Alcuaz seeks exclusion of his 1,949-sqm property from Mañosa Properties’ assets
Credit to Author: The Manila Times| Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 16:25:30 +0000
Jose Luis Alcuaz is among the creditors of Mañosa Properties Inc. (MPI). He owns two lots in Cubao, Quezon City, which he said he sold to Mañosa Properties. When combined, the two lots had an area of 3,027 square meters (sqm). He designated a 1,078-sqm lot as Property 1 and 1,949-sqm lot as Property 2.
In a filing with Branch 258 of Parañaque City, Alcuaz is seeking the exclusion of Property 2 from the list of recoverable assets of Mañosa Properties.
Mañosa Properties is seeking the rehabilitation and suspension of payments of liabilities. The latter, suspending the payments of liabilities, include Alcuaz, being one of the company’s creditors as owner of Property 1 and Property 2.
Alcuaz told the court the inclusion of Property 2 by Mañosa Properties is non-binding and wants it excluded from the company’s list of assets.
“The Rehabilitation Plan refers to, among other things, the ‘Campanilla Lane Project’ as one of MPI’ real estate development projects and is described as having ‘an area of 3,027 sqm, more or less, that consists of 22 residential units, broken down into four villas and 18 apartments, located at Campanilla Street, Barangay Marianas, New Manila, Quezon City.”
In its petition, Mañosa Properties refers to Alcuaz as “the seller of the property on which the Campanilla Lane Project is situated, with an exposure of P53,939,332.”
Rosa Araneta de Alcuaz was identified in Alcuaz’s court filing as the former owner of Property 2. She was Alcuaz’s deceased mother, who sold him the lot before her death.
Mañosa’s petition
In its petition before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Mañosa Properties described itself as “a domestic realty and holding corporation…. with “principal office address at No. 126-128 Aguirre Avenue, BF Homes, Parañaque City.”
As incorporated with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Mañosa Properties has an authorized capital stock (ACS) of 100,000 common shares. Each common share carries par value of P100.
In its petition for rehabilitation and suspension of payments of liabilities, Mañosa Properties said “at least 25 percent of 100,000 common shares equals 25,000 of which 25 percent equals 6,250 common shares.
At P100 per common share, Mañosa Properties had an ACS of P10 million, 25 percent of which is subscribed capital of P2.5 billion of which P625,000 was paid-up.
Thus, Mañosa Properties had an incorporating paid-up capital of P625,000 when it was formed. Francisco “Bobby” T. Mañosa and his son, Francisco S. Mañosa Jr. were identified as the company’s founders in the company’s petition for rehabilitation with suspension of payments of liabilities.
Mañosa Properties has four real estate development projects. These are Lantana Lane, which occupies an area of 3,171 sqm; Ylang Lane Project, 1,239 sqm; and Tago Project, 24,424 sqm.
Aso included is the list is the Campanilla Lane Project, which has a lot area of 3,027 sqm, which represents the total area of Property 1’s 1,078 sqm and Property 2’s 1,949 sqm. Mañosa Properties admitted in a court filing that it still owes the property owner P53,939,332.
Mañosa Properties refers to Alcuaz as the owner of Property 1 and Property 2 of the Campanilla Lane project.
Due Diligencer’s take
The SEC used to exercise jurisdiction over intra-corporate cases, which mostly pit brothers against brothers and/or sisters. The conflicts even worsen when the children sought the ouster of their own parents, who put up the business or businesses. As the securities regulatory agency, it used to assign hearing officers to resolve their complaints.
One of the members of SEC’s five-person commission volunteered the information that suits reached him and the other four associate commissioners because the lower courts, referring to the hearing officers, failed to resolve the family differences.
As the SEC associate commissioner puts it, more than 98 percent of intra-corporate suits that were filed reached the commission proper because the parties have refused to settle out of court, which meant out of the hearing rooms.
The SEC’s five-person commission favored families to settle their cases out of court. Whatever their differences that they harbored against each other, settlement would have brought peace to the family squabbles and that no one among the siblings would score a victory. A win for one would be a loss for the others.
Making peace among family members was the only alternative to court war or wars, which began in their own boardrooms and ended up with the SEC’s five-person commission.
The task of a panel of hearing officers was for it to settle the family disputes. Failing to resolve the fight or fights, the cases were then elevated to the commission en banc.
Had the Campanilla’s 1,749-sqm lot been under the SEC’s jurisdiction, would the hearing officers and the five-person commission go for the exclusion of Property 2 from Mañosa Properties’ recoverable assets? Just asking.
esdperez@gmail.com