Corporation Law 1st Batch

8/20/2019 Corporation Law 1st Batch

1/15


2/15


3/15

CORPORATION LAW SY 2015-2016

DIANE UY

GOOD EARTH EMPORIUM vs. CAGOOD EARTH EMPORIUM vs. CAGOOD EARTH EMPORIUM vs. CAGOOD EARTH EMPORIUM vs. CA

FACTS

- On October 16, 1981, a 3-yr lease contract on a 5-storey building

was entered into by petitioner (GEE) and respondent (Roces-Reyes

Realty), where the former as lessee.

- From March 1983 up to the filing of complaint, petitioner had

defaulted in the payment of its rentals, as a consequence of which,

respondent filed an ejectment case (Unlawful Detainer) against

herein petitioners.

- MTC ruled in favor of respondent.

- RRR filed a motion for execution while GEE appealed from the

decision

- A writ of execution was issued by MTC while GEE withdrew its appeal

- An alias writ of execution was issued by RTC.

- GEE filed a motion to quash writ of execution to which the lower

court issued a restraining order to hold execution. GEE also filedpetition for relief from judgment with RTC which was dismissed

- MTC denied motion to quash

- GEE appealed from dismissal of motion with RTC.

- RTC reversed the decision of MTC in finding evidence in the amount

of P1M and another P1M evidenced by a pacto de retro sale

instrument, drawn in favor of Jesus Roces and Marcos Roces were in

full satisfaction of the judgment obligation.

-

On further appeal, CA reversed RTC decision and reinstated MTC’s.

ISSUE: W/N there was full satisfaction of judgment debt in favor of

respondent corporation which would justify the quashing of writ of execution

HELD

- No. There was no valid payment made by petitioner to respondent

corporation.

- In deciding the case, the Court referred to Art. 12401 of the NCC

-

The supposed payments were not made to respondent corporationor to its SII nor to a person positively authorized to receive it

- Marcos Roces despite being the previous President of RRR who

signed the lease contract is not authorized to receive payment; Jesus

Roces testified that the P1M was in payment for a personal loan

extended by him in favor of Lim Ka Ping

- A corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its

individual stockholders and members. Being an officer or

stockholder of a corporation does not make one’s property also of

the corporation, and vice-versa, for they are separate entities.


4/15


5/15


6/15


7/15


8/15


9/15


10/15


11/15


12/15


13/15


14/15


15/15

Corporation Law 1st Batch

Documents

Transcript of Corporation Law 1st Batch