Mathay vs Consolidated Bank o Such persons be so numerous to make it

Background of the case: class suit
Petitioners:
- They were stockholders in Consolidated Mines Inc (CMI)
- As stockholders, they made a resolution that would create
the Consolidated Bank & Trust Co and that all stockholders
of the CMI would be entitled to subscribe to the capital
stock of the proposed Bank
- They alleged that they subscribed to a very substantial
amount of shares to the proposed Bank. However, they
and other CMI subscribing stockholders who had already
subscribed were excluded.
- In short, they aver that they were deprived of their rights
to subscribe to the capital stock of Consolidated Bank &
Trust, Co. As such, they filed a complaint in the form of a
class suit.
The RTC denied the petition because a class suit could not be
maintained. This is because the petitioners were not
sufficiently numerous and representative and that the
complaint failed to state a cause of action. Thus, the instant
petition was instituted.
Contention of the Petitioners:
- The instant action could be maintained.
- That the propriety of a class suit should be determined by
the common interest in the subject matter of the
controversy.
o That there existed such common interest which
consisted not only in the recovery of shares
which the petitioners were unlawfully deprived
but also in divesting the respondents the control
of the Bank
- The test of determining the legal standing of a party to
institute a class suit was not the number but whether or
not the interest of said party was representative of the
persons in whose behalf the class suit was instituted
o There are 4 petitioners and 4 intervenors
o There are also many other stockholders similarly
situated with them
impracticable to bring them all to the court
- Petitioners failed to state the number of said CMI
subscribing stockholders that they represent.
- Common or general interest in the subject matter of the
controversy = things, real or personal, the money, lands,
etc and not the delict or wrong committed
- Jurisprudence: class suit would not lie against 319
defendants INDIVIDUALLY occupying different portions of
a big parcel of land, where each defendant had an interest
only in the particular portion he was occupying
o Common or general interest relates in single
specific things and not to distinct ones
- In this case, the portions of the stocks were several, not
common or general
o The wrong suffered by each of them constitute a
wrong separate from those suffered by other
stockholders and those wrongs would not create
that common or general interest
No cause of action
- There is no cause of action
- The petitioners failed to allege specific facts to show that
they were qualified under the law to become
stockholders. Their entitlement to own stocks does not
mean that they are qualified to become stockholders of
the Bank. There are some qualifications that they should
meet first.
- They did not even allege the amount of shares of stock to
which they claimed they were entitled.

Contention of the Respondents:

Propriety of class suit
- Stressed that as a class suit, the petitioners did not sue in
their individual capacities for the protection of their
individual interests
- The petitioners of record could not be considered
numerous and representative as they were only 4 out of
1500 stockholders owning 8 shares out of 80,000
o Even if we add the intevenors
- The petitioners failed to allege facts showing that the
plaintiff were sufficiently numerous and representative

Supreme Court:
- Necessary elements for the maintenance of class suit:
o That the subject matter of the controversy be
one of common or general interest to many
persons