Scribd
Upload
94 views1 page

Sumera Case: Liquidation Insights

1) A corporation called Devota de Nuestra Señora de la Correa was organized in 1920 for 20 years to promote the fishing industry. 2) In 1927, it filed for voluntary dissolution and appointed an assignee to handle liquidation. The assignee filed a case in 1936 against Eugenio Valencia to recover P400 that was withdrawn during an audit. 3) The court ruled that the 3-year prescription period under Section 77 of Act No. 1459 did not apply when a corporation is dissolved and assets are liquidated by an assignee. The assignee can file actions related to liquidation even after 3 years.

Uploaded by

G S
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
94 views1 page

Sumera Case: Liquidation Insights

1) A corporation called Devota de Nuestra Señora de la Correa was organized in 1920 for 20 years to promote the fishing industry. 2) In 1927, it filed for voluntary dissolution and appointed an assignee to handle liquidation. The assignee filed a case in 1936 against Eugenio Valencia to recover P400 that was withdrawn during an audit. 3) The court ruled that the 3-year prescription period under Section 77 of Act No. 1459 did not apply when a corporation is dissolved and assets are liquidated by an assignee. The assignee can file actions related to liquidation even after 3 years.

Uploaded by

G S
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
  • Dissolution and Winding Up: Liquidation and Winding Up

DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP; Liquidation and Winding Up

Sumera vs. Valencia (67 Phil 721)

Facts: In Paombong, Bulacan Devota de Nuesta Señora de la Correa was a corporation which was
organized in 1920 in for the promotion of the fishing industry or business for a period of 20 years.
During its operation, Eugenio Valencia was discovered to have withdrawn P600 from the remaining
assests of the corporation during its audit. In 1927 it filed for a voluntary dissolution which was
approved by the CFI of Bulacan in 1928 appointing Damaso Nicolas as assignee to take charge of
liquidation. Nicolas was substituted by herein appellant Sumera who filed a motion with the court asking
defendant Valencia to deliver to him the P400.00 funds of the corporation which was denied, reserving,
however to said assignee the right to bring the proper action. Accordingly, in 1936, Sumera filed the
present complaint for recovery of money. The defendant interposed the defense that the right against
him had already prescribed which was found by the lower court to be tenable, the case not being filed
within the 3-year period prescribed under Sec. 77 of Act No. 1459.

Issue: Whether the 3-year prescription period under Sec. 77 of Act No. 1459 is applicable in this case

Ruling: No. When a corporation is dissolved and the liquidation of its assets is placed in the hands of a
receiver or assignee, the period of three (3) years prescribed by section 77 of Act No. 1459 known as
the Corporation Law is NOT applicable, and the assignee may institute all actions leading to the
liquidation of the assets of the corporation even after the expiration of three years.

DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP; Liquidation and Winding Up Sumera vs. Valencia (67 Phil 721) Facts: In Paombong, Bulacan Devota d

You might also like