Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • G.R. No. 22106 September 11, 1924 ASIA BANKING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, STANDARD PRODUCTS, CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant

    Uploaded by

    Msi
    29 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case between Asia Banking Corporation and Standard Products Co., Inc. regarding an unpaid promissory note. The court found that Standard Products was estopped from denying Asia Banking's corporate existence because it had recognized Asia Banking as a corporation by making the note payable to it. Similarly, Standard Products could not deny its own corporate existence, as it had signed the note as a corporation. Therefore, Asia Banking was not required to provide additional evidence of the corporate status of either party. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of Asia Banking.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    S

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case between Asia Banking Corporation and Standard Products Co., Inc. regarding an unpaid promissory note. The court found that Standard Products was estopped from denying Asia Banking's corporate existence because it had recognized Asia Banking as a corporation by making the note payable to it. Similarly, Standard Products could not deny its own corporate existence, as it had signed the note as a corporation. Therefore, Asia Banking was not required to provide additional evidence of the corporate status of either party. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of Asia Banking.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 22106 September 11, 1924 ASIA BANKING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, STANDARD PRODUCTS, CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant

    Uploaded by

    Msi
    This document summarizes a court case between Asia Banking Corporation and Standard Products Co., Inc. regarding an unpaid promissory note. The court found that Standard Products was estopped from denying Asia Banking's corporate existence because it had recognized Asia Banking as a corporation by making the note payable to it. Similarly, Standard Products could not deny its own corporate existence, as it had signed the note as a corporation. Therefore, Asia Banking was not required to provide additional evidence of the corporate status of either party. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of Asia Banking.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. 22106           September 11, 1924

    ASIA BANKING CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellee,


    vs.
    STANDARD PRODUCTS, CO., INC., defendant-appellant.

    Charles C. De Selms for appellant.


    Gibbs & McDonough and Roman Ozaeta for appellee.

    OSTRAND, J.:

    This action is brought to recover the sum of P24,736.47, the balance due on the following
    promissory note:

    P37,757.22

    MANILA, P. I.,     Nov. 28, 1921.

    MANILA, P. I., Nov. 28, 1921.

    On demand, after date we promise to pay to the Asia Banking Corporation, or order, the sum
    of thirty-seven thousand seven hundred fifty-seven and 22/100 pesos at their office in
    Manila, for value received, together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum.

    No. ________ Due __________

    THE STANDARD PRODUCTS CO., INC.


            By     (Sgd.) GEORGE H. SEAVER

                    By     President

    The court below rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum demanded in the complaint,
    with interest on the sum of P24,147.34 from November 1, 1923, at the rate of 10 per cent per
    annum, and the costs. From this judgment the defendant appeals to this court.

    At the trial of the case the plaintiff failed to prove affirmatively the corporate existence of the parties
    and the appellant insists that under these circumstances the court erred in finding that the parties
    were corporations with juridical personality and assigns same as reversible error.

    There is no merit whatever in the appellant's contention. The general rule is that in the absence of
    fraud a person who has contracted or otherwise dealt with an association in such a way as to
    recognize and in effect admit its legal existence as a corporate body is thereby estopped to deny its
    corporate existence in any action leading out of or involving such contract or dealing, unless its
    existence is attacked for cause which have arisen since making the contract or other dealing relied
    on as an estoppel and this applies to foreign as well as to domestic corporations. (14 C. J., 227;
    Chinese Chamber of Commerce vs. Pua Te Ching, 1rquiaga for petitioner.
    Juan S. Alvarez for respondent Cruz.
    No appearance for the other respondent.

    OSTRAND, J.:

    This is a petition for relief under section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure from a judgment in
    cadastral case No. 4 of the Province of Zambonga, awarding lot No. 2750 of said case to the
    respondent Andres C. Cruz, the petitioner alleging that through a misunderstanding in examining the
    cadastral plans he did not observe that the lot was a part of lot No. 2751 decreed in his favor in the
    same case and that he therefore failed to assert his claim to said lot No. 2750 at the trial of the case.

    Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

    When a judgment is rendered by a Court of First Instance upon default, and a party thereto
    is unjustly deprived of a hearing by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and
    the Court of First Instance which rendered the judgment has finally adjourned so that no
    adequate remedy exists in that court, the party so deprived of a hearing may present his
    petition to the Supreme Court within sixty days after he first learns of the rendition of such
    judgment, and not thereafter, setting forth the facts and praying to have such judgment set
    aside. The court shall summarily on notice of both parties hear such petition, upon oral or
    written testimony as it shall direct, and the judgment shall be set aside and a trial upon the
    merits granted, upon such terms as may be just, if the facts set forth in the complaint are
    found to be true, otherwise the complaint shall be dismissed with costs.

    It appears from the record that the lot in question was indicated on the cadastral plans as land in
    dispute between the petitioner and the respondent Cruz; that the petitioner appeared at the hearing
    of the case and expressly relinquished his claim to the lot; and that the received notice of the
    judgment awarding the land to the respondent Cruz on March 19, 1924, nearly four months before
    the petition for relief was field in this court. It is clear that the judgment for which the relief is sought
    is not a judgment by default and that, moreover, the petition has not been presented within the
    period prescribed in section 513. Either one of these circumstances is sufficient to defeat the present
    action.

    The petition is dismissed with costs against the petitioner.

    Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor and Romualdez, JJ.,

    4 Phil., 222.)

    The defendant having recognized the corporate existence of the plaintiff by making a promissory
    note in its favor and making partial payments on the same is therefore estopped to deny said
    plaintiff's corporate existence. It is, of course, also estopped from denying its own corporate
    existence. Under these circumstances it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to present other evidence
    of the corporate existence of either of the parties. It may be noted that there is no evidence showing
    circumstances taking the case out of the rules stated.

    The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.

    Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

    You might also like