of the death of one of the depositors. In the absence of any showing that the proper estate taxes have been paid, Ligaya's share in the bank deposit remains a part of her estate. It has been long held that "[u]nder the present legal system, such rights and obligations as survive after death have to be exercised and fulfilled only by the estate of the deceased."[4] The estate of the deceased person is a juridical person separate and distinct from the person of the decedent and any other corporation.[5]

Petitioner further claims that the CA erred in affirming respondent Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation's (PDIC) denial of her insurance claim on the ground that she was not a qualified relative when the basis of her claim was a transfer for valid consideration.[6] here the appellate court stated:
In [petitioner's] Reply to Comment as well as Memorandum, petitioner clarified that the basis of her insurance claim [was] not the degree of her relationship with the transferor but the presence of a valid consideration by virtue of the donation given to her by Cornelio Linsangan. Thus, the resolution of this case will revolve around such issue,[7] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Petitioner likewise indirectly assails the validity of PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03 stating that she cannot be expected to comply with the requirements stated therein as the same was not published in the Official Gazette or in any newspaper of general circulation.[8]

To remove any doubt as to the effectivity of PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03, the same had been duly published on October 10, 2009.[9] Besides, petitioner cannot feign ignorance over the said regulatory issuance as the CA found that it was printed inside the passbook. Given that petitioner admitted to having possession of the passbook when the same was given to her on December 25, 2012, petitioner is deemed to have notice over Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03.

Lastly, petitioner claims that the CA cannot reject the affidavit of Cornelio narrating the details behind the donation which petitioner attached in her Request for Reconsideration.[10] She invokes PDIC's letter dated July 12, 2013 which allows a re-evaluation of the account when a request for reconsideration includes "new documents." Petitioner posits that the submission of "new documents" dispensed with the requirement of having a document of transfer (i.e. the written note entitled "A CHRISTMAS GIFT" purportedly executed by Cornelio Linsangan) in the deposit account records of CRBBI prior to its closure.[11]

The Court does not agree. As correctly held by the CA:
Hurdling the [requirement of a valid consideration] does not however entitle petitioner to claim for deposit insurance. Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03 requires that aside from a valid consideration, the details or information regarding the transfer must also be contained in the Deposit Account Records of the Bank and copies of documents showing the details of the transfer must be in the custody or possession of the bank upon takeover by PDIC. It were these mandatory requisites which were not complied with by petitioner.

Petitioner does not dispute the fact that these supporting documents were not in the custody or possession of the bank upon takeover of PDIC. These documents were admittedly attached to the Request for Reconsideration after the denial of petitioner's claim for deposit insurance.[12]
That the PDIC allowed petitioner to file a request for reconsideration with a requirement to attach new documents does not automatically mean that documents which were previously not in the possession of CRBBI will be accepted. As stated in the PDIC's letter dated July 12, 2013, new documents refer to those stated in PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2011-03, namely:

Original or certified true copies of the documents that would support the deposit/s made in the bank such as, but not limited to, negotiated checks, copies of validated deposit slips for deposits made in the closed bank or those directly made to its depository bank, official receipts, deposit agreements, bank statement/statement of accounts, or other documents evidencing receipt of funds by the closed bank other than the evidence of deposits. The supporting documents must be new evidence that were in existence prior to the closure of a bank and which have not been submitted to the PDIC at the time of the filing of the claim/s for deposit insurance.[13]

The said provision does not contemplate any document that petitioner may just consider "new." As the Court held in Malinias v. Commission on Elections:[14]
It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. The rule is expressed in the familiar maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is formulated in a number of ways. One variation of the rule is the principle that what is expressed puts an end to that which is implied. Expressium facit cessare taciturn. Thus, where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters.

xxx xxx xxx

The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and its variations are canons of restrictive interpretation. They are based on the rules of logic and the natural workings of the human mind. They are predicated upon one's own voluntary act and not upon that of others. They proceed from the premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumeration in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.[15] (Underscoring supplied. Citations omitted.)
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the Decision dated April 20, 2016 and Resolution dated September 21, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 137223.


[1] Rollo, p. 70.

[2] Id. at 16.

[3] Id.

[4] Limjoco v. Intestate of Fragante, 80 Phil. 776, 785 (1948).

[5] Mayor v. Tin, G.R. No. 203770, November 23, 2016.

[6] Rollo, p. 14.

[7] Id. at 35.

[8] Id. at 22.

[9] See PDIC Bulletin No. 2009-38, signed by President Jose C. Nograles. < http:"" index.php?nid1="61®ulatory=1&nid2=2&rid=118" > Last visited: July 19, 2017.

[10]Rollo, p. 22.

[11] Id.

[12] Id. at 35-36.

[13] Id. at 46.

[14] 439 Phil. 319 (2002).

[15] Id. at 335-336.