Case Digest (G.R. No. 112872)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 112872)
Facts:
The Intestate Estate of Alexander T. Ty, represented by the administratrix, Sylvia S. Ty, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, Hon. Ildefonso E. Gascon, and Alejandro B. Ty, respondents, G.R. No. 112872 and G.R. No. 114672, April 19, 2001, Supreme Court Third Division, Melo, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Sylvia S. Ty was married to Alexander T. Ty, who died on May 19, 1988, survived by petitioner and his only child, Krizia Katrina. Petitioner was appointed administratrix of Alexander’s intestate estate. On November 4, 1992 she filed a motion for leave to sell or mortgage estate property to raise P4,714,560.00 for deficiency estate taxes. The estate inventory included numerous stockholdings (notably 142,285 shares of ABT Enterprises and other corporate shares) and a parcel of land in Biak‑na‑Bato, Sta. Mesa (TCT No. 214087).
Private respondent Alejandro B. Ty, father of the deceased Alexander, filed two actions in the Regional Trial Court seeking recovery/annulment of transfers. Civil Case Q‑91‑10833 (Branch 105, Quezon City) sought declaration of nullity of a deed of absolute sale of shares allegedly executed by Alejandro in favor of his son (now the deceased) — this litigation corresponds to G.R. No. 112872. Civil Case Q‑92‑14352 (Branch 90, Quezon City) sought recovery of the properties placed in the name of Alexander — corresponding to G.R. No. 114672. Alejandro alleged the properties were acquired with his money and without consideration from Alexander.
Petitioner moved to dismiss both complaints in the trial courts, principally for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the disputes were intra‑corporate and therefore within the exclusive competence of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under Section 5(b) of Presidential Decree No. 902‑A. In G.R. No. 114672 petitioner also argued (1) an express trust claim was unenforceable, (2) the actions were barred by prescription, (3) Alejandro failed to attach a certification of non‑forum shopping in violation of Supreme Court Circular 28‑91, and (4) the claims were barred by laches. The trial courts denied the motions to dismiss.
Petitioner filed certiorari petitions in the Court of Appeals seeking to annul the trial courts’ denials; the Court of Appeals dismissed those petitions for lack of merit. Petitioner then elevated the cases to the Supreme Court: G.R. No. 112872 by petition for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of discretion, and G.R. No. 114672 by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising legal questions. Because both matters involved the same parties and substantially identical issues, the Court consolidated the petitions.
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction over the actions, or were the disputes intra‑corporate matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC under PD No. 902‑A, Sec. 5(b)?
- Were Alejandro’s claims based on an express or resulting trust enforceable, or were they barred by prescription or laches?
- Did Alejandro’s failure to include a certification of non‑forum shopping (per Supreme Court Circular 28‑91) render his complaints defective?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)