JACINTO DEL SAZ OROZCO and MARIA PAZ ALCANTARA vs.SALVADOR ARANETA (1939)
VILLA-REAL, J.:
Jacinto Orozco filed in the
office of the clerk of court of CFI Manila a complaint praying that
·
Salvador Araneta be declared without any right to
have, hold or dispose of the shares of stock owned by Jacinto Orozco
·
Jacinto and Alacantara without the intervention of
Araneta be declared entitled to withdraw certificate of stock from the BPI
The complaint also contained
the following facts:
·
Jacinto Orozco is the registered owner of the
11,428 shares of stock (certificate of stock No. 8357) of Benguet Consolidated
Mining Company and that Maria Paz Alcantara is his attorney-in-fact and his
administratrix of the properties and interests in the Philippines
·
Alcantara being attorney-in-fact and administratrix
was in possession of the certificate of stock and was consequently in
possession of the shares of stock
·
Araneta, without any right to said shares of
stock, induced Alcantara to deliver to him the certificate and that when
Araneta was asked to return the shares he refused saying that “the shares of
stock represented by said certificate belonged in naked ownership to some
client of his”
·
Araneta, making use of similar means, induced
Alcantara to ask for the delivery of said certificate of stock from BPI à made a written communication to BPI with the signature of Alcantara and
making Alcantara understand that said certificate was in the hands of the
aforesaid bank
·
that when the bank was required by Alcantara to
deliver to her the certificate in question, BPI merely issued a receipt in
which it was stated that the certificate was in the possession of the bank at
the disposal of the Alcantara and of Araneta in view of the latter's opposition
·
Alcantara expressed that she did not willingly
deliver the certificate of stock to BPI or to anyone else because she was not
authorized to do so by Jacinto
Araneta interposed a demurrer
alleging that there was a defect of parties defendant à overruled
·
DEC 20, 1935 Araneta’s answerà denying generally and specifically each and every fact alleged in the
complaint and interposing a special defense àhe is merely the lawyer of Francisco del Saz
Orozco, Dolores del Saz Orozco Lopez, and their minor children Felisa, Eugenio,
Antonio, Jose Maria, and Carlos, all surnamed Del Saz Orozco Lopez, who are the
real parties in interest and who pretend to own the shares of stock
·
Claims that such clients mentioned are necessary
parties to the case and that without them the controversy cannot be resolved à Plaintiffs opposed this petition.
·
CFI à ordered plaintiffs to amend their complaint to
include the del Saz Orzoco Lopezes as defendants
·
Plaintiffs are now appealing this order to the SC
ISSUE: WON Francisco, Dolores, Felisa, Eugenio, Antonio, Jose, Maria and Carlos
are all necessary parties to this case? NO.
COURT NOTES THAT
·
Alcantara hypothetically admitted the allegation
contained in the complaint that Maria Paz Alcantara is the attorney-in-fact and
administratrix of the properties and interests of Jacinto, who is the
registered owner of the shares of stock free from any annotation of an
encumbrance
·
And that in Araneta’s answer à he did state the nature of the interest which his clients have in the
said shares of stock, opposed to that of the Jacinto and Alcantara’s, to show
the necessity of making them parties defendant in the litigation.
COURT DECIDES
·
It is clear from the complaint that Jacinto is the
registered owner of the stocks and that Alcantara is his legal representative
·
On the other hand it is unclear as to what exactly
the interests of Araneta’s clients are in relation to the stocks à the necessity to compel plaintiffs to include in their complaint said
clients as parties defendant cannot be determined.
DECISION: REVERSED.
No comments:
Post a Comment