Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-33172 October 18, 1979
ERNESTO CEASE, CECILIA CEASE, MARION CEASE, TERESA CEASE-LACEBAL
!" t#e $.L. CEASE PLANTATION CO., INC. % Tr&%tee o' (ro(ert)e% o' t#e
"e'&!ct TIAONG MILLING * PLANTATION CO.,petitioners,
vs.
+ONORABLE COURT O$ APPEALS, ,S(ec)- Se.e!t# /).)%)o!0, +ON.
MANOLO L. MA//ELA, Pre%)")!1 2&"1e, Co&rt o' $)r%t I!%t!ce o' 3&e4o!,
BEN2AMIN CEASE !" $LORENCE CEASE, respondents.
GUERRERO, J:
ppeal b! certiorari fro" the decision of the #ourt of ppeals in #$%.R. No. &'&(&,
entitled )*rnesto #ease, et al. vs. +on. Manolo ,. Maddela, -ud.e of the #ourt of First
Instance of /ue0on, et al.)
1
1hich dis"issed the petition for certiorari, "anda"us,
and prohibition instituted b! the petitioners a.ainst the respondent 2ud.e and the
private respondents.
The antecedents of the case, as found b! the appellate court, are as follo1s3
IT R*S4,TIN%3 That the antecedents are not di5cult to
understand6 so"eti"e in -une 789:, one Forrest ,. #ease co""on
predecessor in interest of the parties to.ether 1ith ;ve <'= other
"erican citi0ens or.ani0ed the Tiaon. Millin. and Plantation
#o"pan! and in the course of its corporate e>istence the
co"pan! ac?uired various properties but at the sa"e ti"e all the
other ori.inal incorporators 1ere bou.ht out b! Forrest ,. #ease
to.ether 1ith his children na"el! *rnest, #ecilia, Teresita,
@en2a"in, Florence and one @onifacia Tirante also considered a
"e"ber of the fa"il!6 the charter of the co"pan! lapsed in -une
78':6 but 1hether there 1ere steps to li?uidate it, the record is
silent6 on 7A u.ust 78'8, Forrest ,. #ease died and b!
e>tra2udicial partition of his shares, a"on. the children, this 1as
disposed of on 78 October 78'86 it 1as here 1here the trouble
a"on. the" ca"e to arise because it 1ould appear that @en2a"in
and Florence 1anted an actual division 1hile the other children
1anted reincorporation6 and proceedin. on that, these other
children *rnesto, Teresita and #ecilia and afore"entioned other
stocBholder @onifacia Tirante proceeded to incorporate the"selves
into the F.,. #ease Plantation #o"pan! and re.istered it 1ith the
Securities and *>chan.e #o""ission on 8 Dece"ber, 78'86
apparentl! in vie1 of that, @en2a"in and Florence for their part
initiated a Special Proceedin. No. A:8A of the #ourt of First
Instance of Ta!abas for the settle"ent of the estate of Forest ,.
#ease on C7 pril, 78D9 and one "onth after1ards on 78 Ma!
78D9 the! ;led #ivil #ase No. DACD a.ainst *rnesto, Teresita and
#ecilia #ease to.ether 1ith @onifacia Tirante asBin. that the
Tiaon. Millin. and Plantation #orporation be declared Identical to
F.,. #ease and that its properties be divided a"on. his children as
his intestate heirs6 this #ivil #ase 1as resisted b! aforestated
defendants and not1ithstandin. eEorts of the plaintiEs to have the
properties placed under receivership, the! 1ere not able to
succeed because defendants ;led a bond to re"ain as the! have
re"ained in possession6 after that and alread!, durin. the
pendenc! of #ivil #ase No. DACD speci;call! on C7 Ma!, 78D7
apparentl! on the eve of the e>pir! of the three <A= !ear period
provided b! the la1 for the li?uidation of corporations, the board
of li?uidators of Tiaon. Millin. e>ecuted an assi.n"ent and
conve!ance of properties and trust a.ree"ent in favor of F.,.
#ease Plantation #o. Inc. as trustee of the Tiaon. Millin. and
Plantation #o. so #hat upon "otion of the plaintiEs trial -ud.e
ordered that this alle.ed trustee be also included as part!
defendant6 no1 this bein. the situation, it 1ill be re"e"bered that
there 1ere thus t1o <C= proceedin.s pendin. in the #ourt of First
Instance of /ue0on na"el! #ivil #ase No. DACD and Special
Proceedin. No. A:8A but both of these 1ere assi.ned to the
+onorable Respondent -ud.e Manolo ,. Maddela p. &A and the
case 1as ;nall! heard and sub"itted upon stipulation of facts pp,
A&$779, rollo6 and trial -ud.e b! decision dated C( Dece"ber 78D8
held for the plaintiEs @en2a"in and Florence, the decision
containin. the follo1in. dispositive part3
VI*F*D IN T+* ,I%+T OF ,, T+* FOR*%OIN%,
2ud."ent is hereb! rendered in favor of plaintiEs
and a.ainst the defendants declarin. that3
7= The assets or properties of the defunct Tiaon.
Millin. and Plantation #o"pan! no1 appearin.
under the na"e of F.,. #ease Plantation
#o"pan! as Trustee, is the estate also of the
deceased Forrest ,. #ease and ordered divided,
share and share aliBe, a"on. his si> children the
plaintiEs and the defendants in accordance 1ith
Rule D8, Rules of #ourt6
C= The Resolution to Sell dated October 7C, 78'8
and the Transfer and #onve!ance 1ith Trust
.ree"ent is hereb! set aside as i"proper and
ille.al for the purposes and eEect that it 1as
intended and, therefore, null and void6
A= That F.,. #ease Plantation #o"pan! is
re"oved as GTrustee for interest a.ainst the
estate and essential to the protection of
plaintiEsG ri.hts and is hereb! ordered to deliver
and conve! all the properties and assets of the
defunct Tiaon. Millin. no1 under its na"e,
custod! and control to 1ho"soever be
appointed as Receiver $ dis?ualif!in. and of the
parties herein $ the latter to act accordin.l! upon
proper assu"ption of o5ce6 and
&= Special Proceedin.s No. A:8A for
ad"inistration is ter"inated and dis"issed6 the
instant case to proceed but on issues of
da"a.es onl! and for such action inherentl!
essential for partition.
SO ORD*R*D.
,ucena #it!, Dece"ber C(, 78D8., pp. 7CC$a$
7CA, rollo.
upon receipt of that, defendants there ;lled a notice of appeal p.
7C8, rollo to.ether 1ith an appeal bond and a record on appeal
but the plaintiEs "oved to dis"iss the appeal on the .round that
the 2ud."ent 1as in fact interlocutor! and not appealable p. 7D:
rollo and this position of defendants 1as sustained b! trial -ud.e,
+is +onor rulin. that
IN VI*F OF T+* FOR*%OIN%, the appeal
interposed b! plaintiEs is hereb! dis"issed as
pre"ature and the Record on ppeal is
necessaril! disapproved as i"proper at this
sta.e of the proceedin.s.
SO ORD*R*D.
,ucena #it!, pril C(, 78(9.
and so it 1as said defendants brou.ht the "atter ;rst to the
Supre"e #ourt, on "anda"us on C9 Ma!, 78(9 to co"pel the
appeal and certiorari and prohibition to annul the order of C( pril,
78(9 on the .round that the decision 1as )patentl! erroneous) p.
7D, rollo6 but the Supre"e #ourt re"anded the case to this #ourt
of ppeals b! resolution of C( Ma! 78(9, p. 7(A, and this #ourt of
ppeals on 7 -ul! 78(9 p. 7(' dis"issed the petition so far as the
"anda"us 1as concerned taBin. the vie1 that the decision
sou.ht to be appealed dated C( Dece"ber, 78D8 1as interlocutor!
and not appealable but on "otion for reconsideration of
petitioners and since there 1as possible "erit so far as its pra!er
for certiorari and prohibition 1as concerned, b! resolution of the
#ourt on 78 u.ust, 78(9, p. CAC, the petition 1as per"itted to .o
ahead in that capacit!6 and it is the position of petitioners that the
decision of C( Dece"ber, 78D8 as 1ell as the order of C( pril,
78(9 suEered of certain fatal defects, 1hich respondents den! and
on their part raise the preli"inar! point that this #ourt of ppeals
has no authorit! to .ive relief to petitioners because not
in aid of its appellate 2urisdiction,
and that the ?uestions presented cannot be raised for the ;rst
ti"e before this #ourt of ppeals6
Respondent #ourt of ppeals in its decision pro"ul.ated Dece"ber 8, 78(9
dis"issed the petition 1ith costs a.ainst petitioners, hence the present petition to
this #ourt on the follo1in. assi.n"ent of errors3
T+* #O4RT OF PP*,S *RR*D $
I. IN SN#TIONIN% T+* FRON%F4, *H*R#IS* OF -4RISDI#TION @*IOND T+* ,IMITS
OF 4T+ORITI #ONF*RR*D @I ,F 4PON T+* ,OF*R #O4RT, F+*N IT
PRO#**D*D TO +*R, D-4D%* ND D-4DI#T* $
<a= Special Proceedin.s No. A:8A for the settle"ent of the *state
of Forrest ,. #ease, si"ultaneousl! and concurrentl! 1ith $
<b= #ivil #ase No. DACD, 1herein the lo1er #ourt ordered Partition
under Rule D8, Rules of #ourt $
T+* ISS4* OF ,*%, OFN*RS+IP OF T+* PROP*RTI*S #OMMON,I INVO,V*D IN
@OT+ #TIONS +VIN% @**N RIS*D T T+* O4TS*T @I T+* TION% MI,,IN% ND
P,NTTION #OMPNI, S T+* R*%IST*R*D OFN*R OF S4#+ PROP*RTI*S 4ND*R
#T &8D.
II. IN FFIRMIN% $ 4NS4PPORT*D @I NI *VID*N#* F+TSO*V*R NOR #ITTION OF
NI ,F TO -4STIFI $ T+* 4NFRRNT*D #ON#,4SION T+T S4@-*#T PROP*RTI*S,
FO4ND @I T+* ,OF*R #O4RT ND T+* #O4RT OF PP*,S S #T4,,I
R*%IST*R*D IN T+* NM* OF P*TITION*R #ORPORTION NDJOR ITS PR*D*#*SSOR
IN INT*R*ST, T+* TION% MI,,IN% ND P,NTTION #OMPNI, D4RIN% ,, T+* '9
I*RS OF ITS #ORPORT* *HIST*N#* )R* ,SO PROP*RTI*S OF T+* *STT* OF
FOR*ST ,. #*S*.)
III. IN FFIRMIN% T+* R@ITRRI #ON#,4SION OF T+* ,OF*R #O4RT T+T ITS
D*#ISION OF D*#*M@*R C(,78D8 IS N )INT*R,4#4TORI D*#ISION.) IN DISMISS*D
N% T+* P*TITION FOR FRIT OF MNDM4S, ND IN FFIRMIN% T+* MNIF*ST,I
4N-4ST -4D%M*NT R*ND*R*D F+I#+ #ONTRDI#TS T+* FINDIN%S OF 4,TIMT*
F#TS T+*R*IN #ONTIN*D.
Durin. the period that ensued after the ;lin. in this #ourt of the respective briefs
and the subse?uent sub"ission of the case for decision, so"e incidents had
transpired, the su""ar! of 1hich "a! be stated as follo1s3
7. Separate fro" this present appeal, petitioners ;led a petition for certiorari and
prohibition in this #ourt, docBeted as %.R. No. ,$A'DC8 <*rnesto #ease, et al. vs. +on.
Manolo ,. Maddela, et al.= 1hich challen.ed the order of respondent 2ud.e dated
Septe"ber C(, 78(C appointin. his @ranch #lerB of #ourt, Mr. *leno M. -o!as, as
receiver of the properties sub2ect of the appealed civil case, 1hich order, petitioners
sa1 as a virtual e>ecution of the lo1er courtGs 2ud."ent <p. 8C, rollo=. In Our
resolution of Nove"ber 7A, 78(C, issued in %.R. No. ,$A'DC8, the petition 1as
denied since respondent 2ud.e "erel! appointed an au>illiar! receiver for the
preservation of the properties as 1ell as for the protection of the interests of all
parties in #ivil #ase No. DACD6 but at the sa"e ti"e, Fe e>pressed Our displeasure
in the appoint"ent of the branch clerB of court or an! other court personnel for that
"atter as receiver. <p. 79C, rollo=.
