[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Sps. Sobrejuanite vs. ASB Development Corporation

The spouses Sobrejuanite entered into a contract to purchase a condominium from ASB Development Corporation (ASBDC). After full payment, ASBDC failed to deliver the property due to financial difficulties. The spouses filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) which ruled in their favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that jurisdiction lies instead with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the corporate rehabilitation laws. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the applicable laws, all claims against corporations under receivership must be filed with the SEC, not other agencies or courts, because the goal is to have all creditors treated equally during bankruptcy proceedings.

Uploaded by

mei_2208
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Sps. Sobrejuanite vs. ASB Development Corporation

The spouses Sobrejuanite entered into a contract to purchase a condominium from ASB Development Corporation (ASBDC). After full payment, ASBDC failed to deliver the property due to financial difficulties. The spouses filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) which ruled in their favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that jurisdiction lies instead with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the corporate rehabilitation laws. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the applicable laws, all claims against corporations under receivership must be filed with the SEC, not other agencies or courts, because the goal is to have all creditors treated equally during bankruptcy proceedings.

Uploaded by

mei_2208
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

2. Sps. Sobrejuanite vs.

ASB Development Corporation


Facts:
The spouses Sobrejuanite and ASB Development Corporation (ASBDC) entered into
a contract to sell a condominium located in Mandaluyong. After full payment and
after repeated demands, the ASBDC failed to make good of its obligation due to the
rehabilitation plan of ASB Group of Companies, which includes ASBDC. The spouses
resorted the intervention of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
HLURB resolved the complaint in favor of the spouses Sobrejuanite. This was
affirmed by the Office of the President. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed
and set aside the decision of the Office of the President. It ratiocinated that the
Sobrejuanites complaint for rescission and damages is a claim under the
contemplation of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 902-A or the SEC Reorganization Act
and A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC or the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate
Rehabilitation. Therefore, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has
jurisdiction over the complaint, not HLURB.
Issue:
Whether claim of spouses Sobrejuanite lies with the jurisdiction of SEC.
Held:
Yes.
As provided under Section 6(c) of PD No. 902-A, all actions for claims against
corporations, partnerships or associations under management or receivership
pending before any court, tribunal, board or body shall be suspended accordingly.
The afore cited law defines claim as the debts or demands of a pecuniary nature. In
settled jurisprudence, claim means actions involving monetary considerations or all
claims or demands, of whatever nature or character against a debtor or its property,
whether for money or otherwise. It is evident that the spouses claim falls within
the definition of PD 902-A and settled jurisprudence. Hence, jurisdiction, as correctly
held by the Court of Appeals, lies with SEC and not HLURB. The ratio behind is
"equality is equity." When a corporation threatened by bankruptcy is taken over by
a receiver, all the creditors should stand on equal footing. Not anyone of them
should be given any preference by paying one or some of them ahead of the others.
This is precisely the reason for the suspension of all pending claims against the
corporation under receivership. Instead of creditors vexing the courts with suits
against the distressed firm, they are directed to file their claims with the receiver
who is a duly appointed officer of the SEC.

Moreover, Section 7 of the Contract to Sell allows the developer to extend the
period of delivery on account of causes beyond its control, such as financial
reverses.

Petition dismissed.

You might also like