Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1


Orozco vs Araneta stock, is income and, consequently, should go to the usufructuary, taking
G.R. No. L-3691 into consideration that a stock dividend as well as a cash dividend can be
November 21, 1951 declared only out of profits of the corporation, for it were declared out of
TOPIC: ART 562 – 607 the capital it would be a serious violation of the law.
DOLORES DEL SAZ OROZCO Y LOPEZ, and the minors FELISA, EUGENIO, ANTONIO,  Araneta and his clients attempt to differentiate the present case from “in
JOSE, MARIA Y CARLOS, all surnamed DEL SAZ OROZCO Y LOPEZ whose natural re: Testate Estate of Emil Maurice Bachrach”, contending that, while the
guardian is DOÑA CONCEPCION LOPEZ VDA. DE DEL SAZ OROZCO doctrine in that case effected a just and equitable distribution, the
PONENTE: Jugo, J. application of it in the present case would cause an injustice quoting
Justice Holmes, "abstract propositions do not decide concrete cases."
FACTS:  One of the differences pointed out is that by the declaration of stock
dividends, the voting power of the original shares of stock is considerably
 Eugenio del Saz Orozco died on February 7, 1922, leaving a will which he diminished, and, if the stock dividends are not given to the
had executed on March 5, 1921 remaindermen, the voting power of the latter would be greatly impaired
 The will provided that certain properties should be given in life usufruct  Bearing in mind that the number of shares of stock of the Benguet
to his son Petitioner Jacinto del Saz Orozco with the obligation on his part Consolidated Mining company is so large, the diminution of the voting
to preserve said properties in favor of the other heirs who were declared power of the original shares of stock in this case cannot possibly affect or
the naked owners thereof. influence the control of the policies of the corporation which is vested in
 Among these properties were 5,714 shares of stock of the Benguet the owners of the great block of shares.
Consolidated Mining Company.  This would not be a sufficient reason for modifying the doctrine of the
 On September 11, 1934, the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company Bachrach case.
declared and distributed stock dividends out of its surplus profits,
Petitioner Jacinto receiving his proportionate portion of 11,428 shares.  We have examined the two cases carefully and we have not perceived
 On November 17, 1939, Benguet Mining Company again declared stock any difference which would justify a reversal or modification of the
dividends out of its surplus profits, of which Petitioner Jacinto received doctrine in the Bachrach case.
17,142 shares, making a total of 28,570 shares.  With regard to the sum of P3,428.40 which is alleged to have been
received by Petitioner Jacinto from the Benguet Consolidated Mining
ISSUE: W/N the stock dividend is part of the capital which should be preserved in Company, as a result of the reduction of its capital January, 1926, it
favor of the owners or an income of fruits of the capital which should be given to appears that it has not been proven that the plaintiff has received said
and enjoyed by the life usufructuary, Jacinto, as his own exclusive property? sum; on the contrary, it was denied by him as soon as he arrived in the
Philippines from Spain. There is no ground, therefore, for ordering the
RULING: plaintiff to deliver such sum to the defendants.
 The stock dividends amounting to 28,570 shares belongs to the Petitioner
Jacinto del Saz Orozco y Mortera exclusively and in absolute ownership.

 The Court looks at “in re: Testate Estate of Emil Maurice Bachrach” as
basis. Justice Ozaeta ruled that a dividend, whether in the form of cash or