Case Digest (G.R. No. 192530)
Facts:
Tee Ling Kiat v. Ayala Corporation, G.R. No. 192530, March 07, 2018, the Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Tee Ling Kiat sought review of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 24, 2009 and Resolution dated May 26, 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 105081, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court — Makati City, Branch 59's Orders of February 20, 2008 and June 26, 2008 dismissing Tee's third-party claim in Civil Case No. 40074.The underlying litigation began with Ayala Corporation's claim for sum of money against Continental Manufacturing Corporation (CMC) and the Spouses Dewey and Lily Dee arising from a promissory note endorsed to Ayala. The RTC — Makati City, Branch 149 rendered judgment in favor of Ayala on November 29, 1990 for P800,000 plus interest, attorney's fees and costs, and a writ of execution was issued to satisfy that judgment.
Pursuant to execution, a Notice of Levy on Execution dated November 21, 2006 purported to levy "rights, claims, shares, interest, title and participation" that the Spouses Dee might have in parcels of land registered under Transfer Certificates of Title in the name of Vonnel Industrial Park, Inc. (VIP) — a corporation in which Dewey Dee had been an incorporator. The sheriff's return indicated the titles were in VIP's name.
On March 26, 2007, before a scheduled sale, Tee Ling Kiat filed a Third-Party Claim (terceria), asserting he had purchased Dewey Dee's shares in VIP in December 1980 and attaching a photocopy of a Deed of Sale of Shares and cancelled checks as proof. The clerk issued a Notice of Third-Party Claim; Ayala (substituted by assignee Bienvenido B.M. Amora, Jr.) posted an indemnity bond of P2,658,700. VIP and Tee opposed the bond as inadequate and moved to annul the levy and subsequent proceedings.
In opposition, Amora pointed to SEC records showing no entry of Tee as a stockholder and conveyed that VIP had its Certificate of Registration revoked by the SEC on August 11, 2003. The case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 59. In an Order dated February 20, 2008, the RTC (Branch 59) denied VIP and Tee's Omnibus Motion and disallowed the third-party claim, holding that Tee failed to prove the sale of shares (the purported transfer was not recorded in VIP's stock and transfer books as required by Section 63 of the Corporation Code), that photocopies offered had no probative value, and that VIP, having been revoked in 2003, no longer had capacity to sue by March 2007 in light of Section 122 of the Corporation Code. Tee's motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated June 26, 2008.
Tee then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (instituted solely in his name). The CA, in a Decision dated September 24, 2009 (ponencia of Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr.), denied the petition on the ground that Tee was not a real party‑in‑interest because he failed to prove he ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in affirming the RTC's dismissal of Tee Ling Kiat's third-party claim for lack of proof that he was a real party-in-...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)