Estate planning and corporations

"After incorporation, one becomes a stockholder of a corporation by subscription or by purchasing stock directly from the corporation or from individual owners thereof (Salmon, Dexter & Co. v. Unson, 47 Phil, 649, citing Bole v. Fulton [1912], 233 Pa., 609). In the case at bar, in exchange for their properties, the Pachecos acquired 2,500 original unissued no par value shares of stocks of the Delpher Trades Corporation. Consequently, the Pachecos became stockholders of the corporation by subscription "The essence of the stock subscription is an agreement to take and pay for original unissued shares of a corporation, formed or to be formed." (Rohrlich 243, cited in Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. III, 1980 Edition, p. 430) It is significant that the Pachecos took no par value shares in exchange for their properties.

A no-par value share does not purport to represent any stated proportionate interest in the capital stock measured by value, but only an aliquot part of the whole number of such shares of the issuing corporation. The holder of no-par shares may see from the certificate itself that he is only an aliquot sharer in the assets of the corporation. But this character of proportionate interest is not hidden beneath a false appearance of a given sum in money, as in the case of par value shares. The capital stock of a corporation issuing only no-par value shares is not set forth by a stated amount of money, but instead is expressed to be divided into a stated number of shares, such as, 1,000 shares. This indicates that a shareholder of 100 such shares is an aliquot sharer in the assets of the corporation, no matter what value they may have, to the extent of 100/1,000 or 1/10. Thus, by removing the par value of shares, the attention of persons interested in the financial condition of a corporation is focused upon the value of assets and the amount of its debts. (Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. III, 1980 Edition, p. 107).

Moreover, there was no attempt to state the true or current market value of the real estate. Land valued at P300.00 a square meter was turned over to the family's corporation for only P14.00 a square meter.

It is to be stressed that by their ownership of the 2,500 no par shares of stock, the Pachecos have control of the corporation. Their equity capital is 55% as against 45% of the other stockholders, who also belong to the same family group.

In effect, the Delpher Trades Corporation is a business conduit of the Pachecos. What they really did was to invest their properties and change the nature of their ownership from unincorporated to incorporated form by organizing Delpher Trades Corporation to take control of their properties and at the same time save on inheritance taxes.

As explained by Eduardo Neria:

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. LINSANGAN:

Q Mr. Neria, from the point of view of taxation, is there any benefit to the spouses Hernandez and Pacheco in connection with their execution of a deed of exchange on the properties for no par value shares of the defendant corporation?

A Yes, sir.

COURT:

Q What do you mean by "point of view"?

A To take advantage for both spouses and corporation in entering in the deed of exchange.

ATTY. LINSANGAN:

Q (What do you mean by "point of view"?) What are these benefits to the spouses of this deed of exchange?

A Continuous control of the property, tax exemption benefits, and other inherent benefits in a corporation.

Q What are these advantages to the said spouses from the point of view of taxation in entering in the deed of exchange?

A Having fulfilled the conditions in the income tax law, providing for tax free exchange of property, they were able to execute the deed of exchange free from income tax and acquire a corporation.

Q What provision in the income tax law are you referring to?

A I refer to Section 35 of the National Internal Revenue Code under par. C-sub-par. (2) Exceptions regarding the provision which I quote: "No gain or loss shall also be recognized if a person exchanges his property for stock in a corporation of which as a result of such exchange said person alone or together with others not exceeding four persons gains control of said corporation."

Q Did you explain to the spouses this benefit at the time you executed the deed of exchange?

A Yes, sir

Q You also, testified during the last hearing that the decision to have no par value share in the defendant corporation was for the purpose of flexibility. Can you explain flexibility in connection with the ownership of the property in question?

A There is flexibility in using no par value shares as the value is determined by the board of directors in increasing capitalization. The board can fix the value of the shares equivalent to the capital requirements of the corporation.

Q Now also from the point of taxation, is there any flexibility in the holding by the corporation of the property in question?

A Yes, since a corporation does not die it can continue to hold on to the property indefinitely for a period of at least 50 years. On the other hand, if the property is held by the spouse the property will be tied up in succession proceedings and the consequential payments of estate and inheritance taxes when an owner dies.

Q Now what advantage is this continuity in relation to ownership by a particular person of certain properties in respect to taxation?

A The property is not subjected to taxes on succession as the corporation does not die.

Q So the benefit you are talking about are inheritance taxes?

A Yes, sir. (pp. 3-5, tsn., December 15, 1981)

The records do not point to anything wrong or objectionable about this "estate planning" scheme resorted to by the Pachecos. "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise could be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." (Liddell & Co., Inc. v. The collector of Internal Revenue, 2 SCRA 632 citing Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 7 L. ed. 596).

