Case Digest

G.R. No.
185024
JOSELITO HERNAND M. BUSTOS, Petitioners

vs.
MILLIANS SHOE, INC., SPOUSES FERNANDO AND AMELIA CRUZ, and the REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF MARIKINA CITY, Respondents
Spouses Fernando and Amelia Cruz owned a 464-square-meter, the City Government
of Marikina levied the prope1iy for nonpayment of real estate taxes. It was later on
auctioned off the property, with petitioner Joselito Hernand M. Bustos emerging 'as the
winning bidder. Petitioner then applied for the cancellation of TCT No. N-126668 and
caused for the issuance of new title. Meanwhile, notices of lis pendens were annotated
on TCT No. N-126668 on 9 February 2005. These markings indicated that SEC Corp.
Case No. 036-04, which was filed before the RTC and involved the rehabilitation
proceedings for MSI (Millian Shoe Inc.), covered the subject property and included it in
the Stay Order issued by the RTC dated 25 October 2004.
Petitioner’s argument: On 26 September 2006, petitioner moved for the exclusion of the
subject property from the Stay Order.8 He claimed that the lot belonged to Spouses
Cruz who were mere stockholders and officers of MSL He further argued that since he
had won the bidding of the property on 14 October 2004, or before the annotation of the
title on 9 February 2005, the auctioned property could no longer be part of the Stay
Order.
RTC denied the petition. The case was elevated to CA but was likewise denied ruling
that the properties of Spouses Cruz can be held answerable for the obligations of MSI.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON the properties of Spouses Cruz can be held answerable for the
obligations of MSI.
HELD: NO. In finding the subject property answerable for the obligations of MSI, the
CA characterized respondent spouses as stockholders of a close corporation who, as
such, are liable for its debts. This conclusion is baseless. In effect, the CA and the RTC
deemed MSI a close corporation based on the allegation of Spouses Cruz that it was
so. However, mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.
Furthermore, we find that the CA seriously erred in portraying the import of Section 97
of the Corporation Code. Citing that provision, the CA concluded that "in a close
corporation, the stockholders and/or officers usually manage the business of the
corporation and are subject to all liabilities of directors, i.e. personally liable for
corporate debts and obligations." 17
However, Section 97 of the Corporation Code only specifies that "the stockholders of
the corporation shall be subject to all liabilities of directors." Nowhere in that provision
do we find any inference that stockholders of a close corporation are automatically liable
for corporate debts and obligations.
Parenthetically, only Section 100, paragraph 5, of the Corporation Code explicitly
provides for personal liability of stockholders of close corporation, viz:
Sec. 100. Agreements by stockholders. -
xxxx
5. To the extent that the stockholders are actively engaged in the management or
operation of the business and affairs of a close corporation, the stockholders shall be
held to strict fiduciary duties to each other and among themselves. Said stockholders
shall be personally liable for corporate torts unless the corporation has obtained
reasonably adequate liability insurance. (Emphasis supplied)
As can be read in that provision, several requisites must be present for its applicability.
None of these were alleged in the case of Spouses Cruz. Neither did the RTC or the CA
explain the factual circumstances for this Court to discuss the personally liability of
respondents to their creditors because of corporate torts." 18
We thus apply the general doctrine of separate juridical personality, which provides that
a corporation has a legal personality separate and distinct from that of people
comprising it. 19 By virtue of that doctrine, stockholders of a corporation enjoy the
principle of limited liability: the corporate debt is not the debt of the stockholder. 20 Thus,
being an officer or a stockholder of a corporation does not make one's property the
property also of the corporation.21

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

JOSELITO HERNAND M. BUSTOS, Petitioners

Sec. 100. Agreements by stockholders. -

You might also like