C. Mean1hile, sensin. that the appointed receiver 1as "aBin. so"e atte"pts to
taBe possession of the properties, petitioners ;led in this present appeal an ur.ent
petition to restrain proceedin.s in the lo1er court. Fe resolved the petition on
-anuar! C8, 78(' b! issuin. a correspondin. te"porar! restrainin. order en2oinin.
the court a ?uo fro" i"ple"entin. its decision of Dece"ber C(, 78D8, "ore
particularl!, the taBin. over b! a receiver of the properties sub2ect of the liti.ation,
and private respondents @en2a"in and Florence #ease fro" proceedin. or taBin.
an! action on the "atter until further orders fro" this #ourt <pp. 88$799, rollo=.
Private respondents ;led a "otion for reconsideration of Our resolution of -anuar!
C8, 78('. fter 1ei.hin. the ar.u"ents of the parties and taBin. note of Our
resolution in %.R. No. ,$A'DC8 1hich upheld the appoint"ent of a receiver, Fe
issued another resolution dated pril 77, 78(' liftin. eEective i""ediatel! Our
previous te"porar! restrainin. order 1hich enforced the earlier resolution of -anuar!
C8, 78(' <pp. 7&9$7&7, rollo=.
A. On Februar! D, 78(D, private respondents ;led an ur.ent petition to restrain
proceedin.s belo1 in vie1 of the precipitate replace"ent of the court appointed
receiver Ma!or Francisco *scueta <vice Mr. *leno M. -o!as= and the appoint"ent of
Mr. %uiller"o ,a.rosa on the eve of respondent -ud.e MaddelaGs retire"ent <p. 7DD,
rollo=. The ur.ent petition 1as denied in Our resolution of Februar! 7:, 78(D <p. 7(D,
rollo=.
&. Several atte"pts at a co"pro"ise a.ree"ent failed to "ateriali0e. Tentative
#o"pro"ise .ree"ent dated -ul! A9, 78(' 1as presented to the #ourt on u.ust
D, 78(D for the si.nature of the parties, but respondents )uncere"oniousl!)
repudiated the sa"e b! leavin. the courtroo" 1ithout the per"ission of the court
<#ourt of First Instance of /ue0on, @ranch 77= as a result of 1hich respondents and
their counsel 1ere cited for conte"pt <p. 78', 78(, rollo= that respondentsG reason
for the repudiation appears to be petitionersG failure to render an audited account of
their ad"inistration coverin. the period fro" Ma! A7, 78D7 up to -anuar! C8, 78(&,
plus the inclusion of a provision on 1aiver and relin?uish"ent b! respondents of
1hatever ri.hts that "a! have accrued to their favor b! virtue of the lo1er courtGs
decision and the a5r"ative decision of the appellate court.
Fe .o no1 to the alle.ed errors co""itted b! the respondent #ourt of ppeals.
s can be .leaned fro" petitionersG brief and the petition itself, t1o contentions
underlie the ;rst assi.ned error. First, petitioners ar.ue that there 1as an irre.ular
and arbitrarte ter"ination and dis"issal of the special proceedin.s for 2udicial
ad"inistration si"ultaneousl! ordered in the lo1er court . s decision in #ivil #ase
No. DACD ad2udicatin. the partition of the estate, 1ithout cate.oricall!, reasonin.
the opposition to the petition for ad"inistration Second, that the issue of o1nership
had been raised in the lo1er court 1hen Tiaon. Millin. asserted title over the
properties re.istered in its corporate na"e adverse to Forrest ,. #ease or his estate,
and that the said issue 1as erroneousl! disposed of b! the trial court in the partition
proceedin.s 1hen it concluded that the assets or properties of the defunct co"pan!
is also the estate of the deceased proprietor.
The propriet! of the dis"issal and ter"ination of the special proceedin.s for 2udicial
ad"inistration "ust be a5r"ed in spite of its rendition in another related case in
vie1 of the established 2urisprudence 1hich favors partition 1hen 2udicial
ad"inistration beco"e, unnecessar!. s observed b! the #ourt of ppeals, the
dis"issal at ;rst .lance is 1ron., for the reason that 1hat 1as actuall! heard 1as
#ivil #ase No. DACD. The technical consistenc!, ho1ever, it is far less i"portance
than the reason behind the doctrinal rule a.ainst placin. an estate under
ad"inistration. -udicial rulin.s consistentl! hold the vie1 that 1here partition is
possible, either 2udicial or e>tra2udicial, the estate should not be burdened 1ith an
ad"inistration proceedin. 1ithout .ood and co"pellin. reason. Fhen the estate
has no creditors or pendin. obli.ations to be paid, the bene;ciaries in interest are
not bound to sub"it the propert! to 2udicial ad"inistration 1hich is al1a!s lon. and
costl!, or to appl! for the appoint"ent of an ad"inistrator b! the court, especiall!
1hen 2udicial ad"inistration is unnecessar! and superKuous. Thus $
Fhen a person dies 1ithout leavin. pendin. obli.ations to be
paid, his heirs, 1hether of a.e or not, are bound to sub"it the
propert! to a 2udicial ad"inistration, 1hich is al1a!s lon. and
costl!, or to appl! for the appoint"ent of an ad"inistrator b! the
court. It has been unifor"l! held that in such case the 2udicial
ad"inistration and the appoint"ent of an ad"inistrator are
superKuous and unnecessar! proceedin.s <Ilustre vs. laras
Frondosa, 7( Phil., AC76 Malahacan vs. I.nacio, 78 Phil, &A&6
@ondad vs. @ondad, A& Phil., CAC6 @alde"or vs. Malan.!aon, A&
Phil., AD(6 Fule vs. Fule, &D Phil., A7(=. S!llabus, Intestate estate of
the deceased ,u0 %arcia. Pablo %. 4tulo vs. ,eona Pasion Viuda de
%arcia, DD Phil. A9C.
Fhere the estate has no debts, recourse "a! be had to an
ad"inistration proceedin. onl! if the heirs have .ood reasons for
not resortin. to an action for partition. Fhere partition is possible,
either in or out of court, the estate should not be burdened 1ith an
ad"inistration proceedin. 1ithout .ood and co"pellin. reasons.
<Intestate *state of Mercado vs. Ma.tiba!, 8D Phil. A:A=
In the records of this case, Fe ;nd no indication of an! indebtedness of the estate.
