MAGSAYSAY-LABRADOR vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 58168. December 19, 1989.Fernan,
C.J.
FACTS:
Private respondent Adelaida Rodrige! "agsa#sa# $iled an action against %bic &and
'orporation (%)*+',, among ot-ers, to annl t-e deed o$ assignment and deed o$ mortgage e.ected in
$avor o$ t-e latter b# -er late -sband.
Private respondent alleged t-at t-e sb/ect land o$ t-e t0o deeds 0as ac1ired t-rog- con/gal $nds.
%ince -er consent to t-e disposition o$ t-e same 0as not obtained, s-e claimed t-at t-e acts o$ assignment
and mortgage 0ere done to de$rad t-e con/gal partners-ip. %-e $rt-er contended t-at t-e same 0ere
done 0it-ot consideration and -ence nll and void.
Petitioners, sisters o$ t-e deceased -sband o$ t-e private respondent, $iled a motion $or intervention on
t-e grond t-at t-eir brot-er conve#ed to t-em one2-al$ o$ -is s-are-oldings in %)*+', or abot 314. 5-e
trial cort denied t-e motion $or intervention rling t-at petitioners -ave no legal interest becase %)*+'
-as a personalit# separate and distinct $rom its stoc6-olders. 5-e 'A con$irmed t-e denial on appeal.
7ence, t-is petition.
ISSUE:
8-et-er petitioners, as stoc6-olders o$ %)*+', -ave a legal interest in t-e action $or annlment o$ t-e
deed o$ assignment and deed o$ mortgage in $avor o$ t-e corporation.
HELD:
N9. 5-e 'ort noted t-at t-e interest 0-ic- entitles person to intervene in a sit bet0een ot-er parties
mst be in t-e matter in litigation and o$ sc- direct and immediate c-aracter t-at t-e intervenor 0ill
eit-er gain or lose b# t-e direct legal operation and e$$ect o$ t-e /dgment. +n t-e instant petition, it
0as said t-at t-e interest, i$ it e.ists at all, o$ petitioners2movants is indirect, contingent, remote, con/ectral,
conse1ential and collateral. At t-e ver# least, t-eir interest is prel# inc-oate, or in s-eer
e.pectanc# o$ a rig-t in t-e management o$ t-e corporation and to s-are in t-e pro$its t-ereo$
and in t-e properties and assets t-ereo$ on dissoltion, a$ter pa#ment o$ t-e corporate debts
and obligations. 8-ile a s-are o$ stoc6 represents a proportionate or ali1ot interest in t-e propert# o$
t-e corporation, it does not vest t-e o0ner t-ereo$ 0it- an# legal rig-t or title to an# o$ t-e propert#, -is
interest in t-e corporate propert# being e1itable or bene$icial in natre. %-are-olders are in no
legal sense t-e o0ners o$ corporate propert#, 0-ic- is o0ned b# t-e corporation as a distinct legal
person.
Director of lands vs. Court of Appeals
Facts:
The land in question is situated in Obando, Bulacan. It adjoins the ailo!an "iver and private
respondent #aleriano have converted it into a $shpond. In their application in %&'(, private
respondents clai)ed that the* are the co+o,ners in fee si)ple of the land partl* throu!h
inheritance and partl* b* purchase and that- it is not ,ithin an* forest or )ilitar*
reservation. The "epublic of the .hil., represented b* the Dir of the Bureau of Forest
Develop)ent, opposed the application on the principal !round that the land applied for is
/IT0I1 T0231C4A55IFI2D "26IO1 of Obando, Bulacan and that such area are
deno)inated as FO"25T4A1D5+do not for) part of the disposable and alienable portion of
the public do)ain. The Trial Court ordered re!istration of the subject land in favor of the
#alerianos. This ,as a7r)ed b* the CA ,hich said in part that 8since the subject propert* is
entirel* devoted to $shpond purposes, it cannot be cate!ori9ed as part of forest lands.
Issue: /O1 the courts can reclassif* the subject public land.
0eld:
Courts cannot reclassif*... it:s be*ond their co)petence and jurisdiction. The classi$cation
of public lands is an e;clusive prero!ative of the 2;ecutiveDepart)ent of the
6overn)ent <Bureau of Forest Develop)ent= and not of the Courts. In theabsence of such
classi$cation, the land re)ains as unclassi$ed land until it is released there fro) and
rendered open to disposition.5ince the subj propert* is still unclassi$ed, ,hatever
possession Applicants <#aleriano= )a* have had, and, ho,ever lon!, cannot ripen into
private o,nership.The conversion of the subj propert* into a $shpond b* Applicants does
notauto)aticall* render the propert* as alienable and disposable. The reco))endation of
the District Forester for release of subject propert* fro) unclassi$ed re!ion is not the
ulti)ate ,ord on the )atter.
CIR v.Primetown, GR 162155, August 28, 2007
FA'5%:
Gilbert ;ap, <ice '-air o$ Primeto0n applied on "arc- 11, 1999 $or a re$nd or credit o$ income
ta. 0-ic- Primeto0n paid in 199=. 7e claimed t-at t-e# are entitled $or a re$nd becase t-e#
s$$ered losses t-at #ear de to t-e increase o$ cost o$ labor and materials, etc. 7o0ever,
despite t-e losses, t-e# still paid t-eir 1arterl# income ta. and remitted creditable 0it--olding
ta. $rom real estate sales to *+R. 7ence, t-e# 0ere claiming $or a re$nd. 9n "a# 1>, 1999,
revene o$$icer ?li!abet- %antos re1ired Primeto0n to sbmit additional docments to 0-ic-
Primeto0n complied 0it-. 7o0ever, its claim 0as not acted pon 0-ic- prompted it to $ile a
petition $or revie0 in '5A on April 13, @AAA. '5A dismissed t-e petition as it 0as $iled be#on$ t-e
@2#ear prescriptive period $or $iling a /dicial claim $or ta. re$nd according to %ec @@9 o$ N+R'.
According to '5A, t-e t0o2#ear period is e1ivalent to =>A da#s prsant to Art 1> o$ N''.
%ince Primeto0n $iled its $inal ad/stment retrn on April 13, 1998 and t-at #ear @AAA 0as a leap
#ear, t-e petition 0as $iled =>1 da#s a$ter Primeto0n $iled its $inal ad/sted retrn. 7ence,
be#ond t-e reglementar# period. Primeto0n appealed to 'A. 'A reversed t-e decision o$ '5A.
7ence, t-is appeal.
+%%)?: 8BN petition 0as $iled 0it-in t-e t0o2#ear period
7?&D:
Prsant to ?9 @9@ or t-e Administrative 'ode o$ 198=, a #ear s-all be nderstood to be 1@
calendar mont-s. 5-e %' de$ined a calendar mont- as a mont- designated in t-e calendar
0it-ot regard to t-e nmber o$ da#s it ma# contain. 5-e cort -eld t-at Administrative 'ode o$
198= impliedl# repealed Art 1> o$ N'' as t-e provisions are irreconcilable. Primeto0n is entitled
$or t-e re$nd since it is $iled 0it-in t-e @2#ear reglementar# period.