Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4237 March 5, 1908 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. JOSE MCMICKING

010 Phil 286:



[G.R. No. L-4237. March 5, 1908. ]

SERAFIN UY PIAOCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSE MCMICKING, sheriff of the city of Manila, ANTONIO R. BAYAN JU, YAP QUI CHIN AND KHY PACK, Defendants-Appellees.

Chicote and Miranda, for Appellant.

Hartigan, Rohde and Gutierrez, for Appellees.


1. CORPORATIONS; STOCK AND STOCKHOLERS. — A bona fide contract of purchase and sale of stock in a company or corporation set out in a notarial document conveys to the vendee, as between the vendor and vendee, the entire title, legal and equitable, of the vendor; although as between the vendee and the company or corporation the vendee acquires only an equitable title, which the company or corporation is bound to recognized and permit to be ripened into a legal title when he presents himself to do the acts requires by the charter or by-laws in order to make a transfer.



Each of the defendants Antonio R. Bayan Ju, Yap Qui Chin and Khy Pack, in the course of certain proceedings instituted by them against one Uy Chiam Liong, procured the issuance of orders for the attachments of his property. In pursuance of these orders, attachments were levied by the defendant Jose McMicking, sheriff of the city of Manila, on or about the 26th, 28th and 29th of January, 1907, on certain certificates of stock of the "Yuen Sheng Exchange, Trading and Loan Company, of Manila," alleged to be the property of Uy Chiam Liong, and which were found in the possession of the manager of that company, held by him as security for a certain debt due the company by Uy Chiam Liong.

The plaintiff alleges that he is the owner of the stock thus attached, having purchased it of Uy Chiam Liong on the 17th of March, 1906, and prays that the attachments be dissolved and that the stock be restored to its legitimate owner.

An examination of the pleadings and the evidence of record discloses:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That in a notarial document dated January 17, 1906, purporting to be a contract of purchase and sale, the said Uy Chiam Liong made use of the following

"Whereof, the said debtors [referring to himself and another] sell and transfer to the said creditor [referring to the plaintiff in this action] the following property: 400 shares of stock in the "Yuen Sheng Company of Manila," valued at P100 each. Said shares are in the name of Uy Chiam Liong, who has paid the said company for them the sum of P50 per share, and the said Uy Chiam Liong has borrowed of the said company the sum of P10,000 and has pledged the said shares in favor of the said company in order to secure the payment of the said loan; therefore, it is hereby agreed that the actual value of said shares is P9,000."cralaw virtua1aw library

Second. That the shares of stock mentioned in the foregoing citation from the notarial documents are the identical shares of stock, the subject-matter of this litigation.

Third. That the certificates evidencing these shares of stock, under the charter or by laws of the said company, were transferable only by indorsement and the issue of new scrip to the purchaser by the company upon the surrender of the duly indorsed certificate of the vendor.

Fourth. That the certificates of stock not being in the immediate possession and control of the vendor at the time of said alleged sale, no indorsement thereof was made in accordance with the by-laws of the company, nor is there any evidence in the record that the company was notified of the alleged sale.

Fifth. That aside from the relation of the fact, as set out in the above citation of the notarial document of January 17, 1906, there is no evidence of record as to whether, at the time of the alleged sale, the certificates of stock were held by the agent of the company, as therein stated.

Sixth. That on or about the 26th, 28th and 29th of January, 1907, the defendant sheriff, at the instance of his codefendants, attached the certificates of stock in question, in the hands of the agent of the bank, who at that time held them as security for a loan from the bank, for an amount equal to the amount for which it appears from the notarial document they had been pledged at the time of the execution of that instrument.

Seventh. That some time during the month of April, 1906, a note was executed evidencing the amount of the indebtedness of Uy Chiam Liong to the company and that neither this note nor any part thereof has been paid.

