The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld a trial court ruling ordering a foundation trustee to return nearly P6.8 million, plus interest, to the Oblates of Saint Joseph (OSJ) after funds donated for the construction of a church in Silang were withdrawn and misused.

In a 16 July 2026 resolution, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Benito Chan Chua, affirming both its earlier ruling and the December 2022 decision of the Pasig Regional Trial Court.

The disputed funds were donated by PhilRealty's Gerardo Lanuza and his wife, Corazon, to the OSJ Foundation to finance the construction of a church in Silang, Cavite.

The OSJ and the Lanuza spouses later filed a civil case for recovery of money and damages after discovering that the foundation's account had been depleted.

In its 2022 ruling, the Pasig RTC ordered Chua to pay P6.797 million, plus interest, and P50,000 in attorney's fees. The court dismissed the complaint against the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), where the account was maintained.

The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling in a 17 March 2025 decision, which Chua sought to overturn through a motion for reconsideration. The appellate court also denied the Lanuzas' request to hold BPI liable.

In its earlier decision, the CA found Chua liable after he admitted withdrawing the funds and using them in his "kiting and juggling" activities, which the court said constituted the wrongful conversion of trust property.

The appellate court noted that Chua also admitted investing the money in schemes intended to generate higher returns, but the investments failed.

"However, the defendant-appellant's attempts to procure a high return on said investment failed, and his subsequent action of trying to sell some of his assets to pay for his so-called infractions is an implied admission of wrongdoing and a mere attempt to remedy a bad situation," the court said.

The CA ruled that Chua alone was responsible for the depletion of the foundation's funds, noting that he was an authorized signatory who could withdraw money from the account on his own.

It also rejected Chua's claim that he was being unfairly singled out, saying he could not shift responsibility to others who had no participation in the alleged misuse of the donations.

The appellate court likewise found no evidence that BPI or its employees conspired with Chua to defraud the OSJ Foundation or the donors.