Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

31057 September 7, 1929

The commissioner rendered his report, which is attached to the record, with the following resume: Income: Member's shares............................ Credits paid................................ 97,263.70 6,196.55 4,569.45 1,891.00 P109,620.70 Expenses:

ADRIANO ARBES, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. VICENTE POLISTICO, ET AL., defendants-appellants. Marcelino Lontok and Manuel dela Rosa for appellants. Sumulong & Lavides for appellees. VILLAMOR, J.:

Interest received........................... Miscellaneous...............................

Premiums to members....................... This is an action to bring about liquidation of the funds and property of the association called "Turnuhan Polistico & Co." The plaintiffs were members or shareholders, and the defendants were designated as president-treasurer, directors and secretary of said association. It is well to remember that this case is now brought before the consideration of this court for the second time. The first one was when the same plaintiffs appeared from the order of the court below sustaining the defendant's demurrer, and requiring the former to amend their complaint within a period, so as to include all the members of "Turnuhan Polistico & Co.," either as plaintiffs or as a defendants. This court held then that in an action against the officers of a voluntary association to wind up its affairs and enforce an accounting for money and property in their possessions, it is not necessary that all members of the association be made parties to the action. (Borlasa vs. Polistico, 47 Phil., 345.) The case having been remanded to the court of origin, both parties amend, respectively, their complaint and their answer, and by agreement of the parties, the court appointed Amadeo R. Quintos, of the Insular Auditor's Office, commissioner to examine all the books, documents, and accounts of "Turnuhan Polistico & Co.," and to receive whatever evidence the parties might desire to present. Loans on real-estate....................... Loans on promissory notes.............. Salaries.................................... Miscellaneous...............................

68,146.25 9,827.00 4,258.55 1,095.00 1,686.10 85,012.90

Cash on hand........................................

24,607.80

The defendants objected to the commissioner's report, but the trial court, having examined the reasons for the objection, found the same sufficiently explained in the report and the evidence, and accepting it, rendered judgment, holding that the association "Turnuhan Polistico & Co." is unlawful, and sentencing the defendants jointly and severally to return the amount of P24,607.80, as well as the documents showing the uncollected credits of the association, to the plaintiffs in this case, and to the rest of the members of the said association represented by said plaintiffs, with costs against the defendants.

The defendants assigned several errors as grounds for their appeal, but we believe they can all be reduced to two points, to wit: (1) That not all persons having an interest in this association are included as plaintiffs or defendants; (2) that the objection to the commissioner's report should have been admitted by the court below. As to the first point, the decision on the case of Borlasa vs. Polistico, supra, must be followed. With regard to the second point, despite the praiseworthy efforts of the attorney of the defendants, we are of opinion that, the trial court having examined all the evidence touching the grounds for the objection and having found that they had been explained away in the commissioner's report, the conclusion reached by the court below, accepting and adopting the findings of fact contained in said report, and especially those referring to the disposition of the association's money, should not be disturbed. In Tan Dianseng Tan Siu Pic vs. Echauz Tan Siuco (5 Phil., 516), it was held that the findings of facts made by a referee appointed under the provisions of section 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure stand upon the same basis, when approved by the Court, as findings made by the judge himself. And in Kriedt vs. E. C. McCullogh & Co.(37 Phil., 474), the court held: "Under section 140 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is made the duty of the court to render judgment in accordance with the report of the referee unless the court shall unless for cause shown set aside the report or recommit it to the referee. This provision places upon the litigant parties of the duty of discovering and exhibiting to the court any error that may be contained therein." The appellants stated the grounds for their objection. The trial examined the evidence and the commissioner's report, and accepted the findings of fact made in the report. We find no convincing arguments on the appellant's brief to justify a reversal of the trial court's conclusion admitting the commissioner's findings. There is no question that "Turnuhan Polistico & Co." is an unlawful partnership (U.S. vs. Baguio, 39 Phil., 962), but the appellants allege that because it is so, some charitable institution to whom the partnership funds may be ordered to be turned over, should be included, as a party defendant. The appellants refer to article 1666 of the Civil Code, which provides: A partnership must have a lawful object, and must be established for the common benefit of the partners.

When the dissolution of an unlawful partnership is decreed, the profits shall be given to charitable institutions of the domicile of the partnership, or, in default of such, to those of the province. Appellant's contention on this point is untenable. According to said article, no charitable institution is a necessary party in the present case of determination of the rights of the parties. The action which may arise from said article, in the case of unlawful partnership, is that for the recovery of the amounts paid by the member from those in charge of the administration of said partnership, and it is not necessary for the said parties to base their action to the existence of the partnership, but on the fact that of having contributed some money to the partnership capital. And hence, the charitable institution of the domicile of the partnership, and in the default thereof, those of the province are not necessary parties in this case. The article cited above permits no action for the purpose of obtaining the earnings made by the unlawful partnership, during its existence as result of the business in which it was engaged, because for the purpose, as Manresa remarks, the partner will have to base his action upon the partnership contract, which is to annul and without legal existence by reason of its unlawful object; and it is self evident that what does not exist cannot be a cause of action. Hence, paragraph 2 of the same article provides that when the dissolution of the unlawful partnership is decreed, the profits cannot inure to the benefit of the partners, but must be given to some charitable institution. We deem in pertinent to quote Manresa's commentaries on article 1666 at length, as a clear explanation of the scope and spirit of the provision of the Civil Code which we are concerned. Commenting on said article Manresa, among other things says: When the subscriptions of the members have been paid to the management of the partnership, and employed by the latter in transactions consistent with the purposes of the partnership may the former demand the return of the reimbursement thereof from the manager or administrator withholding them? Apropos of this, it is asserted: If the partnership has no valid existence, if it is considered juridically non-existent, the contract entered into can have no legal effect; and in that case, how can it give rise to an action in favor of the partners to judicially demand from the manager or the administrator of the partnership capital, each one's contribution? The authors discuss this point at great length, but Ricci decides the matter quite clearly, dispelling all doubts thereon. He holds that the partner who

limits himself to demanding only the amount contributed by him need not resort to the partnership contract on which to base his action. And he adds in explanation that the partner makes his contribution, which passes to the managing partner for the purpose of carrying on the business or industry which is the object of the partnership; or in other words, to breathe the breath of life into a partnership contract with an objection forbidden by law. And as said contrast does not exist in the eyes of the law, the purpose from which the contribution was made has not come into existence, and the administrator of the partnership holding said contribution retains what belongs to others, without any consideration; for which reason he is not bound to return it and he who has paid in his share is entitled to recover it. But this is not the case with regard to profits earned in the course of the partnership, because they do not constitute or represent the partner's contribution but are the result of the industry, business or speculation which is the object of the partnership, and therefor, in order to demand the proportional part of the said profits, the partner would have to base his action on the contract which is null and void, since this partition or distribution of the profits is one of the juridical effects thereof. Wherefore considering this contract asnon-existent, by reason of its illicit object, it cannot give rise to the necessary action, which must be the basis of the judicial complaint. Furthermore, it would be immoral and unjust for the law to permit a profit from an industry prohibited by it. Hence the distinction made in the second paragraph of this article of this Code, providing that the profits obtained by unlawful means shall not enrich the partners, but shall upon the dissolution of the partnership, be given to the charitable institutions of the domicile of the partnership, or, in default of such, to those of the province. This is a new rule, unprecedented by our law, introduced to supply an obvious deficiency of the former law, which did not describe the purpose to which those profits denied the partners were to be applied, nor state what to be done with them. The profits are so applied, and not the contributions, because this would be an excessive and unjust sanction for, as we have seen, there is no reason, in such a case, for depriving the partner of the portion of the capital that he contributed, the circumstances of the two cases being entirely different.

Our Code does not state whether, upon the dissolution of the unlawful partnership, the amounts contributed are to be returned by the partners, because it only deals with the disposition of the profits; but the fact that said contributions are not included in the disposal prescribed profits, shows that in consequences of said exclusion, the general law must be followed, and hence the partners should reimburse the amount of their respective contributions. Any other solution is immoral, and the law will not consent to the latter remaining in the possession of the manager or administrator who has refused to return them, by denying to the partners the action to demand them. (Manresa, Commentaries on the Spanish Civil Code, vol. XI, pp. 262264) The judgment appealed from, being in accordance with law, should be, as it is hereby, affirmed with costs against the appellants; provided, however, the defendants shall pay the legal interest on the sum of P24,607.80 from the date of the decision of the court, and provided, further, that the defendants shall deposit this sum of money and other documents evidencing uncollected credits in the office of the clerk of the trial court, in order that said court may distribute them among the members of said association, upon being duly identified in the manner that it may deem proper. So ordered. Avancea, C.J., Johnson, Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-25532 February 28, 1969

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. WILLIAM J. SUTER and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete and Special Attorneys B. Gatdula, Jr. and T. Temprosa Jr. for petitioner. A. S. Monzon, Gutierrez, Farrales and Ong for respondents.

