By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
For years after the settlement of family properties, Olivia Yanson was no longer a stockholder. Consequently, she was not invited in the July 2019 special meeting. Leo Rey and Ginnette were invited but did not attend but even if they did, they would be outvoted since the Y4 controlled over 61% of the shares. Their boycott did not affect the validity of the meeting because the attendees had the quorum.
Olivia, however, charged the four of falsification because in their report to the SEC she was not included as a stockholder and since the GIS is prepared under oath, Olivia also accused them of perjury. Moreover, because she was not reported as a stockholder she accused the four of theft.
Olivia refused to recognize the meeting and thus called the information in the GIS falsified since “it constitutes untruthful statements in a narration of facts.”
In her complaint, Olivia cited the supposed untruthful statements: (1) she and her late husband no longer owned 15,000 and 346,000 shares in VTI; and (2) the VTI Special Board Meeting on July 7, 2019 resulting in the ousting of then-VTI President LRY was valid.
Let us consider these “untruthful statements.”
First, how could she and her late husband continue to own the 361,000 shares of VTI in 2019 when she agreed to settle the family estate immediately after her death of Ricardo in October 2015? The conjugal estate was equitably divided among the children and she waived her right to a single share. Although Leo Rey had described her in one of his press statements as already “advanced in years” it does not necessarily mean she had forgotten that she, by her own volition, gave up all her shares in favor of her children not only in one but two amicable settlements.
From 2017 until today the amicable settlement remains valid, pending the court decision on Olivia’s suit to have it annulled. Indeed, the agreement has force and effect, according to the State Prosecutors of the DOJ. So, how could the Y4 have reported in the GIS that she owned shares when she does not have even one? Would not in fact the Y4 have lied in the GIS if they included her in the report as still a stockholder when in truth she is not?
Thus the statement of the Y4 in the GIS is the truth; the claim of Olivia in her complaint cannot be otherwise than the lie.
This brings us further to the claim of Olivia that the November 27, 2019 complaint filed by the Y4 against her is perjury, and that the Y4 made deliberate assertions of falsehood. Since she executed that claim under oath, did she not in fact the one who perjured?
The press statement from Atty. Carlo Joaquin Narvasa, the lawyer of the four Yanson children explained that “In the 2015 Extrajudicial Settlement and the 2017 Amended Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Ricardo Sr., among other documents, the Y4, Y2 and Olivia, unanimously agreed that the six (6) Yanson siblings would receive equal shares in VTI and that Olivia waived her rights over those shares in favor of her children in exchange for various real and personal property.”
To confirm further Olivia’s acceptance of the terms of the settlement, Narvasa called attention to the fact that “both extrajudicial agreements were signed in each and every page by Ricardo Sr.’s heirs, namely Leo Rey, Ginnette, Roy, Emily Yanson, Ricardo Jr., Ma. Lourdes Celina — and his wife, Olivia.”
The DOJ, through Assistant State Prosecutor Philip Dela Cruz, “found that the above allegations stemmed from the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Ricardo Sr., and its amended version.” The DOJ dismissed Olivia’s complaint saying that “these contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification.”
Thus, the “filing of the case is pre-mature because the Trial Court of Bacolod City has yet to resolve whether or not the EJS is indeed void. In fine, no cause of action will lie against herein respondents at this stage of the proceedings, and a cause of action depends upon the result of the civil case still pending with the RTC of Bacolod City.”
The DOJ decision is clear enough.
Let’s continue tomorrow.
