THE FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND

vs. WILLIAM A. WILSON, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-1684. March 15,1907.
Topic: Delivery

FACTS:
On October 1st 1902, defendant Wilson was a disbursing officer of the Bureau of
Coast Guard and Transportation. The plaintiff company and another company named
American Surety Company of New York became sureties on the official bond of Wilson for
the sum of $15,000.00. Wilson defaulted the sum of $8,931.80 and the two surety companies
were compelled to pay to the government after the governments demand. They paid the
sum of $4,465.90 each. Wilson was captured in Montreal, Canada for the trial of his
defalcation of money. When Wilson was captured he had the sum of $785 with him, which
was turned over to Mr. Branagan whom is the insular treasurer. Petitioner filed a petition
against Wilson for the sum of $4,464.90 which is the same amount the petitioner paid to the
government under Wilsons surety bond and to have the right over the sum of $785 which
was found in the possession of Wilson. On October 17, a depositary was named by the
court to take care of the $785 of Wilson.
On October 26,1904, H.D. Terrell intervened in the case. He alleges that Wilson had
already transferred his rights of the $785 to him for payment of professional services that
Wilson owes him. Terrell claims he has notified Mr. Bragan prior to his appointment as
depositary in the principal case. The court ruled in favor of Terrell for the sum of $785
hence this review.

ISSUE:
Whether or not intervenor Terrell has the right to the sum of $785

HELD:
No, Article 1095 prescribes the following: A creditor has the rights to the fruits of a
thing from the time the obligation to deliver it arises. However, he shall not acquire a real
right until the property is delivered to him. And as Manresa has states: Our law does not
admit the doctrine of the transfer of property by mere consent but limits the effect of the
agreement to the due execution of the contract. Through these doctrines the court finds
that Terrell did not acquire the ownership of the property to him by Wilson because it was
not delivered to him. In this case it was neither Terrell nor the petioner who had the right
to the $785 in question.
 PILIPINAS BANK
vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR.
G.R. No. 117079. FEBRUARY 22, 2000.
TOPIC: JURISDICTION OF THE SEC

FACTS:
On June 19,1991, Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money against respondent
Silverio to secure the payment of two loans he obtained from the petitioner with the
amount of P4,688,233.71, when respondent Silverio was the petitioners majority
stockholder. Silverio in the other hand seeks to recover his P25,000,000.00 deposit which
was written off by the petitioner.
In this case Silverios defense was that it is the Securities and Exchange Commission
that has jurisdiction over this case because it involved an intra corporate controversy
between a corporation and its stockholder. Both parties failed to agree upon a settlement
during pretrial and Petitioner admitted that indeed Silverio was its stockholder. On this
admission Silverio presented a motion to dismiss the proceedings and the lower court
granted it. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which
was also dismissed because they found that the case involved an intra-corporate
controversy. The petitioner in this present petition again seeks the court to resolve their
matter to see who has the jurisdiction over it the SEC or the regular court.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not the jurisdiction of this controversy is within the power of the
regular court

HELD:
No, There is no question that the issues in this present case to collect loans of
Silverio to the petitioner and Silverios recovery of his deposit is an intra-corporate
controversy or dispute arising from intra-corporate relations. Considering the relationship
of the parties and the subject matter of their controversy it is the SEC who has jurisdiction
over the case. The SEC has the expertise tand the technical know-how on how to solve
their issue.