SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 91889 August 27, 1993

MANUEL R. DULAY ENTERPRISES, INC., VIRGILIO E. DULAY AND

NEPOMUCENO REDOVAN, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, EDGARDO D. PABALAN, MANUEL A.
TORRES, JR., MARIA THERESA V. VELOSO AND CASTRENSE C.
VELOSO, respondents.

Virgilio E. Dulay for petitioners.

Torres, Tobias, Azura & Jocson for private respondents.

NOCON, J.:

1
This is a petition for review on certiorari to annul and set aside the decision of the
Court of Appeals affirming the decision2 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay, Branch
114 Civil Cases Nos. 8198-P, and 2880-P, the dispositive portion of which reads, as
follows:

Wherefore, in view of all the foregoing considerations, in this Court

hereby renders judgment, as follows:

In Civil Case No. 2880-P, the petition filed by Manuel R. Dulay

Enterprises, Inc. and Virgilio E. Dulay for annulment or declaration of
nullity of the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 46, Pasay
City, in its Civil Case No. 38-81 entitled "Edgardo D. Pabalan, et al., vs.
Spouses Florentino Manalastas, et al.," is dismissed for lack of merits;

1
 In Civil Case No. 8278-P, the complaint filed by Manuel R. Dulay
Enterprises, Inc. for cancellation of title of Manuel A. Torres, Jr. (TCT
No. 24799 of the Register of Deeds of Pasay City) and reconveyance, is
dismissed for lack or merit, and,

In Civil Case No. 8198-P, defendants Manuel R. Dulay Enterprises, Inc.

and Virgilio E. Dulay are ordered to surrender and deliver possession of
the parcel of land, together with all the improvements thereon,
described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 24799 of the Register of
Deeds of Pasay City, in favor of therein plaintiffs Manuel A. Torres, Jr.
as owner and Edgardo D. Pabalan as real estate administrator of said
Manuel A. Torres, Jr.; to account for and return to said plaintiffs the
rentals from dwelling unit No. 8-A of the apartment building (Dulay
Apartment) from June 1980 up to the present, to indemnify plaintiffs,
jointly and severally, expenses of litigation in the amount of P4,000.00
and attorney's fees in the sum of P6,000.00, for all the three (3) cases.
Co-defendant Nepomuceno Redovan is ordered to pay the current and
subsequent rentals on the premises leased by him to plaintiffs.

The counterclaim of defendants Virgilio E. Dulay and Manuel R. Dulay

Enterprises, Inc. and N. Redovan, dismissed for lack of merit. With
3
costs against the three (3) aforenamed defendants.

The facts as found by the trial court are as follows:

Petitioner Manuel R. Dulay Enterprises, Inc, a domestic corporation with the

following as members of its Board of Directors: Manuel R. Dulay with 19,960 shares
and designated as president, treasurer and general manager, Atty. Virgilio E. Dulay
with 10 shares and designated as vice-president; Linda E. Dulay with 10 shares;
Celia Dulay-Mendoza with 10 shares; and Atty. Plaridel C. Jose with 10 shares and
4
designated as secretary, owned a property covered by TCT No. 17880 and known
as Dulay Apartment consisting of sixteen (16) apartment units on a six hundred

2
eighty-nine (689) square meters lot, more or less, located at Seventh Street (now
Buendia Extension) and F.B. Harrison Street, Pasay City.

Petitioner corporation through its president, Manuel Dulay, obtained various loans
for the construction of its hotel project, Dulay Continental Hotel (now Frederick
Hotel). It even had to borrow money from petitioner Virgilio Dulay to be able to
continue the hotel project. As a result of said loan, petitioner Virgilio Dulay occupied
one of the unit apartments of the subject property since property since 1973 while
at the same time managing the Dulay Apartment at his shareholdings in the
5
corporation was subsequently increased by his father.

