G.R.

 No.  58168  December  19,  1989  

 
MAGSAYSAY-­‐LABRADOR,  ET.,  AL.  
VS.  
COURT  OF  APPEALS  
 
 
FACTS:  
 
  On  February  9,  1979,  Adelaida  Rodriguez-­‐Magsaysay,  widow  and  special  administratix  of  the  
estate   of   the   late   Senator   Genaro   Magsaysay,   brought   before   the   then   Court   of   First   Instance   of  
Olongapo   an   action   against   Artemio   Panganiban,   Subic   Land   Corporation   (SUBIC),   Filipinas  
Manufacturer's   Bank   (FILMANBANK)   and   the   Register   of   Deeds   of   Zambales.   She   prayed   that   the  
Deed   of   Assignment   executed   by   the   late   senator   in   favor   of   SUBIC   and   the   Deed   of   Mortgage  
executed  by  SUBIC  in  favor  of  FILMANBANK  be  annulled  and  that  the  Register  of  Deeds  be  ordered  to  
cancel  TCT  No.  22431  and  to  issue  a  new  title  in  her  favor.  
 
  On   March   7,   1979,   herein   petitioners,   sisters   of   the   late   senator,   filed   a   motion   for  
intervention  on  the  ground  that  their  brother  conveyed  to  them  one-­‐half  (1/2)  of  his  shareholdings  
in  SUBIC  and  as  assignees  of  around  41%  of  the  total  outstanding  shares  of  such  stocks  of  SUBIC,  they  
have   a   substantial   and   legal   interest   in   the   subject   matter   of   litigation   and   that   they   have   a   legal  
interest  in  the  success  of  the  suit  with  respect  to  SUBIC.  The  court  denied  the  motion  for  intervention,  
and  ruled  that  petitioners  have  no  legal  interest  whatsoever  in  the  matter  in  litigation  and  their  being  
alleged   assignees   or   transferees   of   certain   shares   in   SUBIC   cannot   legally   entitle   them   to   intervene  
because  SUBIC  has  a  personality  separate  and  distinct  from  its  stockholders.  
 
On  appeal,  respondent  Court  of  Appeals  found  no  factual  or  legal  justification  to  disturb  the  
findings   of   the   lower   court.   The   appellate   court   further   stated   that   whatever   claims   the   petitioners  
have   against   the   late   Senator   or   against   SUBIC   for   that   matter   can   be   ventilated   in   a   separate  
proceeding,   such   that   with   the   denial   of   the   motion   for   intervention,   they   are   not   left   without   any  
remedy  or  judicial  relief  under  existing  law.  
 
ISSUE:  
 
  WON  the  Magsaysay  sisters  are  interested  parties  in  a  case  where  corporate  properties  are  
in  dispute.  
 
HELD:  
 
  No.   Viewed   in   the   light   of   Section   2,   Rule   12   of   the   Revised   Rules   of   Court,   the   Magsaysay  
sisters  have  no  legal  interest  in  the  subject  matter  in  litigation  so  as  to  entitle  them  to  intervene  in  
the   proceedings.   To   be   permitted   to   intervene   in   a   pending   action,   the   party   must   have   a   legal  
interest  in  the  matter  in  litigation,  or  in  the  success  of  either  of  the  parties  or  an  interest  against  both,  
or   he   must   be   so   situated   as   to   be   adversely   affected   by   a   distribution   or   other   disposition   of   the  
property  in  the  custody  of  the  court  or  an  officer  thereof.    
 
Here,  the  interest,  if  it  exists  at  all,  of  the  Magsaysay  sisters  is  indirect,  contingent,  remote,  
conjectural,   consequential   and   collateral.   At   the   very   least,   their   interest   is   purely   inchoate,   or   in  
sheer  expectancy  of  a  right  in  the  management  of  the  corporation  and  to  share  in  the  profits  thereof  
and   in   the   properties   and   assets   thereof   on   dissolution,   after   payment   of   the   corporate   debts   and  
obligations.    While  a  share  of  stock  represents  a  proportionate  or  aliquot  interest  in  the  property  of  
the  corporation,  it  does  not  vest  the  owner  thereof  with  any  legal  right  or  title  to  any  of  the  property,  
his  interest  in  the  corporate  property  being  equitable  or  beneficial  in  nature.  Shareholders  are  in  no  
legal  sense  the  owners  of  corporate  property,  which  is  owned  by  the  corporation  as  a  distinct  legal  
person.  
 
WHEREFORE,  the  instant  petition  is  hereby  DENIED.