The trial court appears to have been of opinion that the recital in the notarial document, dated January 17, 1906, of the existence of a loan to the original owner of the stock for which the certificates had hypothecated, taken together with the proof that a note evidencing the said indebtedness was executed in the month of April following, casts doubt upon the good faith and genuineness of the transaction set out in the notarial document, and even upon the date of the execution of the notarial document itself. We do not think that the evidence justifies this conclusion. The evidence as to the execution of the note in April, 1906, while uncontradicted, is unsatisfactory, and there is nothing in the record showing the circumstances under which the note was executed. But, assuming as we do that the execution of this note was sufficiently proven, there does not appear to be anything inconsistent in the fact that a debt existed in January, 1906, secured by the pledge of the certificates of stock in question, and in the fact that a note was afterwards executed evidencing that debt. The note may have been the renewal of a former note, or it may have been given on account of the indebtedness existing therefore but not evidenced by a formal written instrument. In any event, we do not deem the testimony in support of the execution of this note, or even absolute proof of its execution, as sufficient in any way to cast a cloud upon the genuineness of the notarial document in question, or of the transactions evidenced thereby.

The only question for consideration, therefore, is whether the ownership and title to the stock in question (subject of course to the lien mentioned in the deed of sale) passed from the original owner to the plaintiff in this action by virtue of the contract of purchase and sale evidenced by the notarial document, despite the fact that the certificates of stock were not indorsed over to the purchaser and new certificates issued to him in accordance with the provisions of the charter or by-laws of the company. If it did, subsequent attachments levied thereon in actions instituted against the original owner were clearly improperly levied and should be dissolved.

Similar questions have been discussed at length in many of the courts of last resort in the United States, and we think the better doctrine is well stated in the case of New York and New Haven R. R. Co. v. Schuyler (34 N. Y., 79)

"Where the stock of a corporation is, by the terms of its charter or by-laws transferable only on its books, the purchaser who receives a certificate, with power of attorney, gets the entire title, legal and equitable, as between himself and his seller, with all the rights the latter possessed; but as between himself and the corporation he acquires only an equitable title, which they are bound to recognize and permit to be ripened into a legal title, when he presents himself, before any effective transfer on the books has been made, to do the acts required by the charter or by-laws in order to make a transfer. Until those acts be done he is not a stockholder, and has no claim to act as such, but possesses, as between himself and the corporation, by virtue of the certificate and power, the right to make himself, or whomsoever he chooses, a stockholder by the prescribed transfer. The stock not having passed by the delivery of the certificate and power of attorney, the legal title remains in the seller so far as affects the company and subsequent bona fide purchasers who take by transfer duly made on the books . . .The nonproduction and surrender of the certificates at the time of the transfer is not fatal to the title of the transferee. It is only essential to the safety of the corporation, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

So in the Martin Lund Et. Al. v. Wheaton Roller Mill Company (50 Minn., 36) it was held that —

"A sale and transfer of corporate stock, although not entered on the books of the corporation, is effectual as between the parties, and takes precedence of a subsequent attachment in behalf of a creditor of the vendor."cralaw virtua1aw library

And in the case of Smith v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company (30 La. An. Rep., 1378) it was held that —

"The bona fide sale of the stock of an incorporated company, coupled with a power of attorney to the vendee to transfer it on the books of the company, is made complete by the delivery to the vendee of the certificate of stock. It is not necessary to the perfection of the sale, and the consequent protection of the stock from the seizure of the vendor’s creditors, that notice of the sale should be served on the corporation, or that an actual transfer of the stock should have been made on its books."cralaw virtua1aw library

See also 129 and Mass., 435; 1 74 Mo., 77. 2

Statutory provisions and by-laws of companies or corporations which require transfers of stock to be recorded on the books of such companies or corporations regulate merely the respective rights of the corporation and the individual stockholder. No one can claim to be a stockholder, and to exercise the rights of a member of such company or corporation, in virtue of a sale to him, until the corporation has taken cognizance of the sale, and, by transfer on its books, has substituted the purchaser for the vendor; for whether one has acquired the rights of a member of a company or corporation is a question to be determined by the laws of the company or corporations, promulgated in conformity with statutory regulations. But the question whether a purchaser has acquired a good and perfect title to any property or things, tangible or intangible, is a question solely to be determined by the provisions of general law touching the sale and transfer of such objects.

