Sunday, February 5, 2012

Del Saz Orozco V Araneta 1951


DEL SAZ OROZCO vs. ARANETA (1951)
JUGO, J.:

FACTS
·         Eugenio del Saz Orozco died on February 7, 1922, leaving a will which he had executed on March 5, 1921 à will provided that certain properties should be given in life usufruct to his son Jacinto del Saz Orozco with the obligation on his part to preserve said properties in favor of the other heirs who were declared the naked owners thereof. Among these properties were 5,714 shares of stock of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company.
·         SEPT 11, 1934, the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company declared and distributed stock dividends out of its surplus profits, Jacinto receiving his proportionate portion of 11,428 shares.
·         NOV 17, 1939, said Mining Company again declared stock dividends out of its surplus profits, of which the Jacinto received 17,142 shares, making a total of 28,570 shares.

ISSUE: WON the stock dividend is part of the capital which should be preserved in favor of the owners or an income of fruits of the capital which should be given to and enjoyed by the life usufructuary, Jacinto, as his own exclusive property?

COURT LOOKS AT “in re: Testate Estate of Emil Maurice Bachrach” AS BASIS à Is a stock dividend fruit or income, which belongs to the usufructuary, or is it capital or part of the corpus of the estate, which pertains to the remainderman. 
·         Justice Ozaeta ruled that a dividend, whether in the form of cash or stock, is income and, consequently, should go to the usufructuary, taking into consideration that a stock dividend as well as a cash dividend can be declared only out of profits of the corporation, for it were declared out of the capital it would be a serious violation of the law.

IN THIS CASE
·         Araneta and his clients attempt to differentiate the present case from that case, contending that, while the doctrine in that case effected a just and equitable distribution, the application of it in the present case would cause an injustice à quoting Justice Holmes, "abstract propositions do not decide concrete cases."
o    Difference pointed out à by the declaration of stock dividends the voting power of the original shares of stock is considerably diminished, and, if the stock dividends are not given to the remaindermen, the voting power of the latter would be greatly impaired
o    Bearing in mind that the number of shares of stock of the Benguet Consolidated Mining company is so large, the diminution of the voting power of the original shares of stock in this case cannot possibly affect or influence the control of the policies of the corporation which is vested in the owners of the great block of shares. à not significant enough a reason to change doctrine
·         We have examined the two cases carefully and we have not perceived any difference which would justify a reversal or modification of the doctrine in the Bachrach case.
·         With regard to the sum of P3,428.40 which is alleged to have been received by Jacinto from the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, as a result of the reduction of its capital à not proven à on the contrary, it was denied by him as soon as he arrived in the Philippines from Spain. There is no ground, therefore, for ordering the plaintiff to deliver such sum to the defendants.
DECISION: Reversed, and it is declared that the stock dividends amounting to 28,570 shares belongs to Jacinto del Saz Orozco exclusively and in absolute ownership. 

No comments:

Post a Comment