The "Deed of Exchange" of property between the Pachecos and Delpher Trades Corporation cannot be considered a contract of sale. There was no transfer of actual ownership interests by the Pachecos to a third party. The Pacheco family merely changed their ownership from one form to another. The ownership remained in the same hands. Hence, the private respondent has no basis for its claim of a light of first refusal under the lease contract."



G.R. No. L-69259, January 26, 1988

DELPHER TRADES CORPORATION, and DELPHIN PACHECO, petitioners,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and HYDRO PIPES PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/jan1988/gr_l_69259_1988.html

Co-ownership of real property

"Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership, and that each co-owner may demand at any time partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his share is concerned. Corollary to this rule, Art. 498 of the Code states that whenever the thing is essentially, indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be, allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds accordingly distributed. This is resorted to (1) when the right to partition the property is invoked by any of the co-owners but because of the nature of the property it cannot be subdivided or its subdivision would prejudice the interests of the co-owners, and (b) the co-owners are not in agreement as to who among them shall be allotted or assigned the entire property upon proper reimbursement of the co-owners. In one case,8 this Court upheld the order of the trial court directing the holding of a public sale of the properties owned in common pursuant to Art. 498 of the Civil Code.

However, being a co-owner respondent has the right to use the house and lot without paying any compensation to petitioner, as he may use the property owned in common long as it is in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in a manner not injurious to the interest of the other co-owners.9 Each co-owner of property held pro indiviso exercises his rights over the whole property and may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners, the reason being that until a division is made, the respective share of each cannot be determined and every co-owner exercises, together with his co-participants joint ownership over the pro indiviso property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of the

same. 10

Since petitioner has decided to enforce his right in court to end the co-ownership of the house and lot and respondent has not refuted the allegation that he has been preventing the sale of the property by his continued occupancy of the premises, justice and equity demand that respondent and his family vacate the property so that the sale can be effected immediately. In fairness to petitioner, respondent should pay a rental of P1,200.00 per month, with legal interest; from the time the trial court ordered him to vacate, for the use and enjoyment of the other half of the property appertaining to petitioner.

When petitioner filed an action to compel the sale of the property and the trial court granted the petition and ordered the ejectment of respondent, the co-ownership was deemed terminated and the right to enjoy the possession jointly also ceased. Thereafter, the continued stay of respondent and his family in the house prejudiced the interest of petitioner as the property should have been sold and the proceeds divided equally between them. To this extent and from then on, respondent should be held liable for monthly rentals until he and his family vacate."

G.R. No. 76351, October 29, 1993

VIRGILIO B. AGUILAR, petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and SENEN B. AGUILAR, respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/oct1993/gr_76351_1993.html

Cross Examination

Ask one fact per question.

Avoid long and compounded cross examination questions. 

Be simple. 

Be direct to the point. 

Limit your cross examination questions to "yes" or "no" format. 

Tie the hands of the hostile witness to "yes or no questions".  

Ask only questions where you know the answers. 

Do not let the hostile witness explain his answer. 

(Let his own lawyer do that on his re-direct examination).

Unless absolutely necessary, do not ask questions that start with "who", "what", "when", "where", "why" and "how". 

These question's are good only for direct and re-direct examination questions (case build-up questions). 

Know when not to cross examine a truthful witness. 

Know when to shut up and sit down. 

The goals of cross examination are to seek the Truth and to test the credibility of the witness and his testimony. 

Cross examination is not intended to massage your ego as a trial lawyer or as an investigating legislator.

The secret of successful cross examination is PREPARATION. 

Master your case.

Know the Applicable Law and Jurisprudence.

Organize your evidence. 

Know the eccentricities and character traits of the Judge and the adverse counsel.

Destroy the credibility of the hostile witness without necessarily quarreling with him in open court.

Destroy the hostile witness by the quality of your cross examination questions, not by the volume of your voice or your bloated ego. 

Be well-rested and well-fed before the trial/hearing. 

Let your mind be calm, peaceful, aware, mindful, balance and equanimous. 

Just be yourself. 

And be a good person.

To be a good lawyer/legislator, first you must be a good person. 

Relax. 

The Universe favors the Truth and the Truthful. 

###

Manuel Laserna Jr. 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/X41w68yxEkkrL7ei/?mibextid=oFDknk

Related:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/wK7LH3NBQRza4cbG/?mibextid=oFDknk

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/rmjeE6j8mWP4Htkd/?mibextid=oFDknk