An immense amount of wealth is invested in stocks of the increasing number of companies and corporations which have come into existence in the response to the demands of modern business methods, and unless required so to do by express and explicit statutory provision, we would be loath to interpret regulations, apparently intended merely to provide for the general management and administration of companies or corporations, so as to limit or restrict the right of individual members in disposing or hypothecating their certificates of stock, evidencing their individual interests in such companies or corporations; for —

"Although neither in form or character negotiable paper, they (certificates of stock) approximate to it as nearly as practicable. They have become the basis of commercial transactions in all the large cities of the country, and are sold in open market the same as other securities." (Lanier’s Case, 11 Wallace, 377).

Certificates of stock afford a convenient and valuable basis of credit, and they are sold and pledged to a large amount daily at all great commercial centers, but their usefulness would be largely curtailed if it were necessary to record every transaction in such stocks in the office of the company, or to have new certificates issued before transfer of ownership therein could take effect.

Our attention has not been directed to any existing law which prohibits the transfer of ownership in stocks by delivery of the certificates and under the provisions of article 1462 of the Civil Code a formal contract of purchase and sale set out in a notarial document, as in the case under consideration, is equivalent to the actual delivery of the certificates themselves.

Articles 162 and 163 of the Commercial Code provide for the registration of stock and recording of transfers thereof in certain cases. But, as has been said, such statutory provisions merely regulate the respective rights of the corporation and the individual stockholder, and viewed aright such statutory provisions as well as charter regulations and by-laws of companies or corporations prescribing certain formalities in the transfer of stock, instead of limiting and restricting the right of the individual stockholder to transfer his interest freely to another, really serve to make such transfers practicable and secure, by giving the purchaser to understand that so long as the certificates of stock have not been surrendered, the company or corporation hold such stock for the benefit of and subject to the claim of him who holds the certificates.

We are of opinion therefore that all the right, title, and interest of Uy Chiam Liong in and to the stock in question vested in the plaintiff on the 17th day of January, 1906, the date of the contract of purchase and sale evidenced by the notarial document. Hence subsequent attachments levied on this stock at the issuance of creditors of Uy Chiam Liong are invalid and should be dissolved.

The judgment of the trial court should therefore be reversed without costs to either party, and the present status of the attachment proceedings under review not being quite clear from the record brought here on appeal, this judgment of reversal will be entered in ten days, and twenty days thereafter the record will be returned to the trial court, where judgment will be entered in accordance with the principles laid down herein and the proper orders issued to protect the rights of the parties. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.


1. Boston Music Hall Association v. Cory Et. Al.

2. Merchants National Bank v. Richards.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

March-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3457 March 2, 1908 - YU BUNUAN ET AL. v. ORESTES MARCAIDA

    010 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4065 March 2, 1908 - BRUNO VILLANUEVA v. MAXIMA ROQUE

    010 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-3717 March 5, 1908 - FELIX VELASCO v. MARTIN MASA

    010 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-4237 March 5, 1908 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 286


    010 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 4438 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SUNGA, ET AL

    011 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3811 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BLANCO

    010 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-4026 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL DULAY

    010 Phil 302


    010 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 4131 March 9, 1908 - SERAPIO AVERIA v. LUCIO REBOLDERA

    010 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 4347 March 9, 1908 - JOSE ROGERS v. SMITH

    010 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 3279 March 11, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    010 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-2129 March 12, 1908 - C. HEINZEN & CO. v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    010 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-3523 March 12, 1908 - CARIDAD MUGURUZA v. INT’L. BANKING CORP.

    010 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3855 March 12, 1908 - EUFEMIA LORETO v. JULIO HERRERA

    010 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-3907 March 12, 1908 - ROMAN ABAYA v. DONATA ZALAMERO

    010 Phil 357


    010 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. L-4087 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AMADOR BARRIOS

    010 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. L-4341 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ROJO

    010 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-469 March 13, 1908 - T. H. PARDO DE TAVERA v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    010 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3848 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES GIMENO

    010 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 4146 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PETRA DE GUZMAN

    010 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-3951 March 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    010 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-4169 March 14, 1908 - WILHELM BAUERMANN v. MAXIMA CASAS

    010 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-4205 March 16, 1908 - JULIAN CABAÑAS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    010 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. L-4077 March 17, 1908 - MACARIA MATIAS v. AGUSTIN ALVAREZ

    010 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-4127 March 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES J. KOSEL

    010 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4051 March 18, 1908 - CATALINA BERNARDO v. VICENTE GENATO

    011 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-3606 March 18, 1908 - IGNACIO ACASIO v. FELICISIMA ALBANO

    010 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3699 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO CUSI

    010 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-4007 March 18, 1908 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. E. DIAZ & CO.

