Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


, plaintiff-appellant,vs.
, defendant-appellee.March 31, 1923G.R. No. L-19893
De Silva subscribed for 650 shares of stock of Aboitiz of the value of P500 each. He only paid
for the value of 200 shares, for which he became indebted to the corporation in the amount of
P255,000,representing the unpaid value of his subscription.

The secretary of the corporation notified him of the resolution passed by its Board, declaring
the unpaid subscriptions to have become due and demandable. The resolution also stated that
all such shares which remain unpaid will be declared delinquent, and wil lbe advertised for sale
at public auction.

De Silva thus filed a complaint in the CFI against the corporation, asking the court to enjoin the
corporation from holding such sale.

He said that the corporation exceeded its authority, as he said that its By-laws stated that the
unpaid shares shall be paid out of the 70% of the profit obtained, which shall be distributed
among the subscribers, who shall not receive any dividend until the shares are paid in full.
Further, he contends that the By-laws provide an operative way of paying for the shares
continuously until their full amortization. The CFI dismissed the case.

Whether the corporation may declare the unpaid shares delinquent and/or collect their value
by another method different from that prescribed in the By-laws.

In the By-laws, it is stated that the directors are authorized to create a special emergency fund
or extraordinary reserve fund, when, in its judgment, and in case all the shares subscribed to
have been fullypaid.

The directors are given the discretion to do whatever is stated in the By-laws relative to the
application of the 70% profit. They may decide whether or not such profit shall be used to pay
for the unpaid subscriptions. If the Board of Directors does not wish to make use of such
authority, it has 2 other remedies for accomplishing the purpose, as enunciated in Velasco v
Poizat: :
1) to sell the stock for the account of the delinquent subscriber, and
2) to bring a legal action against him for the amount due.

In this case, BoDs elected to avail themselves of the first remedy granted to it by law, and
declared that payment of De Silva’s subscription to 450 shares which had not been fully paid by
him was due, and that said shares were delinquent, and performed all the other acts
subsequent to said declaration, as it deemed it disadvantageous to the corporation to apply a
part of the profit realized or to be realized to the payment of his subscription. De Silva has no
right to prevent the Board from following, any other method than that mentioned in the law,
for the very reason that the law does not give stockholders any right in connection with the
determination of the question whether or not there should be deducted from the 70% of the
profit distributable among the stockholders such amount as may be deemed fit for the payment
of subscriptions due and unpaid.