On December 23, 1976, Manuel Dulay by virtue of Board Resolution

No 186 of petitioner corporation sold the subject property to private respondents
spouses Maria Theresa and Castrense Veloso in the amount of P300,000.00 as
evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale.7 Thereafter, TCT No. 17880 was cancelled
and TCT No. 23225 was issued to private respondent Maria Theresa
8
Veloso. Subsequently, Manuel Dulay and private respondents spouses Veloso
executed a Memorandum to the Deed of Absolute Sale of December 23,
1976 9 dated December 9, 1977 giving Manuel Dulay within (2) years or until
December 9, 1979 to repurchase the subject property for P200,000.00 which was,
however, not annotated either in TCT No. 17880 or TCT No. 23225.

On December 24, 1976, private respondent Maria Veloso, without the knowledge of
Manuel Dulay, mortgaged the subject property to private respondent Manuel A.
Torres for a loan of P250,000.00 which was duly annotated as Entry No. 68139 in
10
TCT No. 23225.

Upon the failure of private respondent Maria Veloso to pay private respondent
Torres, the subject property was sold on April 5, 1978 to private respondent Torres
as the highest bidder in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale as evidenced by the
11
Certificate of Sheriff's Sale issued on April 20, 1978.

On July 20, 1978, private respondent Maria Veloso executed a Deed of Absolute
12
Assignment of the Right to Redeem in favor of Manuel Dulay assigning her right to

3
repurchase the subject property from private respondent Torres as a result of the
extra sale held on April 25, 1978.

As neither private respondent Maria Veloso nor her assignee Manuel Dulay was able
to redeem the subject property within the one year statutory period for redemption,
13
private respondent Torres filed an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership with the
14
Registry of Deeds of Pasay City and TCT No. 24799 was subsequently issued to
private respondent Manuel Torres on April 23, 1979.

On October 1, 1979, private respondent Torres filed a petition for the issuance of a
writ of possession against private respondents spouses Veloso and Manuel Dulay in
LRC Case No. 1742-P. However, when petitioner Virgilio Dulay was never authorized
by the petitioner corporation to sell or mortgage the subject property, the trial court
ordered private respondent Torres to implead petitioner corporation as an
indispensable party but the latter moved for the dismissal of his petition which was
granted in an Order dated April 8, 1980.

On June 20, 1980, private respondent Torres and Edgardo Pabalan, real estate
administrator of Torres, filed an action against petitioner corporation, Virgilio Dulay
and Nepomuceno Redovan, a tenant of Dulay Apartment Unit No. 8-A for the
recovery of possession, sum of money and damages with preliminary injunction in
Civil Case, No. 8198-P with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal.

On July 21, 1980, petitioner corporation filed an action against private respondents
spouses Veloso and Torres for the cancellation of the Certificate of Sheriff's Sale and
TCT No. 24799 in Civil Case No. 8278-P with the then Court of First Instance of
Rizal.

On January 29, 1981, private respondents Pabalan and Torres filed an action against
spouses Florentino and Elvira Manalastas, a tenant of Dulay Apartment Unit No. 7-B,
with petitioner corporation as intervenor for ejectment in Civil Case No. 38-81 with
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City which rendered a decision on April 25,
1985, dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:

4
 Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff
(herein private respondents) and against the defendants:

1. Ordering the defendants and all persons claiming possession under

them to vacate the premises.

2. Ordering the defendants to pay the rents in the sum of P500.000 a

month from May, 1979 until they shall have vacated the premises with
interest at the legal rate;

3. Ordering the defendants to pay attorney's fees in the sum of

P2,000.00 and P1,000.00 as other expenses of litigation and for them
to pay the costs of the suit.15

Thereafter or on May 17, 1985, petitioner corporation and Virgilio Dulay filed an
action against the presiding judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City,
private respondents Pabalan and Torres for the annulment of said decision with the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay in Civil Case No. 2880-P.

Thereafter, the three (3) cases were jointly tried and the trial court rendered a
decision in favor of private respondents.

Not satisfied with said decision, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which
rendered a decision on October 23, 1989, the dispositive portion of which reads, as
follows:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision being appealed should be as it is

16
hereby AFFIRMED in full.

On November 8, 1989, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was

denied on January 26, 1990.

Hence, this petition.

During the pendency of this petition, private respondent Torres died on April 3, 1991
17
as shown in his death certificate and named Torres-Pabalan Realty &

5
 18
Development Corporation as his heir in his holographic will dated October 31,
1986.

