Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALFREDO YASAY DEL ROSARIO v. SPS. JOSE E. MANUEL AND CONCORDIA MANUEL

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR NO. 156581 2005-09-30	VICTORIA R. ARAMBULO v. EMERENCIANA R. GUNGAB QUISUMBING, J.
Since petitioners' occupation of the subject property was by mere tolerance, they are not entitled to retain its possession under Article 448[23] of the Civil Code. They are aware that their tolerated possession may be terminated any time and they cannot be considered as builders in good faith.[24] Moreover, as aptly found by the Court of Appeals, petitioners have not presented evidence to prove that they made improvements on the subject property and defrayed the expenses therefor.
	GR No. 152542 & 155472 2004-07-08	MONFORT HERMANOS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ANTONIO B. MONFORT III YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
On April 21, 1997, Ma. Antonia M. Salvatierra filed on behalf of the Corporation a complaint for forcible entry, preliminary mandatory injunction with temporary restraining order and damages against the group of Antonio Monfort III, before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cadiz City.[11] It contended that the latter through force and intimidation, unlawfully took possession of the 4 Haciendas and deprived the Corporation of the produce thereon.
	GR No. 152542 & 155472 2004-07-08	MONFORT HERMANOS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ANTONIO B. MONFORT III YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Jesus Antonio H. Monfort (Member).[20] There is thus a doubt as to whether Paul M. Monfort, Yvete M. Benedicto, Jaqueline M. Yusay and Ester S. Monfort, were indeed duly elected Members of the Board legally constituted to bring suit in behalf of the Corporation.[21]
	GR No. 152542 & 155472 2004-07-08	MONFORT HERMANOS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ANTONIO B. MONFORT III YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The claim, therefore, of petitioners as represented by Atty. Dumadag, that Zaballa, et al., are the incumbent officers of Premium has not been fully substantiated. In the absence of an authority from the board of directors, no person, not even the officers of the corporation, can validly bind the corporation. In the case at bar, the fact that four of the six Members of the Board listed in the 1996 General Information Sheet[23] are already dead[24] at the time the March 31, 1997 Board Resolution was issued, does not automatically make the four signatories (i.e., Paul M. Monfort, Yvete M. Benedicto, Jaqueline M. Yusay and Ester S. Monfort) to the said Board Resolution (whose name do not appear in the 1996 General Information Sheet) as among the incumbent Members of the Board. This is because it was not established that they were duly elected to replace the said deceased Board Members.
	GR No. 152542 & 155472 2004-07-08	MONFORT HERMANOS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ANTONIO B. MONFORT III YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
What further militates against the purported election of those who signed the March 31, 1997 Board Resolution was the belated submission of the alleged Minutes of the October 16, 1996 meeting where the questioned officers were elected. The issue of legal capacity of Ma. Antonia M. Salvatierra was raised before the lower court by the group of Antonio Monfort III as early as 1997, but the Minutes of said October 16, 1996 meeting was presented by the Corporation only in its September 29, 1999 Comment before the Court of Appeals.[27] Moreover, the Corporation failed to prove that the same October 16, 1996 Minutes was submitted to the SEC. In fact, the 1997 General Information Sheet[28] submitted by the Corporation does not reflect the names of the 4 Directors claimed to be elected on October 16, 1996.