Title
Florete, Sr. vs. Florete, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 223321
Decision Date
Apr 2, 2018
Marsal & Co. share sale dispute: Teresita’s shares transferred to Rogelio without formal AOI compliance; SC upheld validity due to respondents’ 17-year inaction, waiver, and consent.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 223321)

Key Dates

• October 7, 1966 – Marsal’s organization and initial capitalization.
• June 1, 1982 – Shareholdings recorded.
• September 19, 1989 – Death of Teresita F. Menchavez.
• 1992–1995 – Probate proceedings on Teresita’s estate; Compromise Agreement and Deed of Assignment transferring her 3,464 Marsal shares to Rogelio.
• October 3, 1990 – Death of Marcelino M. Florete, Sr.; probate and partition approved in May 1995 noting the share transfer.
• February 21, 2012 – Complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court for annulment of the share sale.
• April 26, 2013 – RTC dismissal of the annulment case.
• August 3, 2015 – Court of Appeals decision annulling the share transfer.
• February 19, 2016 – CA denial of motion for reconsideration.
• April 2, 2018 – Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable post-1990 decisions).
• Corporation Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 68), particularly:
– Section 97(1): Permits close corporations to qualify shares and restrict transfers in articles of incorporation.
– Section 98: Validity and requirements of transfer restrictions.
– Section 99(3)–(5): Presumptive notice, corporate refusal to register, and exception by unanimous consent or amendment.

Facts

  1. Marsal’s Articles of Incorporation were repeatedly amended to increase capital but retained Paragraph 7, imposing a five-day notice from director to stockholders and a ten-day exercise period for preemptive rights, with unauthorized transfers held void.
  2. As of 1982, five family members held shares; Teresita held 3,464 shares.
  3. Upon Teresita’s death, her husband Ephraim obtained letters of administration and, in 1995, entered a court-approved compromise with Rogelio, ceding all her corporate shares, including Marsal. No formal notice under Paragraph 7 was recorded.
  4. In the 1995 intestate proceedings of Marcelino Sr., the probate court expressly noted the sale of Teresita’s inherited shares to Rogelio.
  5. In 2012, Marcelino Jr. and Ma. Elena filed for annulment of the 1995 share transfer, alleging violation of Paragraph 7’s preemptive-right procedure. The RTC dismissed for lack of cause; the CA reversed, declaring the transfer null and void.

Issue

Whether the 1995 transfer of Teresita’s 3,464 Marsal shares to Rogelio, unaccompanied by the formal preemptive-rights notice procedure of Paragraph 7 of the Articles, was void for violating the transfer restriction.

Supreme Court Ruling

The petition is granted. The CA decision and resolution are reversed and set aside. The share transfer is valid and may be registered, as Paragraph 7 was effectively waived by respondents’ actual knowledge and consent, and Section 99(5) of the Corporation Code permits transfer in violation of restrictions when all stockholders consent.

Rationale

  1. Judicial Admission: Petitioners admitted in pleadings that Marsal is a close corporation subject to transfer restrictions, rendering their challenge to the nature of the corporation inadmissible.
  2. Close-Corporation Restrictions: Article-of-Incorporation restrictions are valid under Sections 97–

...continue reading

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