STONEHILL v. DIOKNO20 SCRA 283 (1967)Concepcion, CJ FACTS: In violation ofCentral BankLaws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code, 42 warrants were issued against petitioners or the corporation where they are officers tosearchthe persons above-named and/or the premises of theiroffices, warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take possession of their books of accounts, financial records,vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals,portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers) which are the subject of the offense. The petitioner contended that the search warrants are null and void as their issuance violated the Constitution and the Rules of Court for being general warrants. Thus,he filed a petition with the Supreme Court forcertiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction to prevent the seized effects from being introduced as evidence in the deportation cases against the petitioner. The court issued the writ only for those effects found in the petitioner's residence.

ISSUE:WON petitioner can assail the validity of the warrants for both premises.

HELD:No, he can only assail the search conducted in the residences but not those done in the corporation's premises. The petitioner has no cause of action in the second situation since a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from the personality of its officers or herein petitioner regardless of the amount of shares of stock or interest of each in the said corporation, and whatever office they hold therein. Only the party whose rights has been impaired can validly object the legality of a seizure--a purely personal right which cannot be exercised by a third party. The right to object belongs to the corporation ( for the 1st group of documents, papers, and things seized from the offices and the premises).