SERAFIN UY PIAOCO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. J. MC-MICKLNG ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

The only question involved in this appeal is the value, if any, of certain
shares of stock in the Hongkong-Manila Yuen Sheng Exchange and Trading Company,
Limited, the property of the plaintiff, subject to a pledge for 50 per cent of
their nominal, face, or par value (P20,000), to be determined in accordance with
the decision of this court in a former appeal in the same case (20 Phil. Rep.,
583), which provided as follows:

“And let the judgment further provide that ten days after its entry the
record will be returned to the court below for the taking of such further
evidence as the parties may desire to present touching the value of the shares
of corporate stock described in the complaint, on the 10th day of May, 1907, the
date of the levy of execution thereon by the sheriff of Manila; whereupon,
judgment will be entered in the court below for that amount, or so much thereof
as is not in excess of the amount prayed for in the complaint, with legal
interest until paid, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants Khu
Pack, Rufino Dy Tiao Chong, and Yap Tiong Sing.”

The trial judge found that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was
insufficient to sustain a finding that these shares of stock had any actual or
market value at the time of the loan, upon which to base a judgment in favor of
the plaintiff. He refused to believe the testimony offered as to an alleged sale
and certain negotiations touching a proposed sale of the stock in support of the
alleged market value of the stock, and was of opinion that the weight of the
evidence tended to sustain a finding, that due to the insolvent condition of the
company at the date of the levy and throughout the course of these proceedings,
the shares of stock in question were absolutely worthless, and had no actual or
real value. We find nothing in the record which would justify us in disturbing
the findings of the trial judge in this regard, and we are well satisfied from
all the evidence of record that plaintiff’s interest in the stock at the date of
the levy had no value whatsoever.

It is true that at the sheriff’s sale, the stock in question was sold for the
sum of P500 to one of the creditors of the original owner, subject to a pledge
for one-half of its nominal value, but we do not think that the bid of a
creditor at a sheriff’s sale affords any safe criterion as to the true value of
the property upon which he makes his bid. A valid bid by a stranger to the
proceedings would tend to establish that the property in question is worth at
least the amount of the bid; but a bid by a creditor with the understanding that
the amount bid is to be credited on his debt does not necessarily indicate that
it is worth that amount, even in the opinion of the bidder. Property sold at
sheriffs’ sales is frequently bid in by the creditor for an amount equal to or
less than his debt, not because he believes the property worth the amount bid,
but because he believes his only chance to recover anything on his debt is to
take the property itself whether it is or is not worth the amount of the bid,
and make the best of it.

Since the burden of establishing the value of these shares of stock clearly
rested on the plaintiff, the judgment entered in the court below should be
affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ.
concur.