CASE 2016-0010: ESTATE OF DR. JUVENCIO P. ORTANEZ, REPRESENTED BY DIVINA ORTANEZ-ENDERES, LIGAYA NOVICIO, AND CESAR ORTANEZ VERSUS JOSE C. LEE, BENJAMIN C. LEE, CARMENCITA TAN, ANGEL ONG, MA. PAZ CASAL-LEE, JOHN OLIVER PASCUAL, CONRADO CRUZ, JR., BRENDA ORTANEZ, AND JULIE ANN PARADO AND JOHN DOES (G.R. NO. 184251, 30 MARCH 2016, PEREZ, J.) (SUBJECT/S: EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION OF ESTATE EXCLUDING HEIRS INVALIDATE SUBSEQUENT SALE; PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE) (BRIEF TITLE: ESTATE OF ORTANEZ VS. JOSE C. LEE ET AL)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
EXTRA-JUDICIAL PARTITION OF ESTATE KNOWINGLY EXCLUDING HEIRS IS INVALID. SUBSEQUENT SALE ALSO INVALID.
“We observed in the aforesaid decision that Juliana Ortafiez (Juliana) and her three sons invalidly entered into a Memorandum of Agreement extra-judicially partitioning the intestate estate among themselves, despite their knowledge that there were other heirs or claimants to the Estate and before the final settlement of the Estate by the intestate court. Since the appropriation of the estate properties was invalid, the subsequent sale thereof by Juliana and Lee to a third party (FLAG), without court approval, was likewise void.”
PETITIONERS FAILED TO PRESENT THE REQUIRED PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
“From the foregoing facts and based on a careful evaluation of the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that petitioners indeed failed to present the required preponderance of evidence to prove their allegation in the complaint that they represented more than 51 o/o of the outstanding capital stock of Philinterlife during the annual stockholders’ meeting held on 15 March 2006.
Clearly, the core issue to be resolved in the present case is simply on whether respondents were validly elected as Board of Directors during the annual stockholders’ meeting of Phi linter life held on 15 March 2006. We agree with the courts below that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that the respondents were duly elected as directors/officers of Philinterlife during the aforesaid annual stockholders’ meeting. Petitioners cannot, in the instant election contest case, question the increases in the capital stocks of the corporation.”
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 