No creditor has co"e up to char.e the estate 1ithin the t1o$!ear period after the
death of Forrest ,. #ease, hence, the presu"ption under Section 7, Rule (& that the
estate is free fro" creditors "ust appl!. Neither has the status of the parties as le.al
heirs, "uch less that of respondents, been raised as an issue. @esides, e>tant in the
records is the stipulation of the parties to sub"it the pleadin.s and contents of the
ad"inistration proceedin.s for the co.ni0ance of the trial 2ud.e in ad2udicatin. the
civil case for partition <RespondentsG @rief, p, C9, rollo=. s respondents observe, the
parties in both cases are the sa"e, so are the properties involved6 that actual
division is the pri"ar! ob2ective in both actions6 the theor! and defense of the
respective parties are liBe1ise co""on6 and that both cases have been assi.ned to
the sa"e respondent 2ud.e. Fe feel that the unif!in. eEect of the fore.oin.
circu"stances invites the 1holeso"e e>ception to the structures of procedural rule,
thus allo1in., instead, roo" for 2udicial Ke>ibilit!. Respondent 2ud.eGs dis"issal of
the ad"inistration proceedin.s then, is a 2udicious "ove, appreciable in toda!Gs
need for eEective and speed! ad"inistration of 2ustice. There bein. a"ple reason to
support the dis"issal of the special proceedin.s in this appealed case, Fe cannot
see in the records an! co"pellin. reason 1h! it "a! not be dis"issed 2ust the sa"e
even if considered in a separate action. This is inevitabl! certain speciall! 1hen the
sub2ect propert! has alread! been found appropriate for partition, thus reducin. the
petition for ad"inistration to a "ere unnecessar! solicitation.
The second point raised b! petitioners in their ;rst assi.ned error is e?uall!
untenable. In eEect, petitioners ar.ue that the action for partition should not have
prospered in vie1 of the repudiation of the co$o1nership b! Tiaon. Millin. and
Plantation #o"pan! 1hen, as earl! in the trial court, it alread! asserted o1nership
and corporate title over the properties adverse to the ri.ht of o1nership of Forrest ,.
#ease or his estate. Fe are not un"indful of the doctrine relied upon b! petitioners
in Rodriguez vs. Ravilan, 7( Phil. DA 1herein this #ourt held that in an action for
partition, it is assu"ed that the parties b! 1ho" it is prosecuted are all co$o1ners or
co$proprietors of the propert! to be divided, and that the ?uestion of co""on
o1nership is not to be ar.ued, not the fact as to 1hether the intended parties are or
are not the o1ners of the propert! in ?uestion, but onl! as to ho1 and in 1hat
"anner and proportion the said propert! of co""on o1nership shall be distributed
a"on. the interested parties b! order of the #ourt. #onsistent 1ith this dictu", it
has been ;eld that if an! part! to a suit for partition denies thepro-indiviso character
of the estate 1hose partition is sou.ht, and clai"s instead, e>clusive title thereto
the action beco"es one for recover! of propert! co.ni0able in the courts of ordinar!
2urisdiction.
2
PetitionersG ar.u"ent has onl! theoretical persuasion, to sa! the least, rather
apparent than real. It "ust be re"e"bered that 1hen Tiaon. Millin. adduced its
defense and raised the issue of o1nership, its corporate e>istence alread!
ter"inated throu.h the e>piration of its charter. It is clear in Section (( of ct No.
7&'8 <#orporation ,a1= that upon the e>piration of the charter period, the
corporation ceases to e>ist and is dissolvedipso facto e>cept for purposes connected
1ith the 1indin. up and li?uidation. The provision allo1s a three !ear, period fro"
e>piration of the charter 1ithin 1hich the entit! .raduall! settles and closes its
aEairs, disposes and conve! its propert! and to divide its capital stocB, but not for
the purpose of continuin. the business for 1hich it 1as established. t this ter"inal
sta.e of its e>istence, Tiaon. Millin. "a! no lon.er persist to "aintain adverse title
and o1nership of the corporate assets as a.ainst the prospective distributees 1hen
at this ti"e it "erel! holds the propert! in trust, its assertion of o1nership is not
onl! a le.al contradiction, but "ore so, to allo1 it to "aintain adverse interest 1ould
certainl! th1art the ver! purpose of li?uidation and the ;nal distribute loll of the
assets to the proper, parties.
Fe a.ree 1ith the #ourt of ppeals in its reasonin. that substance is "ore
i"portant than for" 1hen it sustained the dis"issal of Special Proceedin.s No.
A:8A, thus $
a= s to the dis"issal of Special Proceedin.s No. A:8A, of course,
at ;rst .lance, this 1as 1ron., for the reason that the case trial
had been heard 1as #ivil #ase No. DACD6 but 1hat should not be
overlooBed either is #hat respondent -ud.e 1as the sa"e -ud.e
that had before hi" in his o1n sala, said Special Proceedin.s No.
A:8A, p. &A rollo, and the parties to the present #ivil #ase No.
DACD had the"selves asBed respondent -ud.e to taBe 2udicial
notice of the sa"e and its contents pa.e A&, rollo6 it is not di5cult
to see that 1hen respondent -ud.e in par. & of the dispositive part
of his decision co"plained of, ordered that,
&= Special Proceedin.s No. A:8A for
ad"inistration is ter"inated and dis"issed6 the
instant case to proceed but on issues of
da"a.es onl! and for such action inherentl!
essential or partition. p. 7CA, rollo,
in truth and in fact, +is +onor 1as issuin. that order also 1ithin
#ivil #ase No. DAC but in connection 1ith Special Proceedin.s No.
A:83A3 for substance is "ore i"portant #han for", the contendin.
par ties in both proceedin.s bein. e>actl! the sa"e, but not onl!
this, let it not be for.otten that 1hen +is +onor dis"issed Special
Proceedin.s No. A:8A, that dis"issal precisel! 1as a dis"issal
that petitioners herein had the"selves sou.ht and solicited fro"
respondent -ud.e as petitioners the"selves are in their present
petition pp. '$D, rollo6 this #ourt "ust ;nd di5cult! in reconcilin.
petitionersG attacB 1ith the fact that it 1as the! the"selves that
had insisted on that dis"issal6 on the principle that not he 1ho is
favored but he 1ho is hurt b! a 2udicial order is he onl! 1ho should
be heard to co"plain and especiall! since e>traordinar! le.al
re"edies are re"edies in e>ter"ies .ranted to parties G 1ho have
been the victi"s not "erel! of errors but of .rave 1ron.s, and it
cannot be seen ho1 one 1ho .ot 1hat he had asBed could be
heard to clai" that he had been the victi" of a 1ron., petitioners
should not no1 co"plain of an order the! had the"selves asBed in
order to attacB such an order after1ards6 if at all, perhaps, third
parties, creditors, the @ureau of Internal Revenue, "i.ht have
been pre2udiced, and could have had the personalit! to attacB that
dis"issal of Special Proceedin.s No. A:8A, but not petitioners
herein, and it is not no1 for this #ourt of ppeals to protect said
third persons 1ho have not co"e to the #ourt belo1 or sou.ht to
intervene herein6
On the second assi.ned error, petitioners ar.ue that no evidence has been found to
support the conclusion that the re.istered properties of Tiaon. Millin. are also
properties of the estate of Forrest ,. #ease6 that on the contrar!, said properties are
re.istered under ct No. &8D in the na"e of Tiaon. Millin. as la1ful o1ner and
possessor for the last '9 !ears of its corporate e>istence.
Fe do not a.ree. In reposin. o1nership to the estate of Forrest ,. #ease, the trial
court indeed found stron. support, one that is based on a 1ell$entrenched principle
of la1. In sustainin. respondentsG theor! of )"er.er of Forrest ,. #ease and The
Tiaon. Millin. as one personalit!), or that )the co"pan! is onl! the business conduit
and alter e.o of the deceased Forrest ,. #ease and the re.istered properties of
Tiaon. Millin. are actuall! properties of Forrest ,. #ease and should be divided
e?uall!, share and share aliBe a"on. his si> children, ... ), the trial court did aptl!
appl! the fa"iliar e>ception to the .eneral rule b! disre.ardin. the le.al ;ction of
distinct and separate corporate personalit! and re.ardin. the corporation and the
individual "e"ber one and the sa"e. In shreddin. the ;ctitious corporate veil, the
trial 2ud.e narrated the undisputed factual pre"ise, thus3
Fhile the records sho1ed that ori.inall! its incorporators 1ere
aliens, friends or third$parties in relation of one to another, in the
course of its e>istence, it developed into a close fa"il!
corporation. The @oard of Directors and stocBholders belon. to one
fa"il! the head of 1hich Forrest ,. #ease al1a!s retained the
"a2orit! stocBs and hence the control and "ana.e"ent of its
aEairs. In fact, durin. the reconstruction of its records in 78&(
before the Securit! and *>chan.e #o""ission onl! 8 no"inal
shares out of A99 appears in the na"e of his A eldest children then
and another person close to the". It is liBe1ise note1orth! to
observe that as his children increase or perhaps beco"e of a.e,
he continued distributin. his shares a"on. the" addin. Florence,
Teresa and Marion until at the ti"e of his death onl! 789 1ere left
to his na"e. De;nitel!, onl! the "e"bers of his fa"il! bene;ted
fro" the #orporation.
The accounts of the corporation and therefore its operation, as
1ell as that of the fa"il! appears to be indistin.uishable and
apparentl! 2oined to.ether. s ad"itted b! the defendants
<Manifestation of #o"pliance 1ith Order of March (, 78DA L*>hibit
)C7)M the corporation GneverG had an! account 1ith an! banBin.
institution or if an! account 1as carried in a banB on its behalf, it
1as in the na"e of Mr. Forrest ,. #ease. In brief, the operation of
the #orporation is "er.ed 1ith those of the "a2orit! stocBholders,
the latter usin. the for"er as his instru"entalit! and for the
e>clusive bene;ts of all his fa"il!. Fro" the fore.oin. indication,
therefore, there is truth in plaintiEGs alle.ation that the corporation
is onl! a business conduit of his father and an e>tension of his
personalit!, the! are one and the sa"e thin.. Thus, the assets of
the corporation are also the estate of Forrest ,. #ease, the father
of the parties herein 1ho are all le.iti"ate children of full blood.
rich store of 2urisprudence has established the rule Bno1n as the doctrine of
disre.ardin. or piercin. the veil of corporate ;ction. %enerall!, a corporation is
invested b! la1 1ith a personalit! separate and distinct fro" that of the persons
co"posin. it as 1ell as fro" that of an! other le.al entit! to 1hich it "a! be
related. @! virtue of this attribute, a corporation "a! not, .enerall!, be "ade to
ans1er for acts or liabilities of its stocBholders or those of the le.al entities to 1hich
it "a! be connected, and vice versa. This separate and distinct personalit! is,
ho1ever, "erel! a ;ction created b! la1 for convenience and to pro"ote the ends
of 2ustice <,a.una Transportation #o"pan! vs. Social Securit! S!ste", ,$7&D9D, pril
C:, 78D96 ,a #a"pana #oEee Factor!, Inc. vs. Naisahan n. ".a Man..a.a1a sa ,a
#a"pana, ,$'D((, Ma! C', 78'A=. For this reason, it "a! not be used or invoBed for
ends subversive of the polic! and purpose behind its creation <*"iliano #ano
*nterprises, Inc. vs. #IR, ,$C9'9C, Feb. CD, 78D'= or 1hich could not have been
intended b! la1 to 1hich it o1es its bein. Mc#onnel vs. #ourt of ppeals, ,$ 79'79,
March 7(, 78D7, 7 S#R (CC=. This is particularl! true 1here the ;ction is used to
defeat public convenience, 2ustif! 1ron., protect fraud, defend cri"e <Iutivo Sons
+ard1are #o"pan! vs. #ourt of Ta> ppeals, ,$7AC9A, -an. C:, 78D7, 7 S#R 7D9=,
confuse le.iti"ate le.al or 2udicial issues <R. F. Su.a! O #o. vs. Re!es, ,$C9&'7, Dec.
C:, 78D&=, perpetrate deception or other1ise circu"vent the la1 <%re.orio raneta,
Inc. vs. reason de Paterno, ,$C::D, u.. CC, 78'C, &8 O.%. (C7=. This is liBe1ise true
1here the corporate entit! is bein. used as an alter e.o, ad2unct, or business
conduit for the sole bene;t of the stocBholders or of another corporate entit!
<Mc#onnel vs. #ourt of ppeals, supra6 #o""issioner of Internal Revenue vs. Norton
+arrison #o., ,$(D7:, u.. A7, 78D&=.
In an! of these cases, the notion of corporate entit! 1ill be pierced or disre.arded,
and the corporation 1ill be treated "erel! as an association of persons or, 1here
there are t1o corporations, the! 1ill be "er.ed as one, the one bein. "erel!
re.arded as part or the instru"entalit! of the otter <Noppel LPhil.M Inc. vs. Iatco, ((
Phil. &8D, Iutivo Sons +ard1are #o"pan! vs. #ourt of Ta> ppeals, supra=.
So "ust the case at bar add to this 2urisprudence. n indubitable deduction fro" the
;ndin.s of the trial court cannot but lead to the conclusion that the business of the
corporation is lar.el!, if not 1holl!, the personal venture of Forrest ,. #ease. There is
not even a shado1 of a sho1in. that his children 1ere subscribers or purchasers of
the stocBs the! o1n. Their participation as no"inal shareholders e"anated solel!
fro" Forrest ,. #easeGs .ratuitous dole out of his o1n shares to the bene;t of his
children and ulti"atel! his fa"il!.
Fere 1e sustain the theor! of petitioners that the trial court acted in e>cess of
2urisdiction or abuse of discretion a"ountin. to lacB of 2urisdiction in decidin. #ivil
#ase No. DACD as a case for partition 1hen the defendant therein, Tiaon. Millin. and
Plantation #o"pan!, Inc. as re.istered o1ner asserted o1nership of the assets and
properties involved in the liti.ation, 1hich theor! "ust necessaril! be based on the
assu"ption that said assets and properties of Tiaon. Millin. and Plantation
#o"pan!, Inc. no1 appearin. under the na"e of F. ,. #ease Plantation #o"pan! as
Trustee are distinct and separate fro" the estate of Forrest ,. #ease to 1hich
petitioners and respondents as le.al heirs of said Forrest ,. #ease are e?uall!
entitled share and share aliBe, then that le.al ;ction of separate corporate
personalit! shall have been used to dela! and ulti"atel! deprive and defraud the
respondents of their successional ri.hts to the estate of their deceased father. For
Tiaon. Millin. and Plantation #o"pan! shall have been able to e>tend its corporate
e>istence be!ond the period of its charter 1hich lapsed in -une, 78': under the
.uise and cover of F. ,, #ease Plantation #o"pan!, Inc. as Trustee 1hich 1ould be
a.ainst the la1, and as Trustee shall have been able to use the assets and
properties for the bene;t of the petitioners, to the .reat pre2udice and defraudation.
of private respondents. +ence, it beco"es necessar! and i"perative to pierce that
corporate veil.
4nder the third assi.ned error, petitioners clai" that the decision of the lo1er court
in the partition case is not interlocutor! but rather ;nal for it consists of ;nal and
deter"inative dispositions of the contentions of the parties. Fe ;nd no "erit in
petitionersG stand.
4nder the 78D7 pronounce"ent and rulin. of the Supre"e #ourt in Vda. de
Zaldarriaga vs. Enriquez, 7 S#R 77:: <and the se?uel case of Vda. de Zaldarriaga
vs. Zaldarriaga, C S#R A'D=, the lo1er courtGs dis"issal of petitionersG proposed
appeal fro" its Dece"ber C(, 78D8 2ud."ent as a5r"ed b! the #ourt of ppeals on
the .round of pre"aturit! in that the 2ud."ent 1as not ;nal but interlocutor! 1as in
order. s 1as said in said case3
It is true that in Africa vs. Africa, &C Phil. 8A& and other cases it
1as held $ contrar! to the rule laid do1n in Ron vs. Mojica, : Phil.
AC:6 Rodriguez vs. Ravilan, 7( Phil. DA $ that in a partition case
1here defendant relies on the defense of e>clusive o1nership, the
action beco"es one for title and the decision or order directin.
partition is ;nal, but the rulin. to this eEect has been e>pressl!
reversed in the Fuentebella case 1hich, in our opinion, e>presses
the correct vie1, considerin. that a decision or order directin.
partition is not ;nal because it leaves so"ethin. "ore to be done
in the trial court for the co"plete disposition of the case, na"el!,
the appoint"ent of co""issioners, the proceedin.s to be had
before the", the sub"ission of their report 1hich, accordin. to
la1, "ust be set for hearin.. In fact, it is onl! after said hearin.
that the court "a! render a ;nal 2ud."ent ;nall! disposin. of the
action <Rule (7, section (, Rules of #ourt=. <7 S#R at pa.e 778A=.
It should be noted, ho1ever, that the said rulin. in Paldarria.a as based
on Fuentebella vs. arrascoso, HIV ,a1!ers -ournal A9' <Ma! C(, 78&C=, has been
e>pressl! abandoned b! the #ourt in Miranda vs. ourt of Appeals, (7 S#R C8'6
AA7$AAA <-une 7:, 78(D= 1herein Mr. -ustice TeehanBee, speaBin. for the #ourt, laid
do1n the follo1in. doctrine3
The #ourt, ho1ever, dee"s it proper for the .uidance of the bench
and bar to no1 declare as is clearl! indicated fro" the co"pellin.
reasons and considerations hereinabove stated3
$ that the #ourt considers the better rule to be that stated in !. E.
!eacoc" o. vs. A#erican $rading o., to 1it, that 1here the
pri"ar! purpose of a case is to ascertain and deter"ine 1ho
bet1een plaintiE and defendant is the true o1ner and entitled to
the e>clusive use of the disputed propert!, )the 2ud."ent . . .
rendered b! the lo1er court LisM a 2ud."ent on the #erits as to
those ?uestions, and LthatM the order of the court for
an accounting 1as based upon, and is incidental to the 2ud."ent
on the "erits. That is to sa!, that the 2ud."ent . . . LisM a ;nal
2ud."ent ... that in this Bind of a case an accountin. is a "ere
incident to the 2ud."ent6 that an appeal lies fro" the rendition of
the 2ud."ent as rendered ... )<as is 1idel! held b! a .reat nu"ber
of 2ud.es and "e"bers of the bar, as sho1n b! the cases so
decided and ;led and still pendin. 1ith the #ourt= for the
funda"ental reasons therein stated that )this is "ore in har"on!
1ith the ad#inistration of justice and the spirit and intent of the
LRulesM. If on appeal the 2ud."ent of the lo1er court is a5r"ed, it
1ould not in the least 1orB an in2ustice to an! of the le.al ri.hts of
LappelleeM. On the other hand, if for an! reason this court should
reverse the 2ud."ent of the lo1er court, the accountin. 1ould be
a 1aste of ti"e and "one!, and "i.ht 1orB a "aterial in2ur! to
the LappellantM6 and
$ that accordin.l!, the contrar! rulin. in Fuentebella vs.
arrascoso 1hich e>pressl! reversed the +eacocB case and a line
of si"ilar decisions and ruled that such a decision for recover! of
propert! 1ith accountin. )is not ;nal but "erel! interlocutor! and
therefore not appealable) and subse?uent cases adherin. to the
sa"e "ust be no% in turn abandoned and set aside.
