It is well within the authority of courts to order banks to provide an explanation of the transactions of a deceased person’s account, including deductions, to ascertain the correct funds of the remaining estate.
The Third Division of the Supreme Court stressed this in ruling in favor of the estate administrators of former Negros Occidental Rep. Ignacio ‘Iggy’ Arroyo in connection with the unexplained ‘anomalous’ withdrawals from his Union Bank of the Philippines accounts after his death without the heirs’ knowledge.
In its July 7, 2026 decision released on Friday, the high tribunal upheld earlier decisions by the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) that directed Union Bank to explain and submit records on an email exchange made between bank officers and a certain lawyer.
These involved the withdrawals that the bank said was done under a survivorship agreement and used to settle Arroyo’s remaining obligations, among other purposes, after his death in January 2012.
‘Skip the line’
Two of Arroyo’s designated administrators for his estate, his estranged spouse Alicia Rita, and one of his daughters, Bianca, filed a motion for Union Bank to produce additional records. This was granted and the bank turned to the CA. But the bank also lost in the appellate court.
The high court, in agreeing with the lower courts, noted that the Quezon City RTC was acting within the probate court’s jurisdiction under the Rules of Court to cite whether an individual is committing embezzlement or concealment or other offense.
A probate court resolves issues on the will and estate left behind by a deceased person.
‘Corollary to this is the probate court’s authority to ascertain the true and correct balances of these accounts as of the decedent’s death; hence, any deductions or withdrawals made therefrom after [Arroyo’s] death are necessarily relevant,’ the high court said in the nine-page decision written by Associate Justice Henri Inting.
‘[T]he RTC has the authority to clarify bank transactions affecting estate property posted by petitioner after the death of [Arroyo], especially where the explanations on record appear insufficient or raise legitimate questions,’ it added.
It also noted that the bank ‘unilaterally’ deducted Arroyo’s supposed obligations from his deposits, which was a circumvention of the rules governing claims against the estate.
‘As a creditor, petitioner is required to file its claims before the probate court and cannot simply ‘skip the line,’ so to speak, by appropriating estate assets to satisfy its claims,’ the high court said.