BUENAFLOR C. UMALI, MAURICIA M. VDA. DE CASTILLO, VICTORIA M. CASTILLO, BERTILLA C. RADA, MARIETTA C. ABAÑEZ, LEOVINA C. JALBUENA and SANTIAGO M. RIVERA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, BORMAHECO, INC. and PHILIPPINE MACHINERY PARTS MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
G.R. No. 89561 September 13, 1990
Facts:
1. Plaintiff Santiago Rivera is the nephew of plaintiff Mauricia Meer Vda. de Castillo.
2. The Castillo family are the owners of a parcel of lands which was given as security for a loan from the DBP.
3. For their failure to pay the amortization, foreclosure of the said property was about to be initiated.
4. This problem was made known to Rivera, who proposed to them the conversion into subdivision of the four parcels of land adjacent to the mortgaged property to raise the necessary fund.
5. The Idea was accepted by the Castillo family and to carry out the project, a Memorandum of Agreement was executed by and between Slobec Realty and Development, Inc., represented by its President Rivera and the Castillo family.
6. Rivera, armed with the agreement, approached Mr. Modesto Cervantes, President of defendant Bormaheco, and proposed to purchase from Bormaheco two tractors.
7. Slobec, through Rivera, executed in favor of Bormaheco a Chattel Mortgage over the said equipment as security
8. As further security of the aforementioned unpaid balance, Slobec obtained from Insurance Corporation of the Phil. a Surety Bond, with ICP (Insurance Corporation of the Phil.) as surety and Slobec as principal, in favor of Bormaheco.
9. The aforesaid surety bond was in turn secured by an Agreement of Counter-Guaranty with Real Estate Mortgage executed by Rivera as president of Slobec and Castillo family, as mortgagors and ICP as mortgagee.
10. In giving the bond, ICP required that the Castillos mortgage to them the four parcels of land.
11. For violation of the terms and conditions of the Counter-Guaranty Agreement, the properties of the Castillos were foreclosed by ICP - the highest bidder.
12. The mortgagors had one year to redeem the property, but they failed to do so.
13. Consequently, ICP consolidated its ownership.
14. ICP sold to PM Parts the four parcels of land.
15. Thereafter, PM Parts, through its President, Mr. Modesto Cervantes, sent a letter addressed to plaintiff Mrs. Mauricia Meer Castillo requesting her and her children to vacate the subject property.
16. The heirs of the late Felipe Castillo filed an action for annulment of title.
17. Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs – agreements etc - null and void for being fictitious, spurious and without consideration.
Issue:
Whether or not there is necessity to pierce the veil of corporate entity of Bormaheco, ICP and PM Parts, to determine whether they employed fraud in causing the foreclosure and subsequent sale of the real properties belonging to petitioners
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
It is our considered opinion that piercing the veil of corporate entity is not the proper remedy in order that the foreclosure proceeding may be declared a nullity under the circumstances obtaining in the legal case at bar.
In the first place, the legal corporate entity is disregarded only if it is sought to hold the officers and stockholder directly liable for a corporate debt or obligation. In the instant case, petitioners do not seek to impose a claim against the individual members of the three corporations involved; on the contrary, it is these corporations which desire to enforce an alleged right against petitioners. Assuming that petitioners were indeed defrauded by private respondents in the foreclosure of the mortgaged properties, this fact alone is not, under the circumstances, sufficient to justify the piercing of the corporate fiction, since petitioners do not intend to hold the officers and/or members of respondent corporations personally liable therefor. Petitioners are merely seeking the declaration of the nullity of the foreclosure sale, which relief may be obtained without having to disregard the aforesaid corporate fiction attaching to respondent corporations.
Secondly, petitioners failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that private respondents were purposely formed and operated, and thereafter transacted with petitioners, with the sole intention of defrauding the latter.
The mere fact, therefore, that the businesses of two or more corporations are interrelated is not a justification for disregarding their separate personalities, absent sufficient showing that the corporate entity was purposely used as a shield to defraud creditors and third persons of their rights.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment