Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Peralta and Perez,**
JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed with modification.
Note.A demand letter is not the same as the notice of
cancellation or demand for rescission by a notarial act
required by R.A. No. 6552. (Pagtalunan vs. Vda. de
Manzano, 533 SCRA 242 [2007])
o0o
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001527c96d0a366288291003600fb002c009e/p/ARP069/?username=Guest
1/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
104
104
the correctness of the conclusion drawn from the said facts. Once
it is clear that the issue invites a review of the probative value of
the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. If the
query requires a reevaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or
the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their
relation to each other, then the issue is necessarily factual. A
perusal of the assignment of errors and the discussion set forth by
MSCI would readily show that the petition seeks a review of all
the evidence presented before the RTC and reviewed by the CA
therefore, the issue is factual. Accordingly, the petition should be
dismissed outright, especially considering that the very same
factual circumstances in this petition have already been ruled
upon by the CA.
Corporation Law Shares of Stocks Stockholders The right of
a transferee to have stocks transferred to its name is an inherent
right flowing from its ownership of the stocks.Considering that
Mc Foods tendered its payment of P1,800,000.00 to MSCI on
November 28, 1995, even assuming arguendo that it was driven
solely by the intent to speculate on the price of the share of stock,
it had all the right to negotiate and transact, at least on the
anticipated and expected ownership of the share, with Hodreal. In
other words, there is nothing wrong with the fact that the first
installment paid by Hodreal preceded the payment of Mc Foods
for the same share of stock to MSCI because eventually Mc Foods
became the owner of a Class A share covered by Certificate A
2243. Upon payment by Mc Foods of P1,800,000.00 to MSCI and
the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale on December 15, 1995,
it then had the right to demand the delivery of the stock
certificate in its name. The right of a transferee to have stocks
transferred to its name is an inherent right flowing from its
ownership of the stocks.
Same Same Same The certificate is not a stock in the
corporation but is merely evidence of the holders interest and
status in the corporation, his ownership of the share represented
therebyit is not in law the equivalent of such ownership, and
while it expresses the contract between the corporation and the
stockholder, but is not essential to the existence of a share of stock
or the nature of the relation of shareholder to the corporation.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001527c96d0a366288291003600fb002c009e/p/ARP069/?username=Guest
2/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
105
3/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
106
4/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
107
5/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
108
6/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
109
UNEQUIVOCALLY
PROVE
THAT
RESPONDENT
CHENG HAD INTIMATE PARTICIPATION IN THE SALE
OF MSCIS UNISSUED CLASS A SHARE TO MC
FOODS, INC. FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF ONE
MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(PHP1,800,000.00).
(B)RESPONDENT CHENGS ADMISSIONS AND
OTHER PERTINENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
RELATED TO THE SALE OF MSCIS UNISSUED CLASS
A SHARE TO RESPONDENT MC FOODS, INC. AND
THE RESALE OF THE SAME TO SPOUSES HODREAL
PROVE THAT THE SALE OF THE SAID UNISSUED
SHARE TO MC FOODS, INC. AT ONE MILLION EIGHT
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP1,800,000.00) WAS
MADE WITH A VIEW TO RESELL THE SAME AT A
PROFIT TO THE HODREAL SPOUSES AT THE
AMOUNT OF TWO MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED PESOS
(PHP2,800,000.00) THE RESALE OF THE SAID SHARE
TO THE SPOUSES HODREAL OCCURRING EVEN
BEFORE MC FOODS, INC. GAINED OWNERSHIP OVER
THE SAID UNISSUED SHARE.
(C)THE UTTER LACK OF DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT MC FOODS, INC.
EVINCED A DESIRE TO PURCHASE PETITIONERS
UNISSUED SHARES CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THAT
MC FOODS, INC. NEVER MADE ANY FORMAL OFFER
TO BUY AN UNISSUED M[SC]I SHARE FROM
PETITIONERS BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND/OR
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001527c96d0a366288291003600fb002c009e/p/ARP069/?username=Guest
7/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
110
8/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
111
9/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
112
10/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
113
11/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
114
12/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
115
13/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
116
14/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
SEC.30.xxx.
(e)Sale of Shares of Stockholder.Where the registered
owner of share of stock desires to sell his share of stock, he shall
first offer the same in writing to the Club at fair market value
and the club shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of written
offer within which to purchase such share, and only if the club
has excess revenues over expenses (unrestricted retained earning)
and with the approval of twothirds (2/3) vote of the Board of
Directors. If the Club fails to purchase the share, the stockholder
may dispose of the same to other persons who are qualified to own
and hold shares in the club. If the share is not purchased at the
price quoted by the stockholder and he reduces said price, then
the Club shall have the same preemptive right subject to the
same conditions for the same period of thirty (30) days. Any
transfer of share, except by hereditary succession, made in
violation of these conditions shall be null and void and shall not
be recorded in the books of the Club.
_______________
The efficacy of the sale of a mere hope or expectancy is deemed subject
to the condition that the thing will come into existence.
The sale of a vain hope or expectancy is void.
26M. Defensor Santiago, Corporation Code Annotated (2000), p. 168.
117
117
15/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
118
16/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
119
17/18
1/26/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME621
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad and Perez,** JJ.,
concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Notes.A tender offer is a publicly announced
intention by a person acting alone or in concert with other
persons to acquire equity securities of a public company,
i.e., one listed on an exchange, among othersit is also
defined as an offer by the acquiring person to stockholders
of a public company for them to tender their shares therein
on the terms specified in the offer. (Osmea III vs. Social
Security System of the Philippines, 533 SCRA 313 [2007])
_______________
31Rementizo v. Heirs of Pelagia Vda. de Madarieta, G.R. No. 170318,
January 15, 2009, 576 SCRA 109 BMG Records (Phils.), Inc. v. Aparecio,
G.R. No. 153290, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 300.
32Memita v. Masongsong, G.R. No. 150912, May 28, 2007, 523 SCRA
244 Philippine Realty Holdings Corporation v. Firematic Philippines, Inc.,
G.R. No. 156251, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 493.
** Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza per
Special Order No. 842 dated June 3, 2010.
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001527c96d0a366288291003600fb002c009e/p/ARP069/?username=Guest
18/18