ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45486   May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA<br /><br />067 Phil 721

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45486. May 3, 1939.]

    TIBURCIO SUMERA, as receiver of the corporation "Devota de Nuestra Señora de la Correa", plaintifF-appellant, v. EUGENIO VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellee.

    Tiburcio Sumera in his own behalf.

    Magno S. Gatmaitan for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CORPORATIONS; DISSOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION; RECEIVER OR ASSIGNED; PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE LATTER MAY BRING ACTIONS. — When a corporation is dissolved and the liquidation of its assets is placed in the hands of a receiver or assignee, the period of three years prescribed by section 77 of Act No. 1459 known as the Corporation Law is not applicable, and the assignee may institute all actions leading to the liquidation of the assets corporation even after the expiration of three years.


    D E C I S I O N


    VILLA-REAL, J.:


    In the municipality of Paombong, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, a corporation was organized in 1920 in accordance with the laws in force in these Islands, under the style, "Devota de Nuestra Señora de la Correa", for the promotion of the fishing industry or business for a period of twenty years. Said corporation was already in operation when, on petition of various stockholders thereof, an investigation into its financial condition was made by the provincial auditor in which it was discovered that Eugenio Valencia, manager of the corporation, had withdrawn the amount of P600 from the remaining assets of the corporation.

    On September 26, 1927, a petition was filed for the voluntary dissolution of the corporation referred to, which was docketed as civil case No. 3560 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. After the requirements prescribed, by law had been complied with, the court approved the voluntary dissolution in an order dated February 14, 1928, ordering the liquidation of the properties of the corporation and appointing Damaso P. Nicolas assignee to take charge of such liquidation. In compliance with his duty as such as signee, Damaso P. Nicolas went on December 7 and 13, 1928 to the house of Eugenio Valencia and demanded of the latter the payment of the amount of P600 belonging to the corporation. As he did not have any money, Eugenio Valencia then promised to deliver the amount referred to in May, 1929 (Exhibit A). Upon being asked again to pay the aforesaid amount, Eugenio Valencia delivered to the assignee, Damaso P. Nicolas, the sum of P200, leaving a balance of P400.

    Damaso P. Nicolas, who had resigned from the office of assignee, was substituted by the herein appellant, Tiburcio Sumera, who filed a motion with the court asking that Eugenio Valencia be ordered to deliver to him the P400 belonging to the funds of the corporation. The Court of First Instance of Bulacan denied said motion in an order dated March 5, 1936, reserving, however, to said assignee the right to bring the proper action. On June 6, 1936, by virtue of the authority given him by the court in the order of April 27, 1936, Tiburcio Sumera, in his capacity as such assignee of the corporation referred to, filed a complaint in the present case against Eugenio Valencia for the recovery of the sum of P400 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the year 1927, and the sum of P100 as indemnity. Said complaint was based on Exhibit X in which Eugenio Valencia admitted having withdrawn from the funds of the corporation the sum of P600.

    Eugenio Valencia, answering the complaint, denied each and every fact alleged therein, and, as a special defense, alleged that if he has ever had any obligation with the corporation "Devota de Nuestra Senara de la Correa", said obligation has already been fully paid, denying under oath the genuineness and due execution of Exhibit X, and, by way of counterclaim, prayed that he be paid the sum of P200 by way of damages.

    The case having been called for trial on October 12, 1936, defendant, with leave of court, inserted in his answer a new defense in which he alleged that the action brought by plaintiff against him has already prescribed.

    Before trial, the parties submitted to the court the following stipulation of facts: First, that defendant admits the genuineness and due execution of Exhibit X which was executed and sworn to by him on May 28, 1927 and which forms part of the record in civil case No. 3560; second, that defendant likewise admits that he paid on account of the P600 mentioned in Exhibit X the amount of P200 to the former assignee, Damaso P. Nicolas; third, that the remaining sum of P400 has not been paid to date to the assignee of the corporation in spite of the fact that he had been repeatedly asked to do so by plaintiff. They also agreed that the only question on which the parties will adduce evidence is whether or not defendant really invested the amount of P400 which he owes the corporation in fixing one of its fish ponds. Lastly they agreed that they will also present evidence on whether or not plaintiff’s action has already prescribed.

    After the case was tried, the court rendered judgment dated October 14, 1936, the dispositive part of which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Wherefore, the court sentences defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P400 with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint, or on June 5, 1936 until fully paid, plus the costs. The counterclaim of defendant is overruled."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Thereafter, in view of the presentation of a motion for reconsideration and new trial by defendant calling the attention of the court to the prescription fixed by section 77 of Act No. 1459 known as the Corporation Law, the court issued an order dated November 2, 1936, the dispositive part of which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Wherefore, the decision of October 14th, of this year, is hereby amended by changing the last two paragraphs thereof so as to read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "‘As to the second contention of defendant that the action of plaintiff has prescribed, the court finds the same completely tenable, inasmuch as the action in this case was commenced on June 5, 1936, and the corporation "Devota de Nuestra Señora de la Correa" was dissolved on February 14, 1928, and according to section 77 of Act No. 1459 and the Supreme Court in the case of the Voluntary Dissolution of George O’Farrel & Co., Inc., China Banking Corporation and Leopoldo Kahn, versus M. Michelin & Co., the action should have been brought within the three years following dissolution.

    "‘Wherefore, the court dismisses the action of plaintiff, without costs. It is so ordered.’"

