Title
De los Santos vs. McGrath
Case
G.R. No. L-4818
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1955
Dispute over 1.6M Lepanto shares claimed by plaintiffs, allegedly purchased during WWII. SC ruled for defendants, upholding U.S. Alien Property Custodian’s vesting order as lawful due to insufficient proof of ownership by plaintiffs.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4818)

Factual Background

The plaintiffs claim that De los Santos purchased 500,000 shares from Juan Campos and 300,000 shares from Carl Hess, followed by a purchase of 800,000 shares from Hess for Astraquillo's benefit, all during December 1942. A vesting order dated February 18, 1945, designated these shares as property of the Alien Property Custodian as Japanese property. However, the claims of the plaintiffs were initially approved but later reversed by the Philippine Alien Property Administrator, which led to the current action.

Legal Issues and Initial Court Findings

The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership, as well as the recovery of dividends and rights associated with the shares. The defendant contested the claim, arguing that the shares belonged to the Mitsui Bussan Kaisha. The Court of First Instance of Manila subsequently ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them as the absolute owners of the shares and nullifying the transfer of ownership made in favor of the Alien Property Custodian.

Appellants' Arguments and Evidence

On appeal, the main issue was whether the plaintiffs had validly purchased the shares. The appellants presented testimony from Vicente Madrigal, who claimed he acted as a trustee for the Mitsuis, and stated that he had delivered the stock certificates to them prior to the war. Several witnesses corroborated this defense, stating that the stock certificates had been kept securely until their alleged looting during the liberation of Manila.

Plaintiffs' Evidence and Testimony

To support their claims, the plaintiffs presented their testimonies, supplemented by evidence from third parties like Primitivo Javier and Leonardo Recio, regarding their alleged purchases of the shares. However, much of their evidence relied heavily on the plaintiffs' oral accounts, as the original sellers, Campos and Hess, were deceased.

Evaluation of Credibility

The lower court found the defense's evidence inherently improbable. However, the appellate court scrutinized if the trial court had correctly assessed the credibility of the witnesses. It noted that the burden of proof lay squarely on the plaintiffs, meaning that mere improbabilities in the defense’s testimony would not suffice to undermine the defense’s position.

Legal Standards on Transfer of Stock

The court referenced Section 35 of the Corporation Law, which stipulates the requirements for transferring stock, including the necessity for such transfers to be noted in the corporation's books. Thus, since no such entry had been made for the alleged transfers from Campos and Hess, the transfers could not be deemed valid against the registered owners.

The Court's Decision

The appellate court ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their claim by a preponderance of the evidence. As the shares were registered under Madrigal in trust for the Mitsuis, the plaintiffs could not acquire better title than what their supposed vendors held. The ruling from the lower court was reversed, with the appeal dismissed and costs imposed on the plaintiffs.

Dis

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.