Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Magsaysay-Labrador vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Kris Cancino
    Petitioners filed a motion to intervene in an action to annul deeds assigned and mortgaged to SUBIC Land Corporation by the private respondent's late husband. The trial court and Court of Appeals denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that as shareholders of SUBIC, petitioners did not have a direct and immediate legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation. While stock represents an interest in the corporation's property, shareholders do not have legal title to or direct ownership of corporate property. Therefore, petitioners' interest was too indirect and remote to allow intervention in the case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Magsaysay-Labrador vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Kris Cancino
    3K views1 page
    Petitioners filed a motion to intervene in an action to annul deeds assigned and mortgaged to SUBIC Land Corporation by the private respondent's late husband. The trial court and Court of Appeals denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that as shareholders of SUBIC, petitioners did not have a direct and immediate legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation. While stock represents an interest in the corporation's property, shareholders do not have legal title to or direct ownership of corporate property. Therefore, petitioners' interest was too indirect and remote to allow intervention in the case.

    Original Title

    Magsaysay-labrador vs. CA

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners filed a motion to intervene in an action to annul deeds assigned and mortgaged to SUBIC Land Corporation by the private respondent's late husband. The trial court and Court of Appeals denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that as shareholders of SUBIC, petitioners did not have a direct and immediate legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation. While stock represents an interest in the corporation's property, shareholders do not have legal title to or direct ownership of corporate property. Therefore, petitioners' interest was too indirect and remote to allow intervention in the case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    3K views1 page

    Magsaysay-Labrador vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Kris Cancino
    Petitioners filed a motion to intervene in an action to annul deeds assigned and mortgaged to SUBIC Land Corporation by the private respondent's late husband. The trial court and Court of Appeals denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that as shareholders of SUBIC, petitioners did not have a direct and immediate legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation. While stock represents an interest in the corporation's property, shareholders do not have legal title to or direct ownership of corporate property. Therefore, petitioners' interest was too indirect and remote to allow intervention in the case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MAGSAYSAY-LABRADOR vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 58168. December 19, 1989. Fernan, C.J.

    FACTS: Private respondent Adelaida Rodriguez Magsaysay filed an action against Subic Land Corporation (SUBIC), among others, to annul the deed of assignment and deed of mortgage executed in favor of the latter by her late husband. Private respondent alleged that the subject land of the two deeds was acquired through conjugal funds. Since her consent to the disposition of the same was not obtained, she claimed that the acts of assignment and mortgage were done to defraud the conjugal partnership. She further contended that the same were done without consideration and hence null and void. Petitioners, sisters of the deceased husband of the private respondent, filed a motion for intervention on the ground that their brother conveyed to them one-half of his shareholdings in SUBIC, or about 41%. The trial court denied the motion for intervention ruling that petitioners have no legal interest because SUBIC has a personality separate and distinct from its stockholders. The CA confirmed the denial on appeal. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether petitioners, as stockholders of SUBIC, have a legal interest in the action for annulment of the deed of assignment and deed of mortgage in favor of the corporation. HELD: NO. The Court noted that the interest which entitles person to intervene in a suit between other parties must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. In the instant petition, it was said that the interest, if it exists at all, of petitionersmovants is indirect, contingent, remote, conjectural, consequential and collateral. At the very least, their interest is purely inchoate, or in sheer expectancy of a right in the management of the corporation and to share in the profits thereof and in the properties and assets thereof on dissolution, after payment of the corporate debts and obligations. While a share of stock represents a proportionate or aliquot interest in the property of the corporation, it does not vest the owner thereof with any legal right or title to any of the property, his interest in the corporate property being equitable or beneficial in nature. Shareholders are in no legal sense the owners of corporate property, which is owned by the corporation as a distinct legal person.

    You might also like