    From the foregoing decision plaintiff took the present appeal, assigning as sole alleged error committed by the court a quo in its order referred to, the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The court a quo erred in amending the decision rendered in this case, by virtue of the order dated November 2, 1936 sustaining the special defense of defendant, in the sense that the action of the plaintiff has prescribed in accordance with section 77 of Act No. 1459, and consequently in dismissing the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Before entering upon a consideration of the alleged error assigned by appellant, we shall deal with the preliminary question of procedural law raised by it, that is, whether the appeal has been brought out of time.

    The bill of exceptions shows that the order amending the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan dated October 14, 1936 was issued on November 2, 1936. It does not appear when plaintiff received notice of said order, but on November 27, 1936 he filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial of the aforementioned order of November 2, 1936, on the ground that the same was not in accordance with the evidence and was contrary to law. It must be supposed that he received said notice if not on November 26, 1936, the day preceding that of the filing of the motion for reconsideration and new trial, on the latter date. from November 2, 1936 when the amendatory order was issued up to the 26th of the same month and year on which it is supposed that he filed the motion for reconsideration and new trial, 24 days had elapsed, leaving plaintiff only 6 of the 30 days he had within which to file his motion for new trial, the running of which was suspended until the resolution of said motion for reconsideration and new trial by reason of the fact that the latter was based on one of the grounds enumerated in section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On December 22, 1936, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan issued an order denying said motion for new trial, plaintiff receiving notice of said order of denial on the 24th of the same month and year. On December 29, 1936, or five days after being notified of said order, plaintiff filed his exception thereto and notice that he would bring this case to this court by appeal. On January 8, 1937, or ten days after filing his exception and notice of a~ peal, he filed his bill of exceptions.

    The requirements prescribed by section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been complied with and in accordance with the rulings of this court, the appeal taken by plaintiff is timely.

    Passing now to discuss the question raised by plaintiff and appellant in his sole assignment of alleged error, section 77 of Act No. 1459 provides that "Every corporation whose charter expires by its own limitation or is annulled by forfeiture or otherwise, or whose corporate existence for other purposes is terminated in any other manner, shall nevertheless be continued as a body corporate for three years after the time when it would have been so dissolved, for the purpose of prosecuting and defending suits by or against it and of enabling it gradually to settle and close its affairs, to dispose of and convey its property and to divide its capital stock, but not for the purpose of continuing the business for which it was established." And section 78 of the same Act provides, "At any time during said three years said corporation is authorized and empowered to convey all of its property to trustees for the benefit of members, stockholders, creditors, and others interested. From and after any such conveyance by the corporation of its property in trust for the benefit of its members, stockholders, creditors, and others in interest, all interest which the corporation had in the property terminates, the legal interest vests in the trustees, and the beneficial interest in the members, stockholders, creditors, or other persons in interest."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Justice Fisher, formerly a member of this court, in his work The Philippine Law of Stock Corporations, pages 390, 391, says the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is to be noted that the time during which the corporation, through its own officers, may conduct the liquidation of its assets and sue and be sued as a corporation is limited to three years from the time the period of dissolution commences; but that there is no time limited within which the trustees must complete a liquidation placed in their hands. It is provided only (Corp. Law, sec. 78) that the conveyance to the trustees must be made within the three-year period. It may be found impossible to complete the work of liquidation within the three-year period or to reduce disputed claims to judgment. The authorities are to the effect that suits by or against a corporation abate when it ceases to be an entity capable of suing or being sued (7 R. C. L., Corps., par. 750); but trustees to whom the corporate assets have been conveyed pursuant to the authority of section 78 may sue and be sued as such in all matters connected with the liquidation. By the terms of the statute the effect of the conveyance is to make the trustees the legal owners of the property conveyed, subject t the beneficial interest therein of creditors and stockholders.

    Fletcher, in volume 8, page 9226, of his Encyclopędia, of Private Corporations, says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "6537. Effect of expiration of statutory extension of life. — In general. — The qualified existence after dissolution, as provided for by statute, terminates at the expiration of the time fixed, or, no time is fixed, at the expiration of a reasonable time. Where the extreme limit to which the statute has extended the life of a corporation after its dissolution has expired, it has no officers which can bind it by agreement, but only the statutory trustee. After the expiration of such time, it is generally held not only that the corporation cannot sue or be sued but that actions pending at such time are abated. But a statute authorizing the continuance of a corporation for three years to wind up its affairs, does not preclude an action to wind up brought after the three years."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the light of the legal provisions and authorities cited, interpretative of said laws, if the corporation carries out the liquidation of its assets through its own officers and continues and defends the actions brought by or against it, its existence shall terminate at the end of three years from the time of dissolution; but if a receiver or assignee is appointed, as has been done in the present case, with or without a transfer of its properties within three years, the legal interest passes to the assignee, the beneficial interest remaining in the members, stockholders, creditors and other interested persons; and said assignee may bring an action, prosecute that which has already been commenced for the benefit of the corporation, or defend the latter against any other action already instituted or which may be instituted even outside of the period of three years fixed for the officers of the corporation.

    For the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold that when a corporation is dissolved and the liquidation of its assets is placed in the hands of a receiver or assignee, the period of three years prescribed by section 77 of Act No. 1459 known as the Corporation Law is not applicable, and the assignee may institute all actions leading to the liquidation of the assets of the corporation even after the expiration of three years.

    Wherefore, the order appealed from is reversed and it is ordered that the case be remanded to the court of origin to the end that it may decide the same on the merits, with costs against the appellee.

    Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, Concepcion and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45486   May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA<br /><br />067 Phil 721


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED