Title
Supreme Court
Rural Bank of Lipa City, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 124535
Decision Date
Sep 28, 2001
Dispute over share transfer validity; Villanueva spouses retained stockholder rights due to incomplete transfer process under Corporation Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 203060)

Default, Demand and Conversion to Treasury Stocks

When the Villanuevas did not settle the obligation by the agreed deadline, the Board of Directors demanded surrender of all stock certificates and delivery of collateral securing the P3,346,898.54 balance. The Villanuevas ignored this demand, prompting the Bank to convert their shares into treasury stocks—a conversion later challenged by the Villanuevas as invalid.

Exclusion from 1994 Stockholders’ Meeting

The Bank convened a stockholders’ meeting on January 15, 1994 to elect directors and officers without notifying the Villanuevas. The latter, joined by co-stockholders, petitioned the SEC to annul the meeting and election on grounds of by-laws violation, lack of notice, deprivation of voting rights, exclusion from the stockholders’ list, and arbitrary rejection of Avelina Villanueva’s directorship candidacy.

SEC Hearing Officer’s Orders and Injunctions

On February 16, 1994, the SEC issued a TRO enjoining the newly elected officers from acting. The Hearing Officer initially denied a preliminary injunction on April 6, 1994, but on reconsideration (December 16, 1994) granted it—finding that the Villanuevas, still in possession of their stock certificates, remained entitled to notice and vote. He further restrained the Bank from holding its 1995 stockholders’ meeting on January 13, 1995.

SEC En Banc Denial of Certiorari Petition

The Bank filed a certiorari petition before the SEC en banc to annul the Hearing Officer’s orders as grave abuse of discretion. On June 7, 1995, the en banc denied relief, holding that under Section 63 of the Corporation Code, the Villanuevas remained stockholders until the indorsed certificates were delivered and the transfer recorded. Reconsideration was denied on September 29, 1995.

Court of Appeals Affirmation

The Bank appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 38861). On February 27, 1996, the appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, upholding the SEC en banc’s findings: valid share transfer requires strict compliance with delivery, endorsement, and corporate book-entry per Section 63. The CA denied reconsideration on March 29, 1996.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, affirming both the SEC and the Court of Appeals. It held that: (1) the Deed of Assignment without delivery and endorsement of certificates did not vest title; (2) inter partes assignment does not confer stockholder rights absent statutory requisites; (3) strict compliance with Section 63 is mandatory; and (

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.