#CA SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CODE#
Section 63 of the Corporation Code provides, thus: "No transfer, however, shall be valid, except as between the parties, until the transfer is recorded in the books of the corporation showing the names of the parties to the transaction, the date of the transfer, the number of the certificate or certificates and the number of shares transferred."Īnd even assuming arguendo that there was a valid transfer, petitioners are nonetheless barred from intervening inasmuch as their rights can be ventilated and amply protected in another proceeding.A person may request that any of the following ministry decisions be reconsidered:
The transfer must be registered in the books of the corporation to affect third persons.
The corporation did not keep books and records.Perforce, no transfer was ever recorded, much less effected as to prejudice third parties. The petitioners cannot claim the right to intervene on the strength of the transfer of shares allegedly executed by the late Senator. At the very least, their interest is purely inchoate, or in sheer expectancy of a right in the management of the corporation and to share in the profits thereof and in the properties and assets thereof on dissolution, after payment of the corporate debts and obligations. Here, the interest, if it exists at all, of petitioners-movants is indirect, contingent, remote, conjectural, consequential and collateral. Otherwise, if persons not parties of the action could be allowed to intervene, proceedings will become unnecessarily complicated, expensive and interminable. The interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit between other parties must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. Both requirements must concur as the first is not more important than the second. RULING: To allow intervention, it must be shown that the movant has legal interest in the matter in litigation, or otherwise qualified and consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication of the rights of the original parties may be delayed or prejudiced, or whether the intervenor's rights may be protected in a separate proceeding or not. Hence this petition for review on certiorari.ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners have the right to intervene on the basis of purported assignment made by the late Senator of a certain portion of his shareholdings to them as evidenced by a Deed of Sale dated June 20, 1978. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. On appeal, the CA affirmed the lower courts decision. On July 26, 1979, the court denied the motion for intervention, and ruled that petitioners have no legal interest whatsoever in the matter in litigation and their being alleged assignees or transferees of certain shares in SUBIC cannot legally entitle them to intervene because SUBIC has a personality separate and distinct from its stockholders. On March 7, 1979, herein petitioners, sisters of the late senator, filed a motion for intervention on the ground that on June 20, 1978, their brother conveyed to them of his shareholdings in SUBIC or a total of 416,566.6 shares and as assignees of around 41 % of the total outstanding shares of such stocks of SUBIC, they have a substantial and legal interest in the subject matter of litigation and that they have a legal interest in the success of the suit with respect to SUBIC. 22431 and to issue a new title in her favor. She then prayed that the Deed of Assignment and the Deed of Mortgage be annulled and that the Register of Deeds be ordered to cancel TCT No. She further alleged that the same parcel of land was mortgaged by SUBIC in favor of FILMANBANK.
#CA SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGISTRATION#
3258 and that on Ja registration of a Deed of Assignment purportedly executed by the late Senator in favor of SUBIC, as a result of which TCT No. In her complaint, she alleged that in 1958, she and her husband acquired, thru conjugal funds, a parcel of land with improvements, known as "Pequena Island", covered by TCT No. 58168 December 19, 1989įACTS: On February 9, 1979, Adelaida Rodriguez-Magsaysay, widow and special administratix of the estate of the late Senator Genaro Magsaysay, brought before the then Court of First Instance of Olongapo an action against Artemio Panganiban, Subic Land Corporation, Filipinas Manufacturer's Bank and the Register of Deeds of Zambales.
0 kommentar(er)
