Luxuria Homes Vs CA Digest
Uploaded by
Simeon SuanLuxuria Homes Vs CA Digest
Uploaded by
Simeon SuanLuxuria Homes vs CA
G.R. No. 125986 January 28, 1999
Facts:
Petitioner Posadas entered into negotiations with private respondent Jaime T.
Bravo regarding the development of a property in Sucat, Muntinlupa into a
residential subdivision. After 7 months, through a Deed of Assignment, assigned
the said property to petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc., purportedly for organizational
and tax avoidance purposes. Respondent Bravo signed as one of the witnesses
to the execution of the Deed of Assignment and the Articles of Incorporation of
petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc.
Bravo could not accept the management contracts to develop the 1.6 hectare
property into a residential subdivision and he demanded for the payment of
services rendered in connection with the development of the land. Petitioner
Posadas refused to pay the amount demanded. He also sought recovery against
the corporation Luxuria Homes Inc just formed.
Issue:
Can petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc., be held liable to private respondents for the
transactions supposedly entered into between petitioner Posadas and private
respondents?
Ruling:
No. It cannot be said then that the incorporation of petitioner Luxuria Homes and
the eventual transfer of the subject property to it were in fraud of private
respondents as such were done with the full knowledge of respondent Bravo
himself.
Besides petitioner Posadas is not the majority stockholder of petitioner Luxuria
Homes, Inc., as erroneously stated by the lower court. The Articles of
Incorporation of petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc., clearly show that petitioner
Posadas owns approximately 33% only of the capital stock. Hence petitioner
Posadas cannot be considered as an alter ego of petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc.
To disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing
must be clearly and convincingly established. It cannot be presumed.
Obviously in the instant case, private respondents failed to show proof that
petitioner Posadas acted in bad faith. Consequently since private respondents
failed to show that petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc., was a party to any of the
supposed transactions, not even to the agreement to negotiate with and relocate
the squatters, it cannot be held liable, nay jointly and in solidum, to pay private
respondents. In this case since it was petitioner Aida M. Posadas who contracted
respondent Bravo to render the subject services, only she is liable to pay the
amounts adjudged herein.