Fuentebella adopted instead the opposite line of conKictin.
decisions "ostl! in partition proceedin.s and e>e"pli;ed b! Ron
vs. Mojica : Phil. 8C: <under the old #ode of #ivil Procedure= that
an order for partition of real propert! is not ;nal and appealable
until after the actual partition of the propert! as reported b! the
court appointed co""issioners and approved b! the court in
its judg#entacceptin. the report. lt "ust be especiall! noted that
such rule .overnin. partitions is no1 so e>pressl! provided and
spelled out in Rule D8 of the Rules of #ourt, 1ith special reference
to Sections 7, C, A, D, ( and 77, to 1it, that there "ust ;rst be a
preli"inar, order for partition of the real estate <section C= and
1here the parties$co$o1ners cannot a.ree, the court appointed
co""issioners "aBe a plan of actual partition 1hich "ust ;rst be
passed upon and accepted b! the trial court and e"bodied in a
2ud."ent to be rendered b! it <sections D and 77=. In partition
cases, it "ust be further borne in "ind that Rule D8, section 7
refers to )a person havin. the rig&t to co"pel the partition of real
estate,) so that the .eneral rule of partition that an appeal 1ill not
lie until the partition or distribution proceedin.s are ter"inated
1ill not appl! 1here appellant clai"s e'clusive o%ners&ip of the
1hole propert! and denies the adverse part!Gs ri.ht to an!
partition, as 1as the rulin. inVillanueva vs. apistrano and Africa
vs .Africa, supra, Fuentebellas e>press rehearsal of these cases
"ust liBe1ise be dee"ed no1 also abandoned in vie1 of the
#ourtGs e>pressed preference for the rationale of the +eacocB
case.
The #ourtGs considered opinion is that i#perative considerations
of public polic! and of sound practice in the courts and adherence
to the constitutional #andate of si"pli;ed, 2ust, speed! and
ine>pensive deter"ination of ever! action call for considerin. such
2ud."ents for recover! of propert! 1ith accounting as
(nal 2ud."ents 1hich are dul! appealable <and 1ould therefore
beco"e ;nal and e>ecutor! if not appealed %it&in t&e
regle#entar) period= 1ith the accounting as a "ere incident of
the 2ud."ent to be rendered durin. the course of the appeal as
provided in Rule A8, section & or to be i"ple"ented at the
e>ecution sta.e upon ;nal a5r"ance on appeal of the 2ud."ent
<as in #ourt of Industrial Relations unfair labor practice cases
orderin. the reinstate"ent of the 1orBer 1ith accountin.,
co"putation and pa!"ent of his bacB1a.es less earnin.s
else1here durin. his la!oE= and that the onl! reason .iven in
Fuentebelia for the contrar! rulin., vi0, )the .eneral har" that
1ould follo1 fro" thro1in. the door open to "ultiplicit! of appeals
in a sin.le case) of lesser i"port and conse?uence. <*"phasis
copied=.
The "iranda rulin. has since then been applied as the ne1 rule b! a unani"ous
#ourt in Valdez vs. *agasao, :C S#R CC <March :, 78(:=.
If there 1ere a valid .enuine clai" of *>clusive o1nership of the inherited properties
on the part of petitioners to respondentsG action for partition, then under the
Miranda rulin., petitioners 1ould be sustained, for as e>pressl! held therein ) the
.eneral rule of partition that an appeal 1ill not lie until the partition or distribution
proceedin.s are ter"inated 1ill not appl! 1here appellant clai"s e>clusive
o1nership of the 1hole propert! and denies the adverse part!Gs ri.ht to an!
partition.)
@ut this ?uestion has no1 been rendered "oot and acade"ic for the ver! issue of
e>clusive o1nership clai"ed b! petitioners to den! and defeat respondentsG ri.ht to
partition $ 1hich is the ver! core of their re2ected appeal $ has been s?uarel!
resolved herein a.ainst the", as if the appeal had been .iven due course. The #ourt
has herein e>pressl! sustained the trial courtGs ;ndin.s, as a5r"ed b! the #ourt of
ppeals, that the assets or properties of the defunct co"pan! constitute the estate
of the deceased proprietor <supra at pa.e (= and the defunct co"pan!Gs assertion of
o1nership of the properties is a le.al contradiction and 1ould but th1art the
li?uidation and ;nal distribution and partition of the properties a"on. the parties
hereof as children of their deceased father Forrest ,. #ease. There is therefore no
further hindrance to eEect the partition of the properties a"on. the parties in
i"ple"entation of the appealed 2ud."ent.
One last consideration. Parties are brothers and sisters, le.al heirs of their deceased
father, Forrest ,. #ease. @! all ri.hts in la1 and 2urisprudence, each is entitled to
share and share aliBe in the estate, 1hich the trial court correctl! ordained and
sustained b! the appellate court. l"ost C9 !ears have lapsed since the ;lin. of
Special Proceedin.s No. A:8A for the ad"inistration of the *state of Forrest ,. #ease
and #ivil #ase No. DACD for li?uidation and partition of the assets of the defunct
Tiaon. Millin. and Plantation #o., Inc. succession of receivers 1ere appointed b!
the court to taBe, Beep in possession, preserve and "ana.e properties of the
corporation 1hich at one ti"e sho1ed an inco"e of PA:D,7'C.89 and e>penses of
PA9:,&9'.97 for the period coverin. -anuar! 7, 78D9 to u.ust A7, 78D( as per
Su""ar! of Operations of #o""issioner for Finance appointed b! the #ourt <@rief
for Respondents, p. A:=. In the "eanti"e, e2ect"ent cases 1ere ;led b! and a.ainst
the heirs in connection 1ith the properties involved, a..ravatin. the alread!
strained relations of the parties. prudent and practical reali0ation of these
circu"stances ou.ht and "ust constrain the parties to .ive each one his due in la1
and 1ith fairness and dispatch that their basic ri.hts be en2o!ed. nd b! re"andin.
this case to the court a quo for the actual partition of the properties, the substantial
ri.hts of ever!one of the heirs have not been i"paired, for in fact, the! have been
preserved and "aintained.