Petitioners contend that the respondent court had acted with grave abuse of
discretion when it applied the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity in the
instant case considering that the sale of the subject property between private
respondents spouses Veloso and Manuel Dulay has no binding effect on petitioner
corporation as Board Resolution No. 18 which authorized the sale of the subject
property was resolved without the approval of all the members of the board of
directors and said Board Resolution was prepared by a person not designated by the
corporation to be its secretary.

We do not agree.

Section 101 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines provides:

Sec. 101. When board meeting is unnecessary or improperly held.

Unless the by-laws provide otherwise, any action by the directors of a
close corporation without a meeting shall nevertheless be deemed valid
if:

1. Before or after such action is taken, written consent thereto is

signed by all the directors, or

2. All the stockholders have actual or implied knowledge of the action

and make no prompt objection thereto in writing; or

3. The directors are accustomed to take informal action with the

express or implied acquiese of all the stockholders, or

4. All the directors have express or implied knowledge of the action in

question and none of them makes prompt objection thereto in writing.

If a directors' meeting is held without call or notice, an action taken

therein within the corporate powers is deemed ratified by a director

6
 who failed to attend, unless he promptly files his written objection with
the secretary of the corporation after having knowledge thereof.

In the instant case, petitioner corporation is classified as a close corporation and

consequently a board resolution authorizing the sale or mortgage of the subject
property is not necessary to bind the corporation for the action of its president. At
any rate, corporate action taken at a board meeting without proper call or notice in a
close corporation is deemed ratified by the absent director unless the latter promptly
files his written objection with the secretary of the corporation after having
knowledge of the meeting which, in his case, petitioner Virgilio Dulay failed to do.

It is relevant to note that although a corporation is an entity which has a personality

19
distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members, the veil of
corporate fiction may be pierced when it is used to defeat public convenience justify
20
wrong, protect fraud or defend crime. The privilege of being treated as an entity
distinct and separate from its stockholder or members is therefore confined to its
legitimate uses and is subject to certain limitations to prevent the commission of
fraud or other illegal or unfair act. When the corporation is used merely as an alter
ego or business conduit of a person, the law will regard the corporation as the act of
21
that person. The Supreme Court had repeatedly disregarded the separate
personality of the corporation where the corporate entity was used to annul a valid
contract executed by one of its members.

Petitioners' claim that the sale of the subject property by its president, Manuel
Dulay, to private respondents spouses Veloso is null and void as the alleged Board
Resolution No. 18 was passed without the knowledge and consent of the other
members of the board of directors cannot be sustained. As correctly pointed out by
the respondent Court of Appeals:

Appellant Virgilio E. Dulay's protestations of complete innocence to the

effect that he never participated nor was even aware of any meeting or
resolution authorizing the mortgage or sale of the subject premises
(see par. 8, affidavit of Virgilio E. Dulay, dated May 31, 1984, p. 14,

7
 Exh. "21") is difficult to believe. On the contrary, he is very much privy
to the transactions involved. To begin with, he is a incorporator and
one of the board of directors designated at the time of the organization
of Manuel R. Dulay Enterprise, Inc. In ordinary parlance, the said entity
is loosely referred to as a "family corporation". The nomenclature, if
imprecise, however, fairly reflects the cohesiveness of a group and the
parochial instincts of the individual members of such an aggrupation of
which Manuel R. Dulay Enterprises, Inc. is typical: four-fifths of its
incorporators being close relatives namely, three (3) children and their
father whose name identifies their corporation (Articles of
22
Incorporation of Manuel R. Dulay Enterprises, Inc. Exh. "31-A").

Besides, the fact that petitioner Virgilio Dulay on June 24, 1975 executed an
23
affidavit that he was a signatory witness to the execution of the post-dated Deed
of Absolute Sale of the subject property in favor of private respondent Torres
indicates that he was aware of the transaction executed between his father and
private respondents and had, therefore, adequate knowledge about the sale of the
subject property to private respondents.

