ANGELITA V. VILLANUEVA AND PABLO C. SANIDAD, PETITIONERS, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTS, RESPONDENT.

Before the war the petitioner Angelita V. Villanueva maintained
a savings deposit with the Philippine Postal Savings Bank, which as of October
22, 1941, had a balance in her favor of P4.60. She made no further deposit in
said account until the month of October, 1944. Between the 10th and the 31st of
said month she made four deposits totalling P5,940.

The Director of Posts refused to recognize the validity of that
deposit made during the occupation in Japanese military notes on the ground that
it had been declared invalid by Executive Order No. 49, series of 1945.

The petitioner, assisted by her husband, seeks to compel the
Director of Posts to recognize the validity of said deposit, contending that
Executive Order No. 49 is unconstitutional in that it deprives her of her
property without due process of law.

That question has been resolved by this court adversely to the
petitioner in Hilado vs. De la Costa and the Philippine National Bank, G. R. No.
L-150, April 30, 1949,^[1] wherein it was
held:

“We are of the considered opinion, and therefore hold, that the
provisions of Executive Order No. 49, do not deprive the plaintiff of his
property without due process of law or impair the obligation of contract entered
into between him and defendant bank; because they are but the logical corollary
and application to bank deposits in Japanese war notes of Executive Order No.
25, in so far as it declares that said notes are not legal tender in territories
of the Philippines liberated from Japanese occupation, the validity of which is
not, and cannot seriously be, questioned.

“It may safely be laid down as a rule that when a deposit is
made with a bank or a person of notes made legal tender or currency by the
military occupant of an enemy territory, and the occupation does not ripen into
a conquest by the occupant because the territory is liberated and reoccupied by
its legitimate government, the deposit must be considered as with specification
of currency, that is, as a deposit of money made legal tender or currency by the
occupant, without necessity of stating it expressly, unless there is evidence to
the contrary, because it is the only kind of money or legal cur rency in
circulation after the genuine money of the territory has disappeared from
circulation, as in the present case. It should not be understood to be a general
deposit without specification of currency, that is, a deposit of lawful money of
the legitimate government, and it will have the same effect as if it were made
with money that was legal tender or currency of a foreign country having no
monetary treaty of agreement with the legitimate government; and therefore if
such currency becomes valueless, the depositor shall have to suffer the loss,
because the currency so deposited is exactly of the same condition and validity
as that kept in the pockets or safe of the depositor.”

The petition is denied, without any finding as to costs.

Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason,
Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

---

[1] 83 Phil., 471.