certain sum of money which they had paid severally to respondent corporation on account of shares of stock they individually agreed to take and pay for a certain specified terms and conditions. Respondent, Silang Traffic Co., Inc., entered into an agreement for the sale on installment of its shares of stock with various individuals, including the petitioners Sofrio Bayla. After the latter had paid several installments for the purchase price of said shares of stock, the petitioners defaulted in the payment of the subsequent installments. Thus, the board of directors passed a resolution authorizing for the refund of the amounts paid and the reversion of the shares of stock to the corporation. Despite the said board resolution, the amounts paid by petitioners were not returned to them since the board resolution was revoked and cancelled by a subsequent resolution. Thus, petitioners instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Cavite to recover the sums of money paid. The respondent contends that the resolution does not apply to petitioners as at the time the resolution was passed, the shares had already automatically been reverted back to the corporation, and that the resolution was no longer effective as it was cancelled by a subsequent resolution passed by the Board. The Court of First Instance declared that the shares of stock had already been forfeited and absolved the respondent from the complaint.
Issues:
Whether or not, the failure to pay any
installment of the purchase price of the shares of stock would result in its automatic forfeiture in favor of the corporation.
Held:
The contract herein involved is one of sale and
not of subscription as it is an independent agreement between the individual purchaser, which is the petitioners, and respondent corporation to buy the shares of stock at a stipulated price. It does not involve a mutual agreement of the subscribers to take and pay for the stock of the corporation. Whether a particular contract is a purchase or a subscription of shares of stock is a matter of construction and depends upon its terms and the intention of the parties. It has been held that a subscription to stock in an existing corporation is, as between the subscriber and the corporation, simply a contract of purchase and sale. As to forfeiture, the contract did not expressly provide that the failure of the purchaser to pay any installment would give rise to the forfeiture and cancellation without the necessity of any demand from the seller. However, being a contract of sale, it may be rescinded by mutual agreement of the parties. In the subsequent board resolution, it was stated that the contracts were rescinded for the good of the corporation and in order to terminate a pending civil case involving the validity of such sales of the shares. To such rescission, petitioners apparently agreed, as shown by their demand for the refund of the amount they had already paid to the corporation. Moreover, provisions in the contract regarding interest on deferred payments would not have been inserted if it had been the intention of the parties to provide for automatic forfeiture and cancelation of the contract. The Civil code states that persons obliged to deliver or do something are not in default until the moment the creditor demands of them judicially or extra judicially the fulfillment of their obligation, unless (1) the obligation or the law expressly provides that demand shall not be necessary in order that default may arise, (2) by reason of the nature and circumstances of the obligation it shall appear that the designation of the time at which that thing was to be delivered or the service rendered was the principal inducement to the creation of the obligation. Wherefore, the judgment of the court of appeals is hereby reversed and another judgment will be entered against the defendant Silang Traffic Co., Inc., ordering it to pay to the petitioners Sofronio T. Bayla, Venancio Toledo, Josefa Naval, and Paz Toledo.