9. Heirs of Ramon Durano, Sr.

vs Uy
344 SCRA 238 October 24, 2000 GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
FACTS:

The late Congressman Ramon Durano Sr. together with his son Ramon Durano III, and the
latter's wide Elizabeth Hotchkins-Durano, instituted an action for damages against spouses Uy.
Herein respondents are the possessors of the subject parcel of land which they are cultivating.
Said parcel of land was used to be owned by CEPCO who later sold the same to Durano & Co.
Durano & Co later sold the disputed property to petitioner Ramon Durano III, who procured the
registration of these lands in his name under ICT no. T-103 and T-104 wherein the different parts
of the entire land was bulldozed by the petitioner's company resulting to the destruction of plants
and other products that were placed by the respondents
A claim for damages was lodged against petitioner wherein the respondents presented tax
declaration covering the different areas of the parcel of land that is titled in each of them as proof
that they are entitled for the said damages.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity can be applied in order to
make Durano & Co liable for damages.

HELD:
Yes. The court of appeals applied the well-recognized principle of piercing the corporate veil
wherein the law will regard the act of the corporation as the act of its individual stockholders,
when it is shown that the corporation was used merely as an alter ego by those persons in the
commission of fraud or other illegal acts. That the test in determining the applicability of the
doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction is as follows:
1. Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete
domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction
attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will
or existence of its own.