Case Digest (G.R. No. L-41818)
Facts:
Zoila Co Lim v. Continental Development Corporation, G.R. No. L-41818; Continental Development Corporation v. Benito Gervasio Tan and Zoila Co Lim, G.R. No. L-41831, February 18, 1976, Supreme Court First Division, Makasiar, J., writing for the Court.On November 26, 1973, Continental Development Corporation (petitioner in G.R. No. L-41831; respondent in G.R. No. L-41818) filed a complaint for interpleader in the Manila Court of First Instance, Branch XXVI, seeking judicial determination of competing claims to certain common shares of the corporation recorded in its books. The complaint alleged that the books showed Benito Gervasio Tan (defendant/respondent) as the registered stockholder of 125 common shares, but that Zoila Co Lim (defendant/petitioner) claimed ownership as heir of her deceased mother So Bi (alias Tawa); Continental averred it had no interest in the shares and feared liability or punitive measures if it complied with either claimant.
On January 7, 1974, Benito Gervasio Tan moved to dismiss the interpleader complaint arguing, among other things, that the corporate books reflected him as owner and invoking Section 52 of the Corporation Law to support his asserted right. Zoila Co Lim filed an answer on January 14, 1974, expressly admitting the corporate-record allegation but asserting that the shares had been held in trust for her mother and that, as her heir, she was the true owner. Continental opposed Tan’s motion on January 22, 1974, reiterating its inability to determine the rightful claimant and its exposure to conflicting demands.
On March 12, 1974, the trial judge dismissed Continental’s complaint for lack of cause of action, citing Section 35 of Act No. 1459 (the Corporation Law). Motions for reconsideration were filed by Continental and by Zoila; these were denied by order of July 3, 1974. Continental and Zoila then sought relief from the Supreme Court; the Court treated the petitions as special civil actions, treated Tan’s motion to dismiss as an answer, and submitted the cases for decision.
The trial court’s dismissal effectively resolved ownership in favor of Tan by refusing to entertain i...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err (commit grave abuse of discretion) in dismissing the complaint for interpleader for lack of cause of action?
- Were the requisites for an interpleader action present so that Continental Development Corporation could lawfully compel the claimants to interplead under Rule 63, Section ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)