F+*R*FOR*, IN VI*F OF T+* FOR*%OIN%, the 2ud."ent appealed fro" is hereb!
FFIRM*D 1ith costs a.ainst the petitioners.
SO ORD*R*D.
CEASE 5S CA C%e Br)e'
F#TS3
Forrest #ease and ;ve <'= other "erican citi0ens for"ed Tiaon. Millin. and
Plantation #o"pan!. *ventuall!, the shares of the other ori.inal incorporators 1ere
bou.ht out b! #ease 1ith his children. The co"pan!Qs charter lapsed in -une 78':.
Forrest #ease died in u.ust 78'8. There 1as no "ention 1hether there 1ere steps
to li?uidate the co"pan!. So"e of his children 1anted an actual division 1hile
others 1anted a reincorporation. T1o of his children, @en2a"in and Florence,
initiated Special Proceedin. No. A:8A 1ith #FI Ta!abas asBin. that the Tiaon. Millin.
and Plantation #orporation be declared identical to Forrest #ease and that its
properties be divided a"on. his children as intestate heirs. Defendants opposed the
sa"e but the #FI ruled in favor of the plaintiEs. Defendants ;led a notice of appeal
fro" the #FIQs decision but the sa"e 1as dis"issed for bein. pre"ature. The case
1as elevated to the S# 1hich re"anded it to the #ourt of ppeals. The # dis"issed
the petition.
ISS4*3 Fhether or not the #ourt of ppeals erred in a5r"in. the lo1er courtQs
decision that the sub2ect properties o1ned b! the corporation are also properties of
the estate of Forrest #ease
+*,D3 NO. The trial court indeed found stron. support, one that is based on a 1ell$
entrenched principle of la1 1hich is the theor! of )"er.er of Forrest ,. #ease and
The Tiaon. Millin. as one personalit!), or that )the co"pan! is onl! the business
conduit and alter e.o of the deceased Forrest ,. #ease and the re.istered properties
of Tiaon. Millin. are actuall! properties of Forrest ,. #ease and should be divided
e?uall!, share and share aliBe a"on. his si> children, ... ), the trial court aptl!
applied the fa"iliar e>ception to the .eneral rule b! disre.ardin. the le.al ;ction of
distinct and separate corporate personalit! and re.ardin. the corporation and the
individual "e"ber one and the sa"e. In shreddin. the ;ctitious corporate veil, the
trial 2ud.e narrated the undisputed factual pre"ise, thus3
Fhile the records sho1ed that ori.inall! its incorporators 1ere aliens, friends or
third$parties in relation to another, in the course of its e>istence, it developed into a
close fa"il! corporation. The @oard of Directors and stocBholders belon. to one
fa"il! the head of 1hich Forrest ,. #ease al1a!s retained the "a2orit! stocBs and
hence the control and "ana.e"ent of its aEairs. It "ust be noted that as his
children increase or beco"e of a.e, he continued distributin. his shares a"on.
the" addin. Florence, Teresa and Marion until at the ti"e of his death onl! 789 1ere
left to his na"e. De;nitel!, onl! the "e"bers of his fa"il! bene;ted fro" the
#orporation.
The corporation GneverG had an! account 1ith an! banBin. institution or if an!
account 1as carried in a banB on its behalf, it 1as in the na"e of Mr. Forrest ,.
#ease. There is truth in plaintiEGs alle.ation that the corporation is onl! a business
conduit of his father and an e>tension of his personalit!, the! are one and the sa"e
thin.. Thus, the assets of the corporation are also the estate of Forrest ,. #ease, the
father of the parties herein 1ho are all le.iti"ate children of full blood.
rich store of 2urisprudence has established the rule Bno1n as the doctrine of
disre.ardin. or piercin. the veil of corporate ;ction.
%*N*R, R4,*3 a corporation is vested b! la1 1ith a personalit! separate and
distinct fro" the persons co"posin. it as 1ell as an! other le.al entit! to 1hich it
"a! be related. @! virtue of this attribute, a corporation "a! not, .enerall!, be
"ade to ans1er for acts or liabilities of its stocBholders or those of the le.al entities
to 1hich it "a! be connected, and vice versa. This separate and distinct personalit!
is, ho1ever, "erel! a ;ction created b! la1 for convenience and to pro"ote the
ends of 2ustice
*H#*PTIONS3 Such rule "a! not be used or invoBed for ends subversive of the polic!
and purpose behind its creation or 1hich could not have been intended b! la1 to
1hich it o1es its bein.. This is particularl! true 1here the ;ction is used to defeat
public convenience, 2ustif! 1ron., protect fraud, defend cri"e, confuse le.iti"ate
le.al or 2udicial issues, perpetrate deception or other1ise circu"vent the la1
This is liBe1ise true 1here the corporate entit! is bein. used as an alter e.o,
ad2unct, or business conduit for the sole bene;t of the stocBholders or of another
corporate. In an! of these cases, the notion of corporate entit! 1ill be pierced or
disre.arded, and the corporation 1ill be treated "erel! as an association of persons
or, 1here there are t1o corporations, the! 1ill be "er.ed as one, the one bein.
"erel! re.arded as part or the instru"entalit! of the other.
n indubitable deduction fro" the ;ndin.s of the trial court cannot but lead to the
conclusion that the business of the corporation is lar.el!, if not 1holl!, the personal
venture of Forrest ,. #ease. There is not even a shado1 of a sho1in. that his
children 1ere subscribers or purchasers of the stocBs the! o1n. Their participation
as no"inal shareholders e"anated solel! fro" Forrest ,. #easeGs .ratuitous dole out
of his o1n shares to the bene;t of his children and ulti"atel! his fa"il!.
If the #ourt sustained the theor! of petitioners that the trial court acted in e>cess of
2urisdiction or abuse of discretion a"ountin. to lacB of 2urisdiction in decidin. the
civil case as a case for partition, Tiaon. Millin. and Plantation #o"pan! 1ould have
been able to e>tend its corporate e>istence be!ond the period of its charter 1hich
lapsed in -une, 78': under the .uise and cover of F. ,, #ease Plantation #o"pan!,
Inc. as Trustee 1hich 1ould be a.ainst the la1, and as Trustee shall have been able
to use the assets and properties for the bene;t of the petitioners, to the .reat
pre2udice and defraudation. of private respondents. +ence, it beco"es necessar!
and i"perative to pierce that corporate veil.
The 2ud."ent appealed fro" is FFIRM*D.