This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-09-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| On September 20, 2013, respondent Yu filed his Comment.[31] He asserted that the CA correctly applied Caltex in the present case as the lands sold to the petitioners were the only assets of MADCI. After the sale, MADCI became incapable of continuing its business, and its corporate existence has just remained to this day in a virtual state of suspended animation. Thus, unless the creditors had agreed to the sale of all the assets of the corporation and had accepted the purchasing corporation as the new debtor, sufficient assets should have been reserved to pay their claims. | |||||