Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3812 March 26, 1908 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. BARRY BALDWIN

010 Phil 595:



[G.R. No. L-3812. March 26, 1908. ]


Kinney Oldin and Lawrence and John W. Sleeper, for Appellant.

Hartigan, Rohde and Gutierrez, for Appellee.


1. CORPORATIONS; CONTRACT OF SALE; OF PROFITS. — A contract of sale of lands was made in December, 1903. The lands were not actually sold and conveyed and the purchase price paid until December, 1905. Held, That, for the purpose of division of the profits among the stockholders and directors interested, the profits from the sale and conveyance were not realized in the year 1903 but in the year 1905.

2. ID.; ACTION BY STOCKHOLDER TO RECOVER SHARE OF ASSETS. — A stockholder of a corporation, which is a going coercion, can not maintain an action against a corporation to compel the payment to him of his proportionate part of assets.



The plaintiff brought this action in the Court of First Instance for the city of Manila to recover on a promissory note for P10,000 signed by the defendant, dated December 27, 1905, and due June 28, 1906, Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff as prayed for in its complaint, and the defendant has appealed.

The execution of the note was admitted, but the defendant alleged in his answer that the plaintiff owed him more than P10,000 upon an unsettled account; that the P10,000 paid to the defendant by the plaintiff at the time the note was given was an advance payment on such account, and that the note was signed simply as a receipt therefor. Upon this question of fact the court below found against the defendant, and its finding is fully sustained by the evidence.

The other questions in the case arise upon the defendant’s counterclaim. Articles 30 to 33 of the statutes of the plaintiff company are as

"ART. 30. The net profits annually obtained shall be distributed upon approval, by the regular general meeting of stockholders to be held during the first half of the month of August, of the balance sheet and accounts for the corresponding period of the agricultural year; the latter shall be reckoned from the 1st day of July to the 30th of June of the following year.

"ART. 31. For such purpose, the accounts shall be closed and a balance struck upon the date last named; said accounts and balance sheet, together with the corresponding vouchers, shall be kept on view at the offices of the company, from the day of the publication of the first notice, upon those stockholders who may wish to examine the same upon previous deposit of their shares.

"ART. 32. From the amount of the net profits obtained, an amount equal to 6 per cent of the paid-up capital shall first be deducted and paid pro rata to the holders of the stock representing the said capital.

"ART. 33. The amount remaining, after the above deduction has been made, shall be distributed in the following

"Four per cent to the agent or general manager of the company.

"Three per cent to the chairman of the board of directors.

"Another 3 per cent to the other members of the said board to be prorated according to the number of sessions at which they may have been present.

"Twenty per cent shall be devoted to the creation of a reserve fund until the same shall amount to 20 per cent of the corporate capital.

"The balance of 70 per cent shall be distributed, together with the 6 per cent of the capital referred to in the foregoing number, among the stockholders, in proportion to the capital which their shares in the company represent, and in exchange for the corresponding coupon wherein the amount of the profits paid upon each shares shall be stated."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defendant with others, was a director of the plaintiff company from its organization in 1900 to the 24th of February, 1904. He claims to be entitled to P18,000 or more for his services as director by virtue of the provisions of the articles above quoted.

The only profits realized by the company prior to February 24, 1904, if there were any, were those accruing from the sale by the company of its lands to the Government. If the profits from that sale did not accrue in 1904, then the defendant is entitled to nothing on his counterclaim.

On December 22, 1903, the Government of the Philippine Islands made a contract with the plaintiff by which the latter agreed to sell and convey to the former lands owned by it in the Islands, and the Government agreed to pay therefor 83,671,657, in money of the United States, subject to the following

"That if the Government of the Philippine Islands shall notify the Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company, Limited, that the area of any hacienda that is described in the title deed thereof falls short of the superficial area thereof as shown by Villegas’s survey of the same, then the parties hereto shall cause a joint survey of the same to be made by an agent of each: and if the true survey shall show the area of the hacienda to be less than that as stated by Villegas in the list hereinbefore set forth, then the price herein agreed to be paid shall be abated by an amount to be ascertained by multiplying the number of hectares short into the average value of a hectare in the hacienda in question as shown by dividing Villegas’s total valuation of such hacienda by the total number of hectares contained therein according to his survey, plus 25 per cent thereof; and if, on the other hand, the true survey shall show an excess of hectares over the amount reported by Villegas, then the price to be paid shall be increased by an amount ascertained in a similar manner."cralaw virtua1aw library

The company also agreed to present evidence of its titles to the lands for examination by counsel for the Government. The contract contained also the following

