Title
Cease vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-33172
Decision Date
Oct 18, 1979
A family dispute over Tiaong Milling's assets led to the piercing of its corporate veil, declaring its properties part of Forrest L. Cease’s estate, with partition ordered as the proper remedy.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2724)

Trial Court Decision and Appealability

On December 27, 1969, the trial court:

  1. Declared Tiaong Mill’s assets under the trustee to be Forrest’s estate, to be equally divided among his six children.
  2. Set aside the trust agreement as illegal.
  3. Removed F.L. Cease Plantation Co., Inc. as trustee and ordered delivery of assets to a court-appointed receiver.
  4. Terminated Special Proceeding No. 3893, allowing Civil Case No. 6326 to proceed on damages and partition issues.

Defendants filed an appeal bond but the trial court (April 27, 1970) dismissed the appeal as premature, deeming the December 27 decision interlocutory. The Supreme Court remanded this ruling to the Court of Appeals, which (December 9, 1970) dismissed the petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, prompting the present appeal.

Dismissal of Administration Proceedings

Petitioners contended that the trial court improperly terminated Special Proceeding No. 3893 without resolving opposition to administration. The Court held that, in the absence of estate debts or creditors, judicial administration is unnecessary when partition is possible. Procedural rules favor direct partition to avoid costly and protracted administration. The parties had stipulated that the administration record be considered in the partition case, the same judge presided over both actions, and all issues overlapped. Dismissal of administration was therefore justified by substance over form.

Ownership and Partition Issues

Petitioners argued that Tiaong Mill’s corporate title, asserted early in the trial, precluded partition. The Court observed that upon its charter expiration, Tiaong Mill existed only for winding up and could not maintain adverse ownership. Its attempt to assert corporate title contradicted its status as trustee holding assets for distribution. Procedural doctrines permit partition when co-ownership is established or when corporate fiction must yield to equitable distribution.

Piercing the Corporate Veil

The trial court disregarded corporate personality, finding Tiaong Mill an alter ego of Forrest L. Cease. Evidence showed:
• Forrest retained majority shares and control throughout the corporation’s life.
• Corporate and personal finances were commingled; no distinct corporate bank accounts existed.
• Share distributions to children were gratuitous, serving family interests.

Established jurisprudence allows piercing the corporate veil to prevent fraud, defeat of rights, or improper extension of corporate existence. Here, maintaining separate corporate title would have delayed and frustrated rightful partition among Forrest’s heirs.

Finality and Appealability under Partition Rules

Petitioners claimed the December 1969 decision was final and appealable. Under pre-1987 Rules of Court, a judgment ordering partition was interlocutory until actual partition by commissioners, approval of their report, and final judgment. Subsequent jurisprudence (Miranda v. Court of Appeals, 1976) rec

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.