Title
Ong Yong vs. Tiu
Case
G.R. No. 144476
Decision Date
Apr 8, 2003
FLADC shareholders dispute over rescission of Pre-Subscription Agreement; Ongs' P190M investment saved Masagana Citimall; SC ruled unilateral rescission by Tius invalid, reinstated Ongs' rights.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 144476)

Petitioners and Respondents

Petitioners: Ong Yong et al. (G.R. No. 144476)
Respondents: David S. Tiu et al. and FLADC (G.R. No. 144629)

Key Dates

  • August 15, 1994: Pre-Subscription Agreement executed
  • February 23, 1996: Tius purported to rescind the agreement
  • May 19, 1997 & September 11, 1998: SEC decisions confirming rescission
  • October 5, 1999: Court of Appeals affirms with modification
  • February 1, 2002: Supreme Court Decision affirming CA but modifying interest and share allocations
  • March 15, 2002: Motions for reconsideration and writ of execution filed
  • October 18, 2004: Resolution granting Ongs’ motions for reconsideration

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution (equal protection, due process)
  • Corporation Code (capital stock subscription, dissolution, reduction of capital, trust fund doctrine)
  • Civil Code (Articles on rescission, pari delicto)
  • Securities Regulation Code (SEC jurisdiction)
  • Business Judgment Rule

Factual Background

FLADC, owned by the Tius, faced foreclosure of its P190 million mortgage on the Masagana Citimall project. The Tius and the Ongs entered into a Pre-Subscription Agreement:

  • Authorized capital stock increased to 2 million shares at P100 par. Ongs subscribed to 1 million shares (P100 million cash). Tius subscribed to 549,800 additional shares via real properties valued at P99.8 million plus existing 450,200 shares.
  • Ongs injected P100 million cash plus P70 million extra to help pay the PNB loan; Tius contributed a building and two parcels of land.
  • Management rights were divided: Tius to nominate VP and Treasurer; Ongs to nominate President, Secretary, Chairman, and six directors.

In February 1996 the Tius sought to rescind, alleging breaches by the Ongs: refusal to credit shares, denial of officer positions, and denial of office space. The Ongs countered that Tius refused corporate duties, failed to pay transfer taxes to effectuate share issuances, and that one property already belonged to FLADC.

Procedural History

  1. SEC Hearing Officer (May 19, 1997) confirmed rescission; SEC en banc (September 11, 1998) affirmed, classifying Ongs’ P70 million as premium on capital (no interest).
  2. Court of Appeals (October 5, 1999) affirmed SEC en banc, ordered liquidation of FLADC, returned investments, allocated remaining assets to Tius, and imposed mutual interest obligations under Civil Code Article 2209.
  3. Supreme Court (February 1, 2002) affirmed CA decision with modifications: awarded interest on P20 million loan at 12% from judicial demand and P70 million advance at 10% from June 19, 1996; credited Tius with 49,800 shares.
  4. Parties filed motions for reconsideration; Tius moved for writ of execution.

Issues on Reconsideration

  • Whether the Tius had legal capacity to rescind a subscription contract to FLADC shares in their personal capacities.
  • Whether rescission violated the Trust Fund Doctrine and the Corporation Code’s requirements for distribution of corporate assets.
  • Whether specific performance would have been a more appropriate remedy.
  • Whether corporate dissolution or reduction of capital stock procedures were circumvented.

Legal Analysis

  1. Subscription Contract and Standing to Rescind

    • The Pre-Subscription Agreement constituted a subscription contract between FLADC and the Ongs (Corp. Code, Sec. 60). The Tius were not parties to that contract and lacked the legal personality to seek its rescission. Only FLADC, as party in interest, could do so (Civil Code, Art. 1311).
  2. Trust Fund Doctrine and Corporate Asset Distribution

    • Subscriptions to capital stock form a trust fund for creditors (Phil. Trust Co. v. Rivera). Distribution of corporate capital assets is allowed only by (a) decrease of authorized capital stock (Corp. Code, Sec. 38), (b) redemption of shares, or (c) dissolution and liquidation (Secs. 117–120). Rescission would have bypassed these statutory safeguards, prejudice corporate creditors, and effectuate an unauthorized liquidation.
  3. Available Remedies and Business Judgment Rule

    • Tius had intra-corporate remedies under the Corporation Code and SEC rules to address alleged management violations and financial misappropriation (e.g., derivative suits, removal of officers), rather than extraordinary rescission. Courts must defer to corporate decision-making in the absence of oppression or fraud (business judgment rule).
  4. Comparative B

      ...continue reading

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