"The Government of the Philippine Islands agrees to make effort to sell the bonds an obtained the proceeds as soon as is practicable, and the time for the consummation of this contract by the conveyance of a good and marketable title by the Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company, Limited, and the payment of the purchase price by the Government of the Philippine Islands is fixed as of the end of the period within which such bonds may be engraved, advertised, sold, and the proceeds thereof realized, and the necessary surveys and necessary investigation of the title be made by prompt action of the Philippine Government, not exceeding six months from the date of this contract."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is apparent that this document evidence not a sale of the lands, but a contract to sell them. After its execution, the land still remained the property of the company. The price was subject to change according as surveys by the Government should show more or less land than the amount shown by the survey of Villegas. The evidence shows that after the signing of the contract serious difficulties arose between the plaintiff and the Government as to the quantity of land and the condition of the titles of the plaintiff thereto. So serious were these difficulties that on September 7, 1904, the manager of the plaintiff notified the Governor-General of the Islands that if the sale was not consummated on the 22d of that month, the company would rescind it, and on the 8th day of December he cabled the Secretary of War to the same effect. The sale was not, in fact, made and the price paid by the Government until some time in 1905. It might, however, never have been consummated. Any agreement to sell is liable to be defeated by disagreement between the parties as to its terms, or by their failure or inability to carry it out, and it can not be said that at the time of executing it any profit results from a contract to make a sale in the future. It is only when the sale in fact made that the profit accrues. Manufacturing concerns contract for the sale of their goods in the future. The capacity of their plants may be engaged for a year ahead. We do not understand that when such a company makes a contract to deliver in one year from the date of the contract articles not yet manufactured that it considers that the profit it expects to make if the agreement is carried out has already been made at the time the contract is signed, and that it then enters such profits on its books. Such profits are not made and to entry thereof appears in its accounts until the goods are manufactured and delivered and the price paid.

It appears from the evidence in this case that the plaintiff took off balances from its books from time to time, apparently at the end of each month. There appear in the record the balances for every month from December, 1903, to August, 1904, In each one of these balances the lands, the subject of the contract with the Government, appear among the assets of the company, and there appears an item of losses and no item of profits. The only balances in evidence from which the lands have disappeared and in which profits appear are those of October and November, 1905. The company did not consider that it had, in December, 1903, made any profit out of this transaction and no entry thereof appears in its books. The balance of June 30, 1904, was approved by the board of directors at the meeting held on July 30, 1904. It shows no profits.

It thus appears (1) that no balance showing a profit was ever approved by the stockholders prior to 1905, as required by the articles above quoted; (2) that no entries appear upon the books from which a balance showing a profit prior to that time could have been obtained; and (3) that no profits in fact were realized by company during that period.

Among the cases cited by the defendant in his brief is Scace v. Gillette-Herzog Manufacturing Company (55 Minn., 349). In that case it was admitted that there were profits which had not been divided. In the case of Elbert v. Haebler (149 N. Y., 343) the parties had agreed as to what the profits were. Neither of these cases has any bearing upon the question as to whether the profits accruing from the sale of the lands to the Government were realized in 1903 or in 1905.

It is claimed by the defendant that these profits were the difference between the capital stock of the company and the amount paid by the Government, or about P1,800,000. The plaintiff claims that the amount realized from the sale of this real estate, which was practically all of the property of the company, can not be considered as profits realized from the operations of the company for the purposes of the statutes above-quoted. We do not find it necessary to decide this question for, if the defendant were correct in his claims, it would not avail him, for he has not proven that such profits were realized while he was a director.

Considerable space is devoted in the defendant’s brief to a discussion concerning the number of shares of stock owned by him, how he acquired it, and the rights to other stock which he surrendered in 1903. We do not see how the matters thus discussed are important. The defendant’s term of office as director expired in 1903, but he was continued provisionally until February 24, 1904. At the election then held he was not chosen as a director. The stockholders, by failing to reelect him violated no right to which he was entitled. Any promises which may have been made in the autumn of 1903 by some of the officers to the effect that he would be continued as director would bind neither the stockholders nor the company.

The defendant in his counterclaim asked for the appointment of a receiver for the company. As said by the court below, neither his counterclaim nor his proof made any case for the appointment of a receiver within the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to that subject.

He also asked in his counterclaim that he paid that part of the assets of the company to which he was entitled by reason of his ownership of forty-nine shares of the capital stock. A stockholder in a corporation, which is a going concern, is entitled to no such relief.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres and Mapa, JJ., concur.

Johnson and Carson, JJ., dissent.

Tracey, J., did not sit in this case.

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