Consequently, petitioner corporation is liable for the act of Manuel Dulay and the
sale of the subject property to private respondents by Manuel Dulay is valid and
binding. As stated by the trial court:

. . . the sale between Manuel R. Dulay Enterprises, Inc. and the

spouses Maria Theresa V. Veloso and Castrense C. Veloso, was a
corporate act of the former and not a personal transaction of Manuel
R. Dulay. This is so because Manuel R. Dulay was not only president
and treasurer but also the general manager of the corporation. The
corporation was a closed family corporation and the only non-relative
in the board of directors was Atty. Plaridel C. Jose who appeared on
paper as the secretary. There is no denying the fact, however, that
Maria Socorro R. Dulay at times acted as secretary. . . ., the Court can
not lose sight of the fact that the Manuel R. Dulay Enterprises, Inc. is a

8
 closed family corporation where the incorporators and directors belong
to one single family. It cannot be concealed that Manuel R. Dulay as
president, treasurer and general manager almost had absolute control
24
over the business and affairs of the corporation.

Moreover, the appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial judge unless
he has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered,
25
might affect the result of the case, which is not present in the instant case.

Petitioners' contention that private respondent Torres never acquired ownership over
the subject property since the latter was never in actual possession of the subject
property nor was the property ever delivered to him is also without merit.

Paragraph 1, Article 1498 of the New Civil Code provides:

When the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution

thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the
object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary do not appear or
cannot clearly be inferred.

Under the aforementioned article, the mere execution of the deed of sale in a public
document is equivalent to the delivery of the property. Likewise, this Court had held
that:

It is settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute

owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the
period of one year after the registration of the sale. As such, he is
entitled to the possession of the said property and can demand it at
any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the
issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title. The buyer can in
fact demand possession of the land even during the redemption period
except that he has to post a bond in accordance with Section 7 of Act
No. 3133 as amended. No such bond is required after the redemption

9
 period if the property is not redeemed. Possession of the land then
26
becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as confirmed owner.

Therefore, prior physical delivery or possession is not legally required since the
execution of the Deed of Sale in deemed equivalent to delivery.

Finally, we hold that the respondent appellate court did not err in denying
petitioner's motion for reconsideration despite the fact that private respondents
failed to submit their comment to said motion as required by the respondent
appellate court from resolving petitioners' motion for reconsideration without the
comment of the private respondent which was required merely to aid the court in
the disposition of the motion. The courts are as much interested as the parties in the
early disposition of cases before them. To require otherwise would unnecessarily
clog the courts' dockets.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Puno, J., took no part.

# Footnotes

1 Penned by Justice Jorge S. Imperial with the concurrence of Justice

Reynato S. Puno and Justice Cezar D. Francisco.

2 Penned by Judge Fermin Martin, Jr.

3 Rollo, p. 77.

4 Exhibit "1", Records/Index of Exhibits, p. 30.

10
 5 Rollo, pp. 31-32.

6 Exhibit "C", Records/Index of Exhibits, p. 5.

7 Exhibit "A" Records/Index of Exhibit, pp. 1-2.

8 Exhibit "B", Records/Index of Exhibits, p. 3.

9 Exhibit "17-C", Records/Index of Exhibits, pp. 96-97.

10 Exhibit "B", Records/Index of Exhibits, p. 4.

11 Exhibit "F", Records/Index of Exhibits, pp. 11-12.

12 Exhibit "H", Records/Index of Exhibits, pp. 14-15.

13 Exhibit "G", Records/Index of Exhibits, p. 13.

14 Exhibit "I", Records/Index of Exhibits, p. 16.

15 Original of Civil Case No. 2880-P, p. 84.

16 Rollo, p. 95.

17 Id., p. 171.

18 Id., p. 172.

19 Good Earth Emporium, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 544
[1991].

20 Philippine Veterans Investment Development Corporation vs. Court

of Appeals, 181 SCRA 678 [1990].

21 Cagayan Valley Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA

218 [1989].

22 Rollo, p. 89.

11
 23 Exhibit "24". Records/Index of Exhibit, p. 55.

24 Rollo, p. 74.

24 People vs. Pirreras, 179 SCRA 33 [1989].

25 People vs. Pirreras, 179 SCRA 33 [1989].

26 F. David Enterprises vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America, 191

SCRA 516 [1990].

12