You are on page 1of 1

Agad v. Mabato G.R. No.

L-24193 June 28, 1968 Chief Justice Concepcion Facts: Agad alleged in his complaint that he and Mabato were partners in a fishpond business pursuant to a public instrument, o That he contributed P1k to its capital, with the right to receive 50% of the profits o That Mabato, who handled the partnership funds, had yearly rendered accounts of its operations o That Mabato failed and refused to render account for the years 1957-1963 o That he prayed that Mabato be ordered to give him his share of the profits of such partnership plus attorneys fees, as well as the dissolution of the partnership Mabato denied the existence of the partnership on the ground that the contract therefore had not been perfected because Agad failed to give his P1k contribution to the capital o He filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action TC: motion to dismiss granted public instrument declared null and void o No inventory of the fishpond has been attached to the public instrument pursuant to Art. 1773

Issue: WON immovable property or real rights have been contributed to the alleged partnership, thus allowing the application of Art. 1773.

Held: No immovable property or real rights have been contributed in the alleged partnership. Art. 1771: A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary. Art. 1773: A contract of partnership is void, whenever immovable property is contributed thereto, if inventory of said property is not made, signed by the parties and attached to the public instrument. The public instrument presented showed that it was the operation of a fishpond and not the engagement in a fishpond business that was the purpose established between Agad and Mabato. o Neither contributed a fishpond nor a real right to any fishpond o Their contributions were limited to the sum of P1k each