    010 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-4213 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO REYES

    010 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-4233 March 18, 1908 - EXEQUIEL DELGADO v. MANUEL RIESGO

    010 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-4318 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GENEROSO ACADEMIA

    010 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-4147 March 19, 1908 - AGRIPINO DE LA RAMA v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    010 Phil 432


    010 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-3904 March 20, 1908 - KO POCO v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-4104 March 20, 1908 - JAO IGCO v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    010 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-4155 March 20, 1908 - RUPERTO BELZUNCE v. VALENTINA FERNANDEZ

    010 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-4158 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CARIÑO

    010 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4196 March 20, 1908 - BENWIT ULLMANN v. FELIX ULLMANN and CO.

    010 Phil 459


    010 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-4399 March 20, 1908 - BENITO LEGARDA v. S. L. P. ROCHA Y RUIZDELGADO

    010 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. L-4436 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO DI TIAN LAY

    010 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 4109 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA TORRES

    011 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-3968 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS LOPEZ

    010 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3975 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MARIN

    010 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-4167 March 21, 1908 - RAFAELA SALMO v. LUISA ICAZA

    010 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-4300 March 21, 1908 - MARIA BARRETTO v. LEONA REYES

    010 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-4324 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO OLLALES

    010 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3550 March 23, 1908 - GO CHIOCO v. INCHAUSTI & CO.

    010 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-3780 March 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SELLANO

    010 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-4132 March 23, 1908 - IN RE: MARIA SIASON Y MADRID DE LEDESMA

    010 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-4215 March 23, 1908 - LUCIO I. LIMPANGCO v. JUANA MERCADO

    010 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-4274 March 23, 1908 - JOSE ALANO v. JOSE BABASA

    010 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-4352 March 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO BAYOT

    010 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2674 March 25, 1908 - JOAQUIN JOVER Y COSTAS v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    010 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-3357 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. W. PRAUTCH

    010 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-4012 March 25, 1908 - MAXIMO CORTES Y PROSPERO v. CITY OF MANILA

    010 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. L-4063 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARIÑO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. L-4091 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE BACHO

    010 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-4354 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO POBLETE

    010 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-4418 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES V. ESTRADA

    010 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-3339 March 26, 1908 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    010 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3812 March 26, 1908 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. BARRY BALDWIN

    010 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-4100 March 26, 1908 - MARIA SINGAYAN v. CALIXTA MABBORANG

    010 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-4121 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GARCIA

    010 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-4175 March 26, 1908 - A. W. BEAN v. B. W. CADWALLADER CO.

    010 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-4207 March 26, 1908 - JUAN VALLE v. SIXTO GALERA

    010 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. L-4265 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS PASCUAL

    010 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-4322 March 26, 1908 - INOCENTE MARTINEZ v. G. E. CAMPBELL

    010 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-4376 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SIP

    010 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-4420 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CAGUIMBAL

    010 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 4160 March 26, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO MATTI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 3539 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    011 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4372 March 27, 1908 - ENRIQUE M. BARRETTO v. CITY OF MANILA

    011 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3612 March 27, 1908 - DOMINGO LIM v. JOSE LIM

    010 Phil 633


    010 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-4037 March 27, 1908 - LIM JAO LU v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-4200 March 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE

    010 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4203 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL CRAME SY PANCO v. RICARDO GONZAGA

    010 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-4469A March 27, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-4017 March 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MARIÑO

    010 Phil 652


    010 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-4198 March 30, 1908 - JUAN MERCADO v. JOSE ABANGAN

    010 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-4222 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CERNIAS

    010 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-4281 March 30, 1908 - JOSE GARRIDO v. AGUSTIN ASENCIO

    010 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-4377 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GARCIA GAVIERES

    010 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-3469 March 31, 1908 - JOSEFA AGUIRRE v. MANUEL VILLABA

    010 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-4078 March 31, 1908 - CONCEPCION MENDIOLA v. NICOLASA PACALDA

    010 Phil 705


    010 Phil 707