Heirs Bond

My mom passed away two years ago. We have a joint time deposit account. Naka "and" lang kami so I was required by the bank to go to BIR to obtain CAR. After a year, dahil super bagal ng BIR, nakuha ko na yung CAR. So pagbalik ko sa bank atsaka ko pa lang nalaman na need pang ifile sa Register of Deeds yung documents. And aside from that they are requiring me to get an Heir's bond with two years validity. Just in case daw na may iba pang magclaim. I'm an only child, but since my father is alive, extrajudicial ang ginawa namin and nag waiver father ko. So I need someone to explain to me bakit kailangan pa nung heir bond? It's very expensive. Hindi naman kalakihan yung time deposit namin ng mom ko. Parang unfair po kasi, pera naman namin yun magiging bato pa. Hope someone can enlighten me. Thanks in advance!

When someone passes away, property, rights and obligations transfer immediately to the heirs of the deceased. But it does not automatically mean that you (as an heir) can enjoy the benefits of the property/ies left by the deceased person. Certain procedures must be followed. First, one must settle the estate taxes of the estate of the deceased. Another would be for the execution of either a judicial or extrajudicial settlement of estate. Having said all these, you have to comply with these requirements first (or any other requirements which may arise in your case), before enjoying the property/ies left by your mom.

The law is quite harsh, but its still the law.

Thanks for your reply. I do understand and do comply with the government's requirements. However, what I wanted to know is if the heir's bond is also a requirement of the government or is it just my bank. The bank told me they require it just in case someone else appears and claims the money. But like I said I'm an only child and my parents have no other families outside of marriage. I had already filed an extrajudicial settlement along with my father's waiver. Aside from that this money is mine to begin with, my mom and I only decided to open a joint account then because I was working abroad that time. She updates it on my behalf. So under these circumstances isn't it clear that there's no possibility that someone else would claim the money? So I can't understand and can't accept the bank's reason for forcing me to take an Heir's bond which cost around 60k when our time deposit doesn't amount much, but unless it's the government's requirement then of course I have no say in this matter.

There are inconsistencies in your story sir. You said you already executed an extrajudicial settlement for the estate of your mom. If that extrajudicial settlement was done correctly, you would understand right of the bat the purpose of the bond. Also, you keep mentioning that you are a child and yet you already worked abroad. Please do not expect a bank to just hand over a big sum of money to a twelve year old. This gives the bank more reason to ask for a bond.

In any case, you have to understand that the bank is just protecting itself from claims that might crop up after you get your mom's deposit. This two year period is provided for under the Rules of Court, so no point in arguing against it. Moreover, cash bonds do not cost naman the entire amount that you would be receiving. You should should around for a reputable yet affordable surety company. Or better yet, seek the help of a legal professional.

What I meant was I have no siblings. Sorry for the confusion. Since I worked hard for that money, saying goodbye to 60k is no joke. I hope you understand why I feel this way. I'm quite broke already because of all the medication and hospitalization fees for my mom, she was a cancer patient. Then I had to stop working to take care of her in her final year. Now that my mom's gone, I can't go to work because I have a young son which I left in her care. Now only my husband is working but it's not enough since we have a lot of loans we need to pay off. I was not aware before of this entire tedious process. If I had known I would have pulled out the money before my mom died. Just explaining my side. Anyway thanks for the reply.

"under these circumstances isn't it clear that there's no possibility that someone else would claim the money? "
The bank need DOCUMENTS showing the money is yours.
Have you shown the bank the Extrajuridical verdict? Don't they bother about that?
On top of that the bank need a document showing your FATHER don't claim any part of these money.

"Also, you keep mentioning that you are a child and yet you already worked abroad. Please do not expect a bank to just hand over a big sum of money to a twelve year old. "
I have been grown up many years, but I'm my parents' child for ever
I suppouse Zem ment that.

Thanks Lunkan. I showed the Extrajudicial Settlement and my father's waiver. But they still insist I need to get the bond. I have no idea about all the legal mumbo jumbo so I'm really really lost. I was wondering if there was another way around it so to speak because right now I really can't afford that bond but I do really need my money. It's causing me a lot of stress.

Zem wrote:I showed the Extrajudicial Settlement and my father's waiver. But they still insist I need to get the bond.

Are the documents you show notarised?
If Yes. then I find it redicilous if more are demanded
BUT I don't know what the law say about it. Some parts of the law are redicilous

Zem:

"RULE 74

Summary Settlement of Estate

Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. — If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filled in the office of the register of deeds. The parties to an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument or by stipulation in a pending action for partition, or the sole heir who adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall file, simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the filing of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of deeds, a bond with the said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned and conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that may be filed under section 4 of this rule. It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of administration within two (2) years after the death of the decedent.

The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in the nest succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof."

Thanks payoneer. I haven't filed the documents yet to the registry of deeds that's why I know nothing about this rule. Thank you for making it clear.

i have a similar scenario here. my case however, is that we the legal heirs of my deceased father were willing to wait out the 2 year period rather than secure a heir bond. the bank still insist on the bond however even if the 2 years has lapsed because it is their policy. my question:what right do they have to withhold the money 2years after death of my dad? why insist on a bond when there is no more risk on their as they are no longer liable for any third party claims. the problem with the bond is that it doesnt consider the period whether 2 years or 1 day its still the same price. can someone please shed light on this? . it may be their policy but isnt it going beyong the law already?

rnegapatan wrote:i have a similar scenario here. my case however, is that we the legal heirs of my deceased father were willing to wait out the 2 year period rather than secure a heir bond. the bank still insist on the bond however even if the 2 years has lapsed because it is their policy. my question:what right do they have to withhold the money 2years after death of my dad? why insist on a bond when there is no more risk on their as they are no longer liable for any third party claims. the problem with the bond is that it doesnt consider the period whether 2 years or 1 day its still the same price. can someone please shed light on this? . it may be their policy but isnt it going beyong the law already?

Have you settled this now? I'm also thinking of waiting for the 2 years to be over. According to the law, claims from creditors can only be honored 2 years after the death of a person. The bank told us that they need the bond as a security, so that when a creditor (or whoever more entitled to receive the money) claims the money, then the insurance company will cover it. If there are no more risk of this, why do we have to get a bond?

yes, this was settled. but it took the bsp to intervene. I wrote to bsp regarding their policy, a week after, I got a call from the bank stating a miscommunication of policy. lol I asked another branch they said the same thing the other branch bank officer even admitted its a money making scheme for them...I suspect we are talking of the same bank...because another bank didn't require us the bond after 2 years..so its really a bank policy until u complain or report it to the bsp as being against the law...

rnegapatan wrote:yes, this was settled. but it took the bsp to intervene. I wrote to bsp regarding their policy, a week after, I got a call from the bank stating a miscommunication of policy. lol I asked another branch they said the same thing the other branch bank officer even admitted its a money making scheme for them...I suspect we are talking of the same bank...because another bank didn't require us the bond after 2 years..so its really a bank policy until u complain or report it to the bsp as being against the law...

Ohh, okay. Thank you for your response. I'm really curious about this because our contact person at the bank is not very competent. She suggested that 2 out of 3 heirs should waive their claim on the money in favor of the person who will transact with them. When we realized this will become a donation, and an unnecessary donor's tax will be paid, we asked her about it. She kept telling us that this was how they were doing it ever since. -___- We insisted and insisted, until she contacted the Corporate Legal Group (idk if I remembered that correctly). The legal group confirmed that we can just submit a notarized Special Power Of Attorney if we want just one person to transact with the bank and other gov't agencies. What other documents did you provide to them? We have complied with everything from publishing in the newspaper up to the taxes with BIR. The requirements for an heir's bond is too hard, we were required to ask two individuals (not our relative) to co-sign the bond. One of them must attach their ITR, and the other one should have a land under his/her name (photocopy of the land title will be attached as well). It's hard to convince anyone to co-sign a bond like this, so I wanna know if I can just wait out the 2 years. How about the register of deeds thing? I think an heir's bond is also a requirement, though I'm not 100% sure.

rnegapatan wrote:yes, this was settled. but it took the bsp to intervene. I wrote to bsp regarding their policy, a week after, I got a call from the bank stating a miscommunication of policy. lol I asked another branch they said the same thing the other branch bank officer even admitted its a money making scheme for them...I suspect we are talking of the same bank...because another bank didn't require us the bond after 2 years..so its really a bank policy until u complain or report it to the bsp as being against the law...

Do you know the contact person or office in BSP where I can complain about a bank requiring heirs bond even if it is already 10 years after the depositor died?

[quote="jsalcantara"]

rnegapatan wrote:How about the register of deeds thing? I think an heir's bond is also a requirement, though I'm not 100% sure.

My cousin and her husband died 10 years ago and left several bank accounts to their 3 children. It is only now that we were able to pay the estate tax and secure a Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR). Now, the bank is requiring us to register the extrajudicial settlement together with the heirs bond at the Registry of Deeds. Based on your discussions above, I'd like to know the following

1. Are their children still required to pay an heirs bond? One of them is already of legal age, the other 2 are still minors. I was appointed as legal guardian by the court 8 years ago.

2. We were able to withdraw from another account at another bank amounting to Php 42,000 without performing this requirement

3. Are we required to produce an original title by the Registry of Deeds in order to register the extrajudicial settlement of estate as required by the bank. Currently, we do not have an owner's copy of the title and suspect that this is inside the safety deposit box of the bank which we are not given access to.

Thanks in advance for any help