REYES, J.B.L., J.: A limited partnership, named "William J. Suter 'Morcoin' Co., Ltd.," was formed on 30 September 1947 by herein respondent William J. Suter as the general partner, and Julia Spirig and Gustav Carlson, as the limited partners. The partners contributed, respectively, P20,000.00, P18,000.00 and P2,000.00 to the partnership. On 1 October 1947, the limited partnership was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The firm engaged, among other activities, in the importation, marketing, distribution and operation of automatic phonographs, radios, television sets and amusement machines, their parts and accessories. It had an office and held itself out as a limited partnership, handling and carrying merchandise, using invoices, bills and letterheads bearing its trade-name, maintaining its own books of accounts and bank accounts, and had a quota allocation with the Central Bank. In 1948, however, general partner Suter and limited partner Spirig got married and, thereafter, on 18 December 1948, limited partner Carlson sold his share in the partnership to Suter and his wife. The sale was duly recorded with the Securities and Exchange Commission on 20 December 1948. The limited partnership had been filing its income tax returns as a corporation, without objection by the herein petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, until in 1959 when the latter, in an assessment, consolidated the income of the firm and the individual incomes of the partners-spouses Suter and Spirig resulting in a determination of a deficiency income tax against respondent Suter in the amount of P2,678.06 for 1954 and P4,567.00 for 1955. Respondent Suter protested the assessment, and requested its cancellation and withdrawal, as not in accordance with law, but his request was denied. Unable to secure a reconsideration, he appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals, which court, after trial, rendered a decision, on 11 November 1965, reversing that of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The present case is a petition for review, filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, of the tax court's aforesaid decision. It raises these issues: (a) Whether or not the corporate personality of the William J. Suter "Morcoin" Co., Ltd. should be disregarded for income tax purposes, considering that respondent William J. Suter and his wife, Julia Spirig Suter actually formed a single taxable unit; and

(b) Whether or not the partnership was dissolved after the marriage of the partners, respondent William J. Suter and Julia Spirig Suter and the subsequent sale to them by the remaining partner, Gustav Carlson, of his participation of P2,000.00 in the partnership for a nominal amount of P1.00. The theory of the petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is that the marriage of Suter and Spirig and their subsequent acquisition of the interests of remaining partner Carlson in the partnership dissolved the limited partnership, and if they did not, the fiction of juridical personality of the partnership should be disregarded for income tax purposes because the spouses have exclusive ownership and control of the business; consequently the income tax return of respondent Suter for the years in question should have included his and his wife's individual incomes and that of the limited partnership, in accordance with Section 45 (d) of the National Internal Revenue Code, which provides as follows: (d) Husband and wife. In the case of married persons, whether citizens, residents or non-residents, only one consolidated return for the taxable year shall be filed by either spouse to cover the income of both spouses; .... In refutation of the foregoing, respondent Suter maintains, as the Court of Tax Appeals held, that his marriage with limited partner Spirig and their acquisition of Carlson's interests in the partnership in 1948 is not a ground for dissolution of the partnership, either in the Code of Commerce or in the New Civil Code, and that since its juridical personality had not been affected and since, as a limited partnership, as contra distinguished from a duly registered general partnership, it is taxable on its income similarly with corporations, Suter was not bound to include in his individual return the income of the limited partnership. We find the Commissioner's appeal unmeritorious. The thesis that the limited partnership, William J. Suter "Morcoin" Co., Ltd., has been dissolved by operation of law because of the marriage of the only general partner, William J. Suter to the originally limited partner, Julia Spirig one year after the partnership was organized is rested by the appellant upon the opinion of now Senator Tolentino in Commentaries and Jurisprudence on Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 4th Ed., page 58, that reads as follows:

A husband and a wife may not enter into a contract of general copartnership, because under the Civil Code, which applies in the absence of express provision in the Code of Commerce, persons prohibited from making donations to each other are prohibited from entering into universal partnerships. (2 Echaverri 196) It follows that the marriage of partners necessarily brings about the dissolution of a pre-existing partnership. (1 Guy de Montella 58) The petitioner-appellant has evidently failed to observe the fact that William J. Suter "Morcoin" Co., Ltd. wasnot a universal partnership, but a particular one. As appears from Articles 1674 and 1675 of the Spanish Civil Code, of 1889 (which was the law in force when the subject firm was organized in 1947), a universal partnership requires either that the object of the association be all the present property of the partners, as contributed by them to the common fund, or else "all that the partners may acquire by their industry or work during the existence of the partnership". William J. Suter "Morcoin" Co., Ltd. was not such a universal partnership, since the contributions of the partners were fixed sums of money, P20,000.00 by William Suter and P18,000.00 by Julia Spirig and neither one of them was an industrial partner. It follows that William J. Suter "Morcoin" Co., Ltd. was not a partnership that spouses were forbidden to enter by Article 1677 of the Civil Code of 1889. The former Chief Justice of the Spanish Supreme Court, D. Jose Casan, in his Derecho Civil, 7th Edition, 1952, Volume 4, page 546, footnote 1, says with regard to the prohibition contained in the aforesaid Article 1677: Los conyuges, segun esto, no pueden celebrar entre si el contrato de sociedad universal, pero o podran constituir sociedad particular? Aunque el punto ha sido muy debatido, nos inclinamos a la tesis permisiva de los contratos de sociedad particular entre esposos, ya que ningun precepto de nuestro Codigo los prohibe, y hay que estar a la norma general segun la que toda persona es capaz para contratar mientras no sea declarado incapaz por la ley. La jurisprudencia de la Direccion de los Registros fue favorable a esta misma tesis en su resolution de 3 de febrero de 1936, mas parece cambiar de rumbo en la de 9 de marzo de 1943. Nor could the subsequent marriage of the partners operate to dissolve it, such marriage not being one of the causes provided for that purpose either by the Spanish Civil Code or the Code of Commerce.

The appellant's view, that by the marriage of both partners the company became a single proprietorship, is equally erroneous. The capital contributions of partners William J. Suter and Julia Spirig were separately owned and contributed by them before their marriage; and after they were joined in wedlock, such contributions remained their respective separate property under the Spanish Civil Code (Article 1396): The following shall be the exclusive property of each spouse: (a) That which is brought to the marriage as his or her own; .... Thus, the individual interest of each consort in William J. Suter "Morcoin" Co., Ltd. did not become common property of both after their marriage in 1948. It being a basic tenet of the Spanish and Philippine law that the partnership has a juridical personality of its own, distinct and separate from that of its partners (unlike American and English law that does not recognize such separate juridical personality), the bypassing of the existence of the limited partnership as a taxpayer can only be done by ignoring or disregarding clear statutory mandates and basic principles of our law. The limited partnership's separate individuality makes it impossible to equate its income with that of the component members. True, section 24 of the Internal Revenue Code merges registered general co-partnerships (compaias colectivas) with the personality of the individual partners for income tax purposes. But this rule is exceptional in its disregard of a cardinal tenet of our partnership laws, and can not be extended by mere implication to limited partnerships. The rulings cited by the petitioner (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. University of the Visayas, L-13554, Resolution of 30 October 1964, and Koppel [Phil.], Inc. vs. Yatco, 77 Phil. 504) as authority for disregarding the fiction of legal personality of the corporations involved therein are not applicable to the present case. In the cited cases, the corporations were already subject to tax when the fiction of their corporate personality was pierced; in the present case, to do so would exempt the limited partnership from income taxation but would throw the tax burden upon the partnersspouses in their individual capacities. The corporations, in the cases cited, merely served as business conduits or alter egos of the stockholders, a factor that justified a disregard of their corporate personalities for tax purposes. This is not true in the present case. Here, the limited partnership is not a mere business conduit of the partner-spouses; it was organized for legitimate business purposes; it conducted its

own dealings with its customers prior to appellee's marriage, and had been filing its own income tax returns as such independent entity. The change in its membership, brought about by the marriage of the partners and their subsequent acquisition of all interest therein, is no ground for withdrawing the partnership from the coverage of Section 24 of the tax code, requiring it to pay income tax. As far as the records show, the partners did not enter into matrimony and thereafter buy the interests of the remaining partner with the premeditated scheme or design to use the partnership as a business conduit to dodge the tax laws. Regularity, not otherwise, is presumed. As the limited partnership under consideration is taxable on its income, to require that income to be included in the individual tax return of respondent Suter is to overstretch the letter and intent of the law. In fact, it would even conflict with what it specifically provides in its Section 24: for the appellant Commissioner's stand results in equal treatment, tax wise, of a general copartnership ( compaia colectiva) and a limited partnership, when the code plainly differentiates the two. Thus, the code taxes the latter on its income, but not the former, because it is in the case of compaias colectivas that the members, and not the firm, are taxable in their individual capacities for any dividend or share of the profit derived from the duly registered general partnership (Section 26, N.I.R.C.; Araas, Anno. & Juris. on the N.I.R.C., As Amended, Vol. 1, pp. 88-89).lawphi1.nt But it is argued that the income of the limited partnership is actually or constructively the income of the spouses and forms part of the conjugal partnership of gains. This is not wholly correct. As pointed out in Agapito vs. Molo 50 Phil. 779, and People's Bank vs. Register of Deeds of Manila, 60 Phil. 167, the fruits of the wife's parapherna become conjugal only when no longer needed to defray the expenses for the administration and preservation of the paraphernal capital of the wife. Then again, the appellant's argument erroneously confines itself to the question of the legal personality of the limited partnership, which is not essential to the income taxability of the partnership since the law taxes the income of even joint accounts that 1 have no personality of their own. Appellant is, likewise, mistaken in that it assumes that the conjugal partnership of gains is a taxable unit, which it is not. What is taxable is the "income of both spouses" (Section 45 [d] in their individual capacities. Though the amount of income (income of the conjugal partnership vis-a-vis the joint income of husband and wife) may be the same for a given taxable year, their consequences would be different, as their contributions in the business partnership are not the same. The difference in tax rates between the income of the limited partnership being consolidated with, and when split from the income of the spouses, is not a

justification for requiring consolidation; the revenue code, as it presently stands, does not authorize it, and even bars it by requiring the limited partnership to pay tax on its own income. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the decision under review is hereby affirmed. No costs. Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano and Teehankee, JJ., concur. Barredo, J., took no part. Footnotes
1

V. Evangelists vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 102 Phil 140; Collector vs. Batangas Transportation Co., 102 Phil. 822. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-33580 February 6, 1931

MAXIMILIANO SANCHO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SEVERIANO LIZARRAGA, defendant-appellee. Jose Perez Cardenas and Jose M. Casal for appellant. Celso B. Jamora and Antonio Gonzalez for appellee. ROMUALDEZ, J.: The plaintiff brought an action for the rescission of a partnership contract between himself and the defendant, entered into on October 15, 1920, the reimbursement by the latter of his 50,000 peso investment therein, with interest at 12 per cent per annum form October 15, 1920, with costs, and any other just and equitable remedy against said defendant.

The defendant denies generally and specifically all the allegations of the complaint which are incompatible with his special defenses, cross-complaint and counterclaim, setting up the latter and asking for the dissolution of the partnership, and the payment to him as its manager and administrator of P500 monthly from October 15, 1920, until the final dissolution, with interest, one-half of said amount to be charged to the plaintiff. He also prays for any other just and equitable remedy. The Court of First Instance of Manila, having heard the cause, and finding it duly proved that the defendant had not contributed all the capital he had bound himself to invest, and that the plaintiff had demanded that the defendant liquidate the partnership, declared it dissolved on account of the expiration of the period for which it was constituted, and ordered the defendant, as managing partner, to proceed without delay to liquidate it, submitting to the court the result of the liquidation together with the accounts and vouchers within the period of thirty days from receipt of notice of said judgment, without costs. The plaintiff appealed from said decision making the following assignments of error: 1. In holding that the plaintiff and appellant is not entitled to the rescission of the partnership contract, Exhibit A, and that article 1124 of the Civil Code is not applicable to the present case. 2. In failing to order the defendant to return the sum of P50,000 to the plaintiff with interest from October 15, 1920, until fully paid. 3. In denying the motion for a new trial.

taken from a decision ordering the rendition of accounts following the dissolution of partnership, the appeal in the instant case must be deemed premature. But even going into the merits of the case, the affirmation of the judgment appealed from is inevitable. In view of the lower court's findings referred to above, which we cannot revise because the parol evidence has not been forwarded to this court, articles 1681 and 1682 of the Civil Code have been properly applied. Owing to the defendant's failure to pay to the partnership the whole amount which he bound himself to pay, he became indebted to it for the remainder, with interest and any damages occasioned thereby, but the plaintiff did not thereby acquire the right to demand rescission of the partnership contract according to article 1124 of the Code. This article cannot be applied to the case in question, because it refers to the resolution of obligations in general, whereas article 1681 and 1682 specifically refer to the contract of partnership in particular. And it is a well known principle that special provisions prevail over general provisions. By virtue of the foregoing, this appeal is hereby dismissed, leaving the decision appealed from in full force, without special pronouncement of costs. So ordered. Avancea, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

In the brief filed by counsel for the appellee, a preliminary question is raised purporting to show that this appeal is premature and therefore will not lie. The point is based on the contention that inasmuch as the liquidation ordered by the trial court, and the consequent accounts, have not been made and submitted, the case cannot be deemed terminated in said court and its ruling is not yet appealable. In support of this contention counsel cites section 123 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the decision of this court in the case of Natividad vs. Villarica (31 Phil., 172). This contention is well founded. Until the accounts have been rendered as ordered by the trial court, and until they have been either approved or disapproved, the litigation involved in this action cannot be considered as completely decided; and, as it was held in said case of Natividad vs .Villarica, also with reference to an appeal

G.R. No. L-21906

December 24, 1968

INOCENCIA DELUAO and FELIPE DELUAO plaintiffs-appellees, vs. NICANOR CASTEEL and JUAN DEPRA, defendants, NICANOR CASTEEL, defendant-appellant. Aportadera and Palabrica and Pelaez, Jalandoni and Jamir plaintiffs-appellees. Ruiz Law Offices for defendant-appellant.

CASTRO, J.: This is an appeal from the order of May 2, 1956, the decision of May 4, 1956 and the order of May 21, 1956, all of the Court of First Instance of Davao, in civil case 629. The basic action is for specific performance, and damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract. In 1940 Nicanor Casteel filed a fishpond application for a big tract of swampy land in the then Sitio of Malalag (now the Municipality of Malalag), Municipality of Padada, Davao. No action was taken thereon by the authorities concerned. During the Japanese occupation, he filed another fishpond application for the same area, but because of the conditions then prevailing, it was not acted upon either. On December 12, 1945 he filed a third fishpond application for the same area, which, after a survey, was found to contain 178.76 hectares. Upon investigation conducted by a representative of the Bureau of Forestry, it was discovered that the area applied for was still needed for firewood production. Hence on May 13, 1946 this third application was disapproved. Despite the said rejection, Casteel did not lose interest. He filed a motion for reconsideration. While this motion was pending resolution, he was advised by the district forester of Davao City that no further action would be taken on his motion, unless he filed a new application for the area concerned. So he filed on May 27, 1947 his fishpond application 1717. Meanwhile, several applications were submitted by other persons for portions of the area covered by Casteel's application. On May 20, 1946 Leoncio Aradillos filed his fishpond application 1202 covering 10 hectares of land found inside the area applied for by Casteel; he was later granted fishpond permit F-289-C covering 9.3 hectares certified as available for fishpond purposes by the Bureau of Forestry. Victor D. Carpio filed on August 8, 1946 his fishpond application 762 over a portion of the land applied for by Casteel. Alejandro Cacam's fishpond application 1276, filed on December 26, 1946, was given due course on December 9, 1947 with the issuance to him of fishpond permit F-539-C to develop 30 hectares of land comprising a portion of the area applied for by Casteel, upon certification of the Bureau of Forestry that the area was likewise available for fishpond purposes. On

November 17, 1948 Felipe Deluao filed his own fishpond application for the area covered by Casteel's application. Because of the threat poised upon his position by the above applicants who entered upon and spread themselves within the area, Casteel realized the urgent necessity of expanding his occupation thereof by constructing dikes and cultivating marketable fishes, in order to prevent old and new squatters from usurping the land. But lacking financial resources at that time, he sought financial aid from his uncle Felipe Deluao who then extended loans totalling more or less P27,000 with which to finance the needed improvements on the fishpond. Hence, a wide productive fishpond was built. Moreover, upon learning that portions of the area applied for by him were already occupied by rival applicants, Casteel immediately filed the corresponding protests. Consequently, two administrative cases ensued involving the area in question, to wit: DANR Case 353, entitled "Fp. Ap. No. 661 (now Fp. A. No. 1717), Nicanor Casteel, applicant-appellant versus Fp. A. No. 763, Victorio D. Carpio, applicant-appellant"; and DANR Case 353-B, entitled "Fp. A. No. 661 (now Fp. A. No. 1717), Nicanor Casteel, applicant-protestant versus Fp. Permit No. 289-C, Leoncio Aradillos, Fp. Permit No. 539-C, Alejandro Cacam, Permittees-Respondents." However, despite the finding made in the investigation of the above administrative cases that Casteel had already introduced improvements on portions of the area applied for by him in the form of dikes, fishpond gates, clearings, etc., the Director of Fisheries nevertheless rejected Casteel's application on October 25, 1949, required him to remove all the improvements which he had introduced on the land, and ordered that the land be leased through public auction. Failing to secure a favorable resolution of his motion for reconsideration of the Director's order, Casteel appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. In the interregnum, some more incidents occurred. To avoid repetition, they will be taken up in our discussion of the appellant's third assignment of error. On November 25, 1949 Inocencia Deluao (wife of Felipe Deluao) as party of the first part, and Nicanor Casteel as party of the second part, executed a contract denominated a "contract of service" the salient provisions of which are as follows: That the Party of the First Part in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements made herein to the Party of the Second Part, hereby enter into a

contract of service, whereby the Party of the First Part hires and employs the Party of the Second Part on the following terms and conditions, to wit: That the Party of the First Part will finance as she has hereby financed the sum of TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (P27,000.00), Philippine Currency, to the Party of the Second Part who renders only his services for the construction and improvements of a fishpond at Barrio Malalag, Municipality of Padada, Province of Davao, Philippines; That the Party of the Second Part will be the Manager and sole buyer of all the produce of the fish that will be produced from said fishpond; That the Party of the First Part will be the administrator of the same she having financed the construction and improvement of said fishpond; That this contract was the result of a verbal agreement entered into between the Parties sometime in the month of November, 1947, with all the abovementioned conditions enumerated; ... On the same date the above contract was entered into, Inocencia Deluao executed a special power of attorney in favor of Jesus Donesa, extending to the latter the authority "To represent me in the administration of the fishpond at Malalag, Municipality of Padada, Province of Davao, Philippines, which has been applied for fishpond permit by Nicanor Casteel, but rejected by the Bureau of Fisheries, and to supervise, demand, receive, and collect the value of the fish that is being periodically realized from it...." On November 29, 1949 the Director of Fisheries rejected the application filed by Felipe Deluao on November 17, 1948. Unfazed by this rejection, Deluao reiterated his claim over the same area in the two administrative cases (DANR Cases 353 and 353-B) and asked for reinvestigation of the application of Nicanor Casteel over the subject fishpond. However, by letter dated March 15, 1950 sent to the Secretary of Commerce and Agriculture and Natural Resources (now Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources), Deluao withdrew his petition for reinvestigation. On September 15, 1950 the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued a decision in DANR Case 353, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

In view of all the foregoing considerations, Fp. A. No. 661 (now Fp. A. No. 1717) of Nicanor Casteel should be, as hereby it is, reinstated and given due course for the area indicated in the sketch drawn at the back of the last page hereof; and Fp. A. No. 762 of Victorio D. Carpio shall remain rejected. On the same date, the same official issued a decision in DANR Case 353-B, the dispositive portion stating as follows: WHEREFORE, Fishpond Permit No. F-289-C of Leoncio Aradillos and Fishpond Permit No. F-539-C of Alejandro Cacam, should be, as they are hereby cancelled and revoked; Nicanor Casteel is required to pay the improvements introduced thereon by said permittees in accordance with the terms and dispositions contained elsewhere in this decision.... Sometime in January 1951 Nicanor Casteel forbade Inocencia Deluao from further administering the fishpond, and ejected the latter's representative ( encargado), Jesus Donesa, from the premises. Alleging violation of the contract of service (exhibit A) entered into between Inocencia Deluao and Nicanor Casteel, Felipe Deluao and Inocencia Deluao on April 3, 1951 filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Davao for specific performance and damages against Nicanor Casteel and Juan Depra (who, they alleged, instigated Casteel to violate his contract), praying inter alia, (a) that Casteel be ordered to respect and abide by the terms and conditions of said contract and that Inocencia Deluao be allowed to continue administering the said fishpond and collecting the proceeds from the sale of the fishes caught from time to time; and (b) that the defendants be ordered to pay jointly and severally to plaintiffs the sum of P20,000 in damages. On April 18, 1951 the plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, praying among other things, that during the pendency of the case and upon their filling the requisite bond as may be fixed by the court, a preliminary injunction be issued to restrain Casteel from doing the acts complained of, and that after trial the said injunction be made permanent. The lower court on April 26, 1951 granted the motion, and, two days later, it issued a preliminary mandatory injunction addressed to Casteel, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: POR EL PRESENTE, queda usted ordenado que, hasta nueva orden, usted, el demandado y todos usu abogados, agentes, mandatarios y demas

personas que obren en su ayuda, desista de impedir a la demandante Inocencia R. Deluao que continue administrando personalmente la pesqueria objeto de esta causa y que la misma continue recibiendo los productos de la venta de los pescados provenientes de dicha pesqueria, y que, asimismo, se prohibe a dicho demandado Nicanor Casteel a desahuciar mediante fuerza al encargado de los demandantes llamado Jesus Donesa de la pesqueria objeto de la demanda de autos. On May 10, 1951 Casteel filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, alleging among others, that he was the owner, lawful applicant and occupant of the fishpond in question. This motion, opposed by the plaintiffs on June 15, 1951, was denied by the lower court in its order of June 26, 1961. The defendants on May 14, 1951 filed their answer with counterclaim, amended on January 8, 1952, denying the material averments of the plaintiffs' complaint. A reply to the defendants' amended answer was filed by the plaintiffs on January 31, 1952. The defendant Juan Depra moved on May 22, 1951 to dismiss the complaint as to him. On June 4, 1951 the plaintiffs opposed his motion. The defendants filed on October 3, 1951 a joint motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The motion, opposed by the plaintiffs on October 12, 1951, was denied for lack of merit by the lower court in its order of October 22, 1951. The defendants' motion for reconsideration filed on October 31, 1951 suffered the same fate when it was likewise denied by the lower court in its order of November 12, 1951. After the issues were joined, the case was set for trial. Then came a series of postponements. The lower court (Branch I, presided by Judge Enrique A. Fernandez) finally issued on March 21, 1956 an order in open court, reading as follows: . Upon petition of plaintiffs, without any objection on the part of defendants, the hearing of this case is hereby transferred to May 2 and 3, 1956 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. This case was filed on April 3, 1951 and under any circumstance this Court will not entertain any other transfer of hearing of this case and if the parties will not be ready on that day set for hearing, the court will take the necessary steps for the final determination of this case. (emphasis supplied)

On April 25, 1956 the defendants' counsel received a notice of hearing dated April 21, 1956, issued by the office of the Clerk of Court (thru the special deputy Clerk of Court) of the Court of First Instance of Davao, setting the hearing of the case for May 2 and 3, 1956 before Judge Amador Gomez of Branch II. The defendants, thru counsel, on April 26, 1956 filed a motion for postponement. Acting on this motion, the lower court (Branch II, presided by Judge Gomez) issued an order dated April 27, 1956, quoted as follows: This is a motion for postponement of the hearing of this case set for May 2 and 3, 1956. The motion is filed by the counsel for the defendants and has the conformity of the counsel for the plaintiffs. An examination of the records of this case shows that this case was initiated as early as April 1951 and that the same has been under advisement of the Honorable Enrique A. Fernandez, Presiding Judge of Branch No. I, since September 24, 1953, and that various incidents have already been considered and resolved by Judge Fernandez on various occasions. The last order issued by Judge Fernandez on this case was issued on March 21, 1956, wherein he definitely states that the Court will not entertain any further postponement of the hearing of this case. CONSIDERING ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court believes that the consideration and termination of any incident referring to this case should be referred back to Branch I, so that the same may be disposed of therein. (emphasis supplied) A copy of the abovequoted order was served on the defendants' counsel on May 4, 1956. On the scheduled date of hearing, that is, on May 2, 1956, the lower court (Branch I, with Judge Fernandez presiding), when informed about the defendants' motion for postponement filed on April 26, 1956, issued an order reiterating its previous order handed down in open court on March 21, 1956 and directing the plaintiffs to introduce their evidence ex parte, there being no appearance on the part of the defendants or their counsel. On the basis of the plaintiffs' evidence, a decision was rendered on May 4, 1956 the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: EN SU VIRTUD, el Juzgado dicta de decision a favor de los demandantes y en contra del demandado Nicanor Casteel:

(a) Declara permanente el interdicto prohibitorio expedido contra el demandado; (b) Ordena al demandado entregue la demandante la posesion y administracion de la mitad () del "fishpond" en cuestion con todas las mejoras existentes dentro de la misma; (c) Condena al demandado a pagar a la demandante la suma de P200.00 mensualmente en concepto de danos a contar de la fecha de la expiracion de los 30 dias de la promulgacion de esta decision hasta que entregue la posesion y administracion de la porcion del "fishpond" en conflicto; (d) Condena al demandado a pagar a la demandante la suma de P2,000.00 valor de los pescado beneficiados, mas los intereses legales de la fecha de la incoacion de la demanda de autos hasta el completo pago de la obligacion principal; (e) Condena al demandado a pagar a la demandante la suma de P2,000.00, por gastos incurridos por aquella durante la pendencia de esta causa; (f) Condena al demandado a pagar a la demandante, en concepto de honorarios, la suma de P2,000.00; (g) Ordena el sobreseimiento de esta demanda, por insuficiencia de pruebas, en tanto en cuanto se refiere al demandado Juan Depra; (h) Ordena el sobreseimiento de la reconvencion de los demandados por falta de pruebas; (i) Con las costas contra del demandado, Casteel. The defendant Casteel filed a petition for relief from the foregoing decision, alleging, inter alia, lack of knowledge of the order of the court a quo setting the case for trial. The petition, however, was denied by the lower court in its order of May 21, 1956, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows: The duty of Atty. Ruiz, was not to inquire from the Clerk of Court whether the trial of this case has been transferred or not, but to inquire from the presiding

Judge, particularly because his motion asking the transfer of this case was not set for hearing and was not also acted upon. Atty. Ruiz knows the nature of the order of this Court dated March 21, 1956, which reads as follows: Upon petition of the plaintiff without any objection on the part of the defendants, the hearing of this case is hereby transferred to May 2 and 3, 1956, at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. This case was filed on April 3, 1951, and under any circumstance this Court will not entertain any other transfer of the hearing of this case, and if the parties will not be ready on the day set for hearing, the Court will take necessary steps for the final disposition of this case. In view of the order above-quoted, the Court will not accede to any transfer of this case and the duty of Atty. Ruiz is no other than to be present in the Sala of this Court and to call the attention of the same to the existence of his motion for transfer. Petition for relief from judgment filed by Atty. Ruiz in behalf of the defendant, not well taken, the same is hereby denied. Dissatisfied with the said ruling, Casteel appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to us for final determination on the ground that it involves only questions of law. Casteel raises the following issues: (1) Whether the lower court committed gross abuse of discretion when it ordered reception of the appellees' evidence in the absence of the appellant at the trial on May 2, 1956, thus depriving the appellant of his day in court and of his property without due process of law; (2) Whether the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the verified petition for relief from judgment filed by the appellant on May 11, 1956 in accordance with Rule 38, Rules of Court; and

(3) Whether the lower court erred in ordering the issuance ex parte of a writ of preliminary injunction against defendant-appellant, and in not dismissing appellees' complaint. 1. The first and second issues must be resolved against the appellant. The record indisputably shows that in the order given in open court on March 21, 1956, the lower court set the case for hearing on May 2 and 3, 1956 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning and empathically stated that, since the case had been pending since April 3, 1951, it would not entertain any further motion for transfer of the scheduled hearing. An order given in open court is presumed received by the parties on the very date 1 and time of promulgation, and amounts to a legal notification for all legal 2 purposes. The order of March 21, 1956, given in open court, was a valid notice to the parties, and the notice of hearing dated April 21, 1956 or one month thereafter, was a superfluity. Moreover, as between the order of March 21, 1956, duly promulgated by the lower court, thru Judge Fernandez, and the notice of hearing signed by a "special deputy clerk of court" setting the hearing in another branch of the same court, the former's order was the one legally binding. This is because the incidents of postponements and adjournments are controlled by the court and not by the clerk of court, pursuant to section 4, Rule 31 (now sec. 3, Rule 22) of the Rules of Court. Much less had the clerk of court the authority to interfere with the order of the court or to transfer the cage from one sala to another without authority or order from the court where the case originated and was being tried. He had neither the duty nor prerogative to re-assign the trial of the case to a different branch of the same court. His duty as such clerk of court, in so far as the incident in question was concerned, was simply to prepare the trial calendar. And this duty devolved upon the clerk of court and not upon the "special deputy clerk of court" who purportedly signed the notice of hearing. It is of no moment that the motion for postponement had the conformity of the appellees' counsel. The postponement of hearings does not depend upon agreement 3 of the parties, but upon the court's discretion. The record further discloses that Casteel was represented by a total of 12 lawyers, none of whom had ever withdrawn as counsel. Notice to Atty. Ruiz of the order dated

March 21, 1956 intransferably setting the case for hearing for May 2 and 3, 1956, was sufficient notice to all the appellant's eleven other counsel of record. This is a 4 well-settled rule in our jurisdiction. It was the duty of Atty. Ruiz, or of the other lawyers of record, not excluding the appellant himself, to appear before Judge Fernandez on the scheduled dates of hearing Parties and their lawyers have no right to presume that their motions for 5 postponement will be granted. For indeed, the appellant and his 12 lawyers cannot pretend ignorance of the recorded fact that since September 24, 1953 until the trial held on May 2, 1956, the case was under the advisement of Judge Fernandez who presided over Branch I. There was, therefore, no necessity to "re-assign" the same to Branch II because Judge Fernandez had exclusive control of said case, unless he was legally inhibited to try the case and he was not. There is truth in the appellant's contention that it is the duty of the clerk of court not of the Court to prepare the trial calendar. But the assignment or reassignment of cases already pending in one sala to another sala, and the setting of the date of trial after the trial calendar has been prepared, fall within the exclusive control of the presiding judge. The appellant does not deny the appellees' claim that on May 2 and 3, 1956, the office of the clerk of court of the Court of First Instance of Davao was located directly below Branch I. If the appellant and his counsel had exercised due diligence, there was no impediment to their going upstairs to the second storey of the Court of First Instance building in Davao on May 2, 1956 and checking if the case was scheduled for hearing in the said sala. The appellant after all admits that on May 2, 1956 his counsel went to the office of the clerk of court. The appellant's statement that parties as a matter of right are entitled to notice of trial, is correct. But he was properly accorded this right. He was notified in open court on March 21, 1956 that the case was definitely and intransferably set for hearing on May 2 and 3, 1956 before Branch I. He cannot argue that, pursuant to the doctrine 6 in Siochi vs. Tirona, his counsel was entitled to a timely notice of the denial of his motion for postponement. In the cited case the motion for postponement was the first one filed by the defendant; in the case at bar, there had already been a series of postponements. Unlike the case at bar, the Siochi case was not intransferably set for hearing. Finally, whereas the cited case did not spend for a long time, the case at bar was only finally and intransferably set for hearing on March 21, 1956 after almost five years had elapsed from the filing of the complaint on April 3, 1951.

The pretension of the appellant and his 12 counsel of record that they lacked ample time to prepare for trial is unacceptable because between March 21, 1956 and May 2, 1956, they had one month and ten days to do so. In effect, the appellant had waived his right to appear at the trial and therefore he cannot be heard to complain 7 that he has been deprived of his property without due process of law. Verily, the constitutional requirements of due process have been fulfilled in this case: the lower court is a competent court; it lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant (appellant) and the subject matter of the action; the defendant (appellant) was given an opportunity to be heard; and judgment was rendered upon lawful 8 hearing. 2. Finally, the appellant contends that the lower court incurred an error in ordering the issuance ex parte of a writ of preliminary injunction against him, and in not dismissing the appellee's complaint. We find this contention meritorious. Apparently, the court a quo relied on exhibit A the so-called "contract of service" and the appellees' contention that it created a contract of co-ownership and partnership between Inocencia Deluao and the appellant over the fishpond in question. Too well-settled to require any citation of authority is the rule that everyone is conclusively presumed to know the law. It must be assumed, conformably to such rule, that the parties entered into the so-called "contract of service" cognizant of the mandatory and prohibitory laws governing the filing of applications for fishpond permits. And since they were aware of the said laws, it must likewise be assumed in fairness to the parties that they did not intend to violate them. This view must perforce negate the appellees' allegation that exhibit A created a contract of coownership between the parties over the disputed fishpond. Were we to admit the establishment of a co-ownership violative of the prohibitory laws which will hereafter be discussed, we shall be compelled to declare altogether the nullity of the contract. This would certainly not serve the cause of equity and justice, considering that rights and obligations have already arisen between the parties. We shall therefore construe the contract as one of partnership, divided into two parts namely, a contract of partnership to exploit the fishpond pending its award to either Felipe Deluao or Nicanor Casteel, and a contract of partnership to divide the fishpond between them after such award. The first is valid, the second illegal. It is well to note that when the appellee Inocencia Deluao and the appellant entered into the so-called "contract of service" on November 25, 1949, there were two

pending applications over the fishpond. One was Casteel's which was appealed by him to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources after it was disallowed by the Director of Fisheries on October 25, 1949. The other was Felipe Deluao's application over the same area which was likewise rejected by the Director of Fisheries on November 29, 1949, refiled by Deluao and later on withdrawn by him by letter dated March 15, 1950 to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Clearly, although the fishpond was then in the possession of Casteel, neither he nor, Felipe Deluao was the holder of a fishpond permit over the area. But be that as it may, they were not however precluded from exploiting the fishpond pending resolution of Casteel's appeal or the approval of Deluao's application over the same area whichever event happened first. No law, rule or regulation prohibited them from doing so. Thus, rather than let the fishpond remain idle they cultivated it. The evidence preponderates in favor of the view that the initial intention of the parties was not to form a co-ownership but to establish a partnership Inocencia Deluao as capitalist partner and Casteel as industrial partner the ultimate undertaking of which was to divide into two equal parts such portion of the fishpond as might have been developed by the amount extended by the plaintiffs-appellees, with the further provision that Casteel should reimburse the expenses incurred by the appellees over one-half of the fishpond that would pertain to him. This can be gleaned, among others, from the letter of Casteel to Felipe Deluao on November 15, 1949, which states, inter alia: ... [W]ith respect to your allowing me to use your money, same will redound to your benefit because you are the ones interested in half of the work we have done so far, besides I did not insist on our being partners in my fishpond permit, but it was you "Tatay" Eping the one who wanted that we be partners and it so happened that we became partners because I am poor , but in the midst of my poverty it never occurred to me to be unfair to you. Therefore so that each of us may be secured, let us have a document prepared to the effect that we are partners in the fishpond that we caused to be made here in Balasinon, but it does not mean that you will treat me as one of your "Bantay" (caretaker) on wage basis but not earning wages at all, while the truth is that we are partners. In the event that you are not amenable to my proposition and consider me as "Bantay" (caretaker) instead, do not blame me if I withdraw all my cases and be left without even a little and you likewise. 9 (emphasis supplied)

Pursuant to the foregoing suggestion of the appellant that a document be drawn evidencing their partnership, the appellee Inocencia Deluao and the appellant executed exhibit A which, although denominated a "contract of service," was actually the memorandum of their partnership agreement. That it was not a contract of the 10 services of the appellant, was admitted by the appellees themselves in their letter to Casteel dated December 19, 1949 wherein they stated that they did not employ him in his (Casteel's) claim but because he used their money in developing and improving the fishpond, his right must be divided between them. Of course, although exhibit A did not specify any wage or share appertaining to the appellant as industrial partner, he was so entitled this being one of the conditions he specified for the execution of 11 the document of partnership. Further exchanges of letters between the parties reveal the continuing intent to divide 12 the fishpond. In a letter, dated March 24, 1950, the appellant suggested that they divide the fishpond and the remaining capital, and offered to pay the Deluaos a yearly installment of P3,000 presumably as reimbursement for the expenses of the appellees for the development and improvement of the one-half that would pertain to 13 the appellant. Two days later, the appellee Felipe Deluao replied, expressing his concurrence in the appellant's suggestion and advising the latter to ask for a reconsideration of the order of the Director of Fisheries disapproving his (appellant's) application, so that if a favorable decision was secured, then they would divide the area. Apparently relying on the partnership agreement, the appellee Felipe Deluao saw no further need to maintain his petition for the reinvestigation of Casteel's application. 14 Thus by letter dated March 15, 1950 addressed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, he withdrew his petition on the alleged ground that he was no longer interested in the area, but stated however that he wanted his interest to be protected and his capital to be reimbursed by the highest bidder. The arrangement under the so-called "contract of service" continued until the decisions both dated September 15, 1950 were issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in DANR Cases 353 and 353-B. This development, by itself, brought about the dissolution of the partnership. Moreover, subsequent events likewise reveal the intent of both parties to terminate the partnership because each refused to share the fishpond with the other. Art. 1830(3) of the Civil Code enumerates, as one of the causes for the dissolution of a partnership, "... any event which makes it unlawful for the business of the

partnership to be carried on or for the members to carry it on in partnership." The approval of the appellant's fishpond application by the decisions in DANR Cases 353 and 353-B brought to the fore several provisions of law which made the continuation of the partnership unlawful and therefore caused its ipso facto dissolution. Act 4003, known as the Fisheries Act, prohibits the holder of a fishpond permit (the permittee) from transferring or subletting the fishpond granted to him, without the previous consent or approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural 15 Resources. To the same effect is Condition No. 3 of the fishpond permit which states that "The permittee shall not transfer or sublet all or any area herein granted or any rights acquired therein without the previous consent and approval of this Office." Parenthetically, we must observe that in DANR Case 353-B, the permit granted to one of the parties therein, Leoncio Aradillos, was cancelled not solely for the reason that his permit covered a portion of the area included in the appellant's prior fishpond application, but also because, upon investigation, it was ascertained thru the admission of Aradillos himself that due to lack of capital, he allowed one Lino Estepa to develop with the latter's capital the area covered by his fishpond permit F-289-C with the understanding that he (Aradillos) would be given a share in the produce 16 thereof. Sec. 40 of Commonwealth Act 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, likewise provides that The lessee shall not assign, encumber, or sublet his rights without the consent of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, and the violation of this condition shall avoid the contract; Provided, That assignment, encumbrance, or subletting for purposes of speculation shall not be permitted in any case:Provided, further, That nothing contained in this section shall be understood or construed to permit the assignment, encumbrance, or subletting of lands leased under this Act, or under any previous Act, to persons, corporations, or associations which under this Act, are not authorized to lease public lands. Finally, section 37 of Administrative Order No. 14 of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued in August 1937, prohibits a transfer or sublease unless first approved by the Director of Lands and under such terms and conditions as he may prescribe. Thus, it states:

When a transfer or sub-lease of area and improvement may be allowed. If the permittee or lessee had, unless otherwise specifically provided, held the permit or lease and actually operated and made improvements on the area for at least one year, he/she may request permission to sub-lease or transfer the area and improvements under certain conditions. (a) Transfer subject to approval. A sub-lease or transfer shall only be valid when first approved by the Director under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, otherwise it shall be null and void. A transfer not previously approved or reported shall be considered sufficient cause for the cancellation of the permit or lease and forfeiture of the bond and for granting the area to a qualified applicant or bidder, as provided in subsection (r) of Sec. 33 of this Order. Since the partnership had for its object the division into two equal parts of the fishpond between the appellees and the appellant after it shall have been awarded to the latter, and therefore it envisaged the unauthorized transfer of one-half thereof to parties other than the applicant Casteel, it was dissolved by the approval of his application and the award to him of the fishpond. The approval was an event which made it unlawful for the business of the partnership to be carried on or for the members to carry it on in partnership. The appellees, however, argue that in approving the appellant's application, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources likewise recognized and/or confirmed their property right to one-half of the fishpond by virtue of the contract of service, exhibit A. But the untenability of this argument would readily surface if one were to consider that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources did not do so for the simple reason that he does not possess the authority to violate the aforementioned prohibitory laws nor to exempt anyone from their operation. However, assuming in gratia argumenti that the approval of Casteel's application, coupled with the foregoing prohibitory laws, was not enough to cause the dissolution ipso facto of their partnership, succeeding events reveal the intent of both parties to terminate the partnership by refusing to share the fishpond with the other. On December 27, 1950 Casteel wrote the appellee Inocencia Deluao, expressing his desire to divide the fishpond so that he could administer his own share, such division to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural 18 Resources. By letter dated December 29, 1950, the appellee Felipe Deluao
17

demurred to Casteel's proposition because there were allegedly no appropriate grounds to support the same and, moreover, the conflict over the fishpond had not been finally resolved. The appellant wrote on January 4, 1951 a last letter to the appellee Felipe Deluao wherein the former expressed his determination to administer the fishpond himself because the decision of the Government was in his favor and the only reason why administration had been granted to the Deluaos was because he was indebted to them. In the same letter, the appellant forbade Felipe Deluao from sending the couple's encargado, Jesus Donesa, to the fishpond. In reply thereto, Felipe Deluao 20 wrote a letter dated January 5, 1951 in which he reiterated his refusal to grant the administration of the fishpond to the appellant, stating as a ground his belief "that only the competent agencies of the government are in a better position to render any equitable arrangement relative to the present case; hence, any action we may privately take may not meet the procedure of legal order." Inasmuch as the erstwhile partners articulated in the aforecited letters their respective resolutions not to share the fishpond with each other in direct violation of the undertaking for which they have established their partnership each must be deemed to have expressly withdrawn from the partnership, thereby causing its dissolution pursuant to art. 1830(2) of the Civil Code which provides, inter alia, that dissolution is caused "by the express will of any partner at any time." In this jurisdiction, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources possesses executive and administrative powers with regard to the survey, classification, lease, sale or any other form of concession or disposition and management of the lands of the public domain, and, more specifically, with regard to the grant or withholding of licenses, permits, leases and contracts over portions of the public domain to be 21 utilized as fishponds. , Thus, we held in Pajo, et al. vs. Ago, et al. (L-15414, June 30, 1960), and reiterated in Ganitano vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. (L-21167, March 31, 1966), that ... [T]he powers granted to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce (Natural Resources) by law regarding the disposition of public lands such as granting of licenses, permits, leases, and contracts, or approving, rejecting, reinstating, or cancelling applications, or deciding conflicting applications, are all executive and administrative in nature. It is a well-recognized principle that purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with
19

by the courts (Coloso v. Board of Accountancy, G.R. No. L-5750, April 20, 1953). In general, courts have no supervising power over the proceedings and action of the administrative departments of the government. This is generally true with respect to acts involving the exercise of judgment or discretion, and findings of fact. (54 Am. Jur. 558-559) Findings of fact by an administrative board or official, following a hearing, are binding upon the courts and will not be disturbed except where the board or official has gone beyond his statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers or clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty or with grave abuse of discretion... (emphasis supplied) In the case at bar, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources gave due course to the appellant's fishpond application 1717 and awarded to him the possession of the area in question. In view of the finality of the Secretary's decision in DANR Cases 353 and 353-B, and considering the absence of any proof that the said official exceeded his statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers, or acted with arbitrariness and in disregard of his duty, or with grave abuse of discretion, we can do no less than respect and maintain unfettered his official acts in the premises. It is a salutary rule that the judicial department should not dictate to the executive department what to do with regard to the administration and disposition of the public domain which the law has entrusted to its care and administration. Indeed, courts cannot superimpose their discretion on that of the land department and compel the 22 latter to do an act which involves the exercise of judgment and discretion. Therefore, with the view that we take of this case, and even assuming that the injunction was properly issued because present all the requisite grounds for its issuance, its continuation, and, worse, its declaration as permanent, was improper in the face of the knowledge later acquired by the lower court that it was the appellant's application over the fishpond which was given due course. After the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved the appellant's application, he became to all intents and purposes the legal permittee of the area with the corresponding right to possess, occupy and enjoy the same. Consequently, the lower court erred in issuing the preliminary mandatory injunction. We cannot overemphasize that an injunction should not be granted to take property out of the possession and control of one party and place it in the hands of another whose title has not been clearly 23 established by law. However, pursuant to our holding that there was a partnership between the parties for the exploitation of the fishpond before it was awarded to Casteel, this case should be remanded to the lower court for the reception of evidence relative to an

accounting from November 25, 1949 to September 15, 1950, in order for the court to determine (a) the profits realized by the partnership, (b) the share (in the profits) of Casteel as industrial partner, (e) the share (in the profits) of Deluao as capitalist partner, and (d) whether the amounts totalling about P27,000 advanced by Deluao to Casteel for the development and improvement of the fishpond have already been liquidated. Besides, since the appellee Inocencia Deluao continued in possession and enjoyment of the fishpond even after it was awarded to Casteel, she did so no longer in the concept of a capitalist partner but merely as creditor of the appellant, and therefore, she must likewise submit in the lower court an accounting of the proceeds of the sales of all the fishes harvested from the fishpond from September 16, 1950 until Casteel shall have been finally given the possession and enjoyment of the same. In the event that the appellee Deluao has received more than her lawful credit of P27,000 (or whatever amounts have been advanced to Casteel), plus 6% interest thereon per annum, then she should reimburse the excess to the appellant. ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the lower court is set aside. Another judgment is hereby rendered: (1) dissolving the injunction issued against the appellant, (2) placing the latter back in possession of the fishpond in litigation, and (3) remanding this case to the court of origin for the reception of evidence relative to the accounting that the parties must perforce render in the premises, at the termination of which the court shall render judgment accordingly. The appellant's counterclaim is dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 84197 July 28, 1989 PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, BORDER MACHINERY & HEAVY EQUIPMENT, INC., (BORMAHECO), CONSTANCIO M. MAGLANA and JACOB S. LIM, respondents.

G.R. No. 84157 July 28, 1989 JACOB S. LIM, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, BORDER MACHINERY and HEAVY EQUIPMENT CO., INC,, FRANCISCO and MODESTO CERVANTES and CONSTANCIO MAGLANA,respondents. Eriberto D. Ignacio for Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation. Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for Jacob S. Lim. Renato J. Robles for BORMAHECO, Inc. and Cervanteses. Leonardo B. Lucena for Constancio Maglana.

pay cross party plaintiff, Bormaheco, the Cervanteses one-half and Maglana the other half, the amount of Pl84,878.74 with interest from the filing of the cross-complaints until the amount is fully paid; plus moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P184,878.84 with interest from the filing of the cross-complaints until the amount is fully paid; plus moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of the two Cervanteses. Furthermore, he is required to pay P20,000.00 to Bormaheco and the Cervanteses, and another P20,000.00 to Constancio B. Maglana as attorney's fees. xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE, in view of all above, the complaint of plaintiff Pioneer against defendants Bormaheco, the Cervanteses and Constancio B. Maglana, is dismissed. Instead, plaintiff is required to indemnify the defendants Bormaheco and the Cervanteses the amount of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees and the amount of P4,379.21, per year from 1966 with legal rate of interest up to the time it is paid. Furthermore, the plaintiff is required to pay Constancio B. Maglana the amount of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs. No moral or exemplary damages is awarded against plaintiff for this action was filed in good faith. The fact that the properties of the Bormaheco and the Cervanteses were attached and that they were required to file a counterbond in order to dissolve the attachment, is not an act of bad faith. When a man tries to protect his rights, he should not be saddled with moral or exemplary damages. Furthermore, the rights exercised were provided for in the Rules of Court, and it was the court that ordered it, in the exercise of its discretion. No damage is decided against Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., the third-party defendant, for it only secured the attachment prayed for by the plaintiff Pioneer. If an insurance company would be liable for damages in performing an act which is clearly within its power and which is the reason for its being, then nobody would engage in

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: The subject matter of these consolidated petitions is the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66195 which modified the decision of the then Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 66135. The plaintiffs complaint (petitioner in G.R. No. 84197) against all defendants (respondents in G.R. No. 84197) was dismissed but in all other respects the trial court's decision was affirmed. The dispositive portion of the trial court's decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered against defendant Jacob S. Lim requiring Lim to pay plaintiff the amount of P311,056.02, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum compounded monthly; plus 15% of the amount awarded to plaintiff as attorney's fees from July 2,1966, until full payment is made; plus P70,000.00 moral and exemplary damages. It is found in the records that the cross party plaintiffs incurred additional miscellaneous expenses aside from Pl51,000.00,,making a total of P184,878.74. Defendant Jacob S. Lim is further required to

the insurance business. No further claim or counter-claim for or against anybody is declared by this Court. (Rollo - G.R. No. 24197, pp. 15-16) In 1965, Jacob S. Lim (petitioner in G.R. No. 84157) was engaged in the airline business as owner-operator of Southern Air Lines (SAL) a single proprietorship. On May 17, 1965, at Tokyo, Japan, Japan Domestic Airlines (JDA) and Lim entered into and executed a sales contract (Exhibit A) for the sale and purchase of two (2) DC-3A Type aircrafts and one (1) set of necessary spare parts for the total agreed price of US $109,000.00 to be paid in installments. One DC-3 Aircraft with Registry No. PIC-718, arrived in Manila on June 7,1965 while the other aircraft, arrived in Manila on July 18,1965. On May 22, 1965, Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation (Pioneer, petitioner in G.R. No. 84197) as surety executed and issued its Surety Bond No. 6639 (Exhibit C) in favor of JDA, in behalf of its principal, Lim, for the balance price of the aircrafts and spare parts. It appears that Border Machinery and Heavy Equipment Company, Inc. (Bormaheco), Francisco and Modesto Cervantes (Cervanteses) and Constancio Maglana (respondents in both petitions) contributed some funds used in the purchase of the above aircrafts and spare parts. The funds were supposed to be their contributions to a new corporation proposed by Lim to expand his airline business. They executed two (2) separate indemnity agreements (Exhibits D-1 and D-2) in favor of Pioneer, one signed by Maglana and the other jointly signed by Lim for SAL, Bormaheco and the Cervanteses. The indemnity agreements stipulated that the indemnitors principally agree and bind themselves jointly and severally to indemnify and hold and save harmless Pioneer from and against any/all damages, losses, costs, damages, taxes, penalties, charges and expenses of whatever kind and nature which Pioneer may incur in consequence of having become surety upon the bond/note and to pay, reimburse and make good to Pioneer, its successors and assigns, all sums and amounts of money which it or its representatives should or may pay or cause to be paid or become liable to pay on them of whatever kind and nature. On June 10, 1965, Lim doing business under the name and style of SAL executed in favor of Pioneer as deed of chattel mortgage as security for the latter's suretyship in favor of the former. It was stipulated therein that Lim transfer and convey to the surety the two aircrafts. The deed (Exhibit D) was duly registered with the Office of

the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila and with the Civil Aeronautics Administration pursuant to the Chattel Mortgage Law and the Civil Aeronautics Law (Republic Act No. 776), respectively. Lim defaulted on his subsequent installment payments prompting JDA to request payments from the surety. Pioneer paid a total sum of P298,626.12. Pioneer then filed a petition for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the said chattel mortgage before the Sheriff of Davao City. The Cervanteses and Maglana, however, filed a third party claim alleging that they are co-owners of the aircrafts, On July 19, 1966, Pioneer filed an action for judicial foreclosure with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment against Lim and respondents, the Cervanteses, Bormaheco and Maglana. In their Answers, Maglana, Bormaheco and the Cervanteses filed cross-claims against Lim alleging that they were not privies to the contracts signed by Lim and, by way of counterclaim, sought for damages for being exposed to litigation and for recovery of the sums of money they advanced to Lim for the purchase of the aircrafts in question. After trial on the merits, a decision was rendered holding Lim liable to pay Pioneer but dismissed Pioneer's complaint against all other defendants. As stated earlier, the appellate court modified the trial court's decision in that the plaintiffs complaint against all the defendants was dismissed. In all other respects the trial court's decision was affirmed. We first resolve G.R. No. 84197. Petitioner Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation avers that: RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF PETITIONER ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT PETITIONER HAD ALREADY COLLECTED THE PROCEEDS OF THE REINSURANCE ON ITS BOND IN FAVOR OF THE JDA AND THAT IT CANNOT REPRESENT A REINSURER TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT FROM HEREIN

PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AS DEFENDANTS IN THE TRIAL COURT. (Rollo - G. R. No. 84197, p. 10) The petitioner questions the following findings of the appellate court: We find no merit in plaintiffs appeal. It is undisputed that plaintiff Pioneer had reinsured its risk of liability under the surety bond in favor of JDA and subsequently collected the proceeds of such reinsurance in the sum of P295,000.00. Defendants' alleged obligation to Pioneer amounts to P295,000.00, hence, plaintiffs instant action for the recovery of the amount of P298,666.28 from defendants will no longer prosper. Plaintiff Pioneer is not the real party in interest to institute the instant action as it does not stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment. Plaintiff Pioneer's contention that it is representing the reinsurer to recover the amount from defendants, hence, it instituted the action is utterly devoid of merit. Plaintiff did not even present any evidence that it is the attorney-in-fact of the reinsurance company, authorized to institute an action for and in behalf of the latter. To qualify a person to be a real party in interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted, he must appear to be the present real owner of the right sought to be enforced (Moran, Vol. I, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1979 ed., p. 155). It has been held that the real party in interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment or the party entitled to the avails of the suit (Salonga v. Warner Barnes & Co., Ltd., 88 Phil. 125, 131). By real party in interest is meant a present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest (Garcia v. David, 67 Phil. 27; Oglleaby v. Springfield Marine Bank, 52 N.E. 2d 1600, 385 III, 414; Flowers v. Germans, 1 NW 2d 424; Weber v. City of Cheye, 97 P. 2d 667, 669, quoting 47 C.V. 35). Based on the foregoing premises, plaintiff Pioneer cannot be considered as the real party in interest as it has already been paid by the reinsurer the sum of P295,000.00 the bulk of defendants' alleged obligation to Pioneer.

In addition to the said proceeds of the reinsurance received by plaintiff Pioneer from its reinsurer, the former was able to foreclose extra-judicially one of the subject airplanes and its spare engine, realizing the total amount of P37,050.00 from the sale of the mortgaged chattels. Adding the sum of P37,050.00, to the proceeds of the reinsurance amounting to P295,000.00, it is patent that plaintiff has been overpaid in the amount of P33,383.72 considering that the total amount it had paid to JDA totals to only P298,666.28. To allow plaintiff Pioneer to recover from defendants the amount in excess of P298,666.28 would be tantamount to unjust enrichment as it has already been paid by the reinsurance company of the amount plaintiff has paid to JDA as surety of defendant Lim vis-a-vis defendant Lim's liability to JDA. Well settled is the rule that no person should unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another (Article 22, New Civil Code). (Rollo-84197, pp. 24-25). The petitioner contends that-(1) it is at a loss where respondent court based its finding that petitioner was paid by its reinsurer in the aforesaid amount, as this matter has never been raised by any of the parties herein both in their answers in the court below and in their respective briefs with respondent court; (Rollo, p. 11) (2) even assuming hypothetically that it was paid by its reinsurer, still none of the respondents had any interest in the matter since the reinsurance is strictly between the petitioner and the re-insurer pursuant to section 91 of the Insurance Code; (3) pursuant to the indemnity agreements, the petitioner is entitled to recover from respondents Bormaheco and Maglana; and (4) the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable considering that whatever amount he would recover from the co-indemnitor will be paid to the reinsurer. The records belie the petitioner's contention that the issue on the reinsurance money was never raised by the parties. A cursory reading of the trial court's lengthy decision shows that two of the issues threshed out were: xxx xxx xxx 1. Has Pioneer a cause of action against defendants with respect to so much of its obligations to JDA as has been paid with reinsurance money?

2. If the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, has Pioneer still any claim against defendants, considering the amount it has realized from the sale of the mortgaged properties? (Record on Appeal, p. 359, Annex B of G.R. No. 84157). In resolving these issues, the trial court made the following findings: It appearing that Pioneer reinsured its risk of liability under the surety bond it had executed in favor of JDA, collected the proceeds of such reinsurance in the sum of P295,000, and paid with the said amount the bulk of its alleged liability to JDA under the said surety bond, it is plain that on this score it no longer has any right to collect to the extent of the said amount. On the question of why it is Pioneer, instead of the reinsurance (sic), that is suing defendants for the amount paid to it by the reinsurers, notwithstanding that the cause of action pertains to the latter, Pioneer says: The reinsurers opted instead that the Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation shall pursue alone the case.. . . . Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation is representing the reinsurers to recover the amount.' In other words, insofar as the amount paid to it by the reinsurers Pioneer is suing defendants as their attorney-in-fact. But in the first place, there is not the slightest indication in the complaint that Pioneer is suing as attorney-in- fact of the reinsurers for any amount. Lastly, and most important of all, Pioneer has no right to institute and maintain in its own name an action for the benefit of the reinsurers. It is well-settled that an action brought by an attorney-in-fact in his own name instead of that of the principal will not prosper, and this is so even where the name of the principal is disclosed in the complaint. Section 2 of Rule 3 of the Old Rules of Court provides that 'Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.' This provision is mandatory. The real party in interest is the party who would be benefitted or injured by the judgment or is the party entitled to the avails of the suit.

This Court has held in various cases that an attorney-in-fact is not a real party in interest, that there is no law permitting an action to be brought by an attorney-in-fact. Arroyo v. Granada and Gentero, 18 Phil. Rep. 484; Luchauco v. Limjuco and Gonzalo, 19 Phil. Rep. 12; Filipinos Industrial Corporation v. San Diego G.R. No. L- 22347,1968, 23 SCRA 706, 710-714. The total amount paid by Pioneer to JDA is P299,666.29. Since Pioneer has collected P295,000.00 from the reinsurers, the uninsured portion of what it paid to JDA is the difference between the two amounts, or P3,666.28. This is the amount for which Pioneer may sue defendants, assuming that the indemnity agreement is still valid and effective. But since the amount realized from the sale of the mortgaged chattels are P35,000.00 for one of the airplanes and P2,050.00 for a spare engine, or a total of P37,050.00, Pioneer is still overpaid by P33,383.72. Therefore, Pioneer has no more claim against defendants. (Record on Appeal, pp. 360-363). The payment to the petitioner made by the reinsurers was not disputed in the appellate court. Considering this admitted payment, the only issue that cropped up was the effect of payment made by the reinsurers to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner's argument that the respondents had no interest in the reinsurance contract as this is strictly between the petitioner as insured and the reinsuring company pursuant to Section 91 (should be Section 98) of the Insurance Code has no basis. In general a reinsurer, on payment of a loss acquires the same rights by subrogation as are acquired in similar cases where the original insurer pays a loss (Universal Ins. Co. v. Old Time Molasses Co. C.C.A. La., 46 F 2nd 925). The rules of practice in actions on original insurance policies are in general applicable to actions or contracts of reinsurance. (Delaware, Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co., 55 S.E. 330,126 GA. 380, 7 Ann. Con. 1134). Hence the applicable law is Article 2207 of the new Civil Code, to wit:

Art. 2207. If the plaintiffs property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury. Interpreting the aforesaid provision, we ruled in the case of Phil. Air Lines, Inc. v. Heald Lumber Co. (101 Phil. 1031 [1957]) which we subsequently applied in Manila Mahogany Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of Appeals (154 SCRA 650 [1987]): Note that if a property is insured and the owner receives the indemnity from the insurer, it is provided in said article that the insurer is deemed subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer and if the amount paid by the insurer does not fully cover the loss, then the aggrieved party is the one entitled to recover the deficiency. Evidently, under this legal provision, the real party in interest with regard to the portion of the indemnity paid is the insurer and not the insured. (Emphasis supplied). It is clear from the records that Pioneer sued in its own name and not as an attorneyin-fact of the reinsurer. Accordingly, the appellate court did not commit a reversible error in dismissing the petitioner's complaint as against the respondents for the reason that the petitioner was not the real party in interest in the complaint and, therefore, has no cause of action against the respondents. Nevertheless, the petitioner argues that the appeal as regards the counter indemnitors should not have been dismissed on the premise that the evidence on record shows that it is entitled to recover from the counter indemnitors. It does not, however, cite any grounds except its allegation that respondent "Maglanas defense and evidence are certainly incredible" (p. 12, Rollo) to back up its contention. On the other hand, we find the trial court's findings on the matter replete with evidence to substantiate its finding that the counter-indemnitors are not liable to the petitioner. The trial court stated:

Apart from the foregoing proposition, the indemnity agreement ceased to be valid and effective after the execution of the chattel mortgage. Testimonies of defendants Francisco Cervantes and Modesto Cervantes. Pioneer Insurance, knowing the value of the aircrafts and the spare parts involved, agreed to issue the bond provided that the same would be mortgaged to it, but this was not possible because the planes were still in Japan and could not be mortgaged here in the Philippines. As soon as the aircrafts were brought to the Philippines, they would be mortgaged to Pioneer Insurance to cover the bond, and this indemnity agreement would be cancelled. The following is averred under oath by Pioneer in the original complaint: The various conflicting claims over the mortgaged properties have impaired and rendered insufficient the security under the chattel mortgage and there is thus no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by this action. This is judicial admission and aside from the chattel mortgage there is no other security for the claim sought to be enforced by this action, which necessarily means that the indemnity agreement had ceased to have any force and effect at the time this action was instituted. Sec 2, Rule 129, Revised Rules of Court. Prescinding from the foregoing, Pioneer, having foreclosed the chattel mortgage on the planes and spare parts, no longer has any further action against the defendants as indemnitors to recover any unpaid balance of the price. The indemnity agreement was ipso jure extinguished upon the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. These defendants, as indemnitors, would be entitled to be subrogated to the right of Pioneer should they make payments to the latter. Articles 2067 and 2080 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.

Independently of the preceding proposition Pioneer's election of the remedy of foreclosure precludes any further action to recover any unpaid balance of the price. SAL or Lim, having failed to pay the second to the eight and last installments to JDA and Pioneer as surety having made of the payments to JDA, the alternative remedies open to Pioneer were as provided in Article 1484 of the New Civil Code, known as the Recto Law. Pioneer exercised the remedy of foreclosure of the chattel mortgage both by extrajudicial foreclosure and the instant suit. Such being the case, as provided by the aforementioned provisions, Pioneer shall have no further action against the purchaser to recover any unpaid balance and any agreement to the contrary is void.' Cruz, et al. v. Filipinas Investment & Finance Corp. No. L- 24772, May 27,1968, 23 SCRA 791, 795-6. The operation of the foregoing provision cannot be escaped from through the contention that Pioneer is not the vendor but JDA. The reason is that Pioneer is actually exercising the rights of JDA as vendor, having subrogated it in such rights. Nor may the application of the provision be validly opposed on the ground that these defendants and defendant Maglana are not the vendee but indemnitors. Pascual, et al. v. Universal Motors Corporation, G.R. No. L- 27862, Nov. 20,1974, 61 SCRA 124. The restructuring of the obligations of SAL or Lim, thru the change of their maturity dates discharged these defendants from any liability as alleged indemnitors. The change of the maturity dates of the obligations of Lim, or SAL extinguish the original obligations thru novations thus discharging the indemnitors. The principal hereof shall be paid in eight equal successive three months interval installments, the first of which shall be due and payable 25 August 1965, the remainder of which ... shall be due and payable on the 26th day x x x of each succeeding

three months and the last of which shall be due and payable 26th May 1967. However, at the trial of this case, Pioneer produced a memorandum executed by SAL or Lim and JDA, modifying the maturity dates of the obligations, as follows: The principal hereof shall be paid in eight equal successive three month interval installments the first of which shall be due and payable 4 September 1965, the remainder of which ... shall be due and payable on the 4th day ... of each succeeding months and the last of which shall be due and payable 4th June 1967. Not only that, Pioneer also produced eight purported promissory notes bearing maturity dates different from that fixed in the aforesaid memorandum; the due date of the first installment appears as October 15, 1965, and those of the rest of the installments, the 15th of each succeeding three months, that of the last installment being July 15, 1967. These restructuring of the obligations with regard to their maturity dates, effected twice, were done without the knowledge, much less, would have it believed that these defendants Maglana (sic). Pioneer's official Numeriano Carbonel would have it believed that these defendants and defendant Maglana knew of and consented to the modification of the obligations. But if that were so, there would have been the corresponding documents in the form of a written notice to as well as written conformity of these defendants, and there are no such document. The consequence of this was the extinguishment of the obligations and of the surety bond secured by the indemnity agreement which was thereby also extinguished. Applicable by analogy are the rulings of the Supreme Court in the case of Kabankalan Sugar Co. v. Pacheco, 55 Phil. 553, 563, and the case of Asiatic Petroleum Co. v. Hizon David, 45 Phil. 532, 538. Art. 2079. An extension granted to the debtor by the creditor without the consent of the guarantor

extinguishes the guaranty The mere failure on the part of the creditor to demand payment after the debt has become due does not of itself constitute any extension time referred to herein, (New Civil Code).' Manresa, 4th ed., Vol. 12, pp. 316-317, Vol. VI, pp. 562-563, M.F. Stevenson & Co., Ltd., v. Climacom et al. (C.A.) 36 O.G. 1571. Pioneer's liability as surety to JDA had already prescribed when Pioneer paid the same. Consequently, Pioneer has no more cause of action to recover from these defendants, as supposed indemnitors, what it has paid to JDA. By virtue of an express stipulation in the surety bond, the failure of JDA to present its claim to Pioneer within ten days from default of Lim or SAL on every installment, released Pioneer from liability from the claim. Therefore, Pioneer is not entitled to exact reimbursement from these defendants thru the indemnity. Art. 1318. Payment by a solidary debtor shall not entitle him to reimbursement from his co-debtors if such payment is made after the obligation has prescribed or became illegal. These defendants are entitled to recover damages and attorney's fees from Pioneer and its surety by reason of the filing of the instant case against them and the attachment and garnishment of their properties. The instant action is clearly unfounded insofar as plaintiff drags these defendants and defendant Maglana.' (Record on Appeal, pp. 363-369, Rollo of G.R. No. 84157). We find no cogent reason to reverse or modify these findings. Hence, it is our conclusion that the petition in G.R. No. 84197 is not meritorious. We now discuss the merits of G.R. No. 84157.

Petitioner Jacob S. Lim poses the following issues: l. What legal rules govern the relationship among co-investors whose agreement was to do business through the corporate vehicle but who failed to incorporate the entity in which they had chosen to invest? How are the losses to be treated in situations where their contributions to the intended 'corporation' were invested not through the corporate form? This Petition presents these fundamental questions which we believe were resolved erroneously by the Court of Appeals ('CA'). (Rollo, p. 6). These questions are premised on the petitioner's theory that as a result of the failure of respondents Bormaheco, Spouses Cervantes, Constancio Maglana and petitioner Lim to incorporate, a de facto partnership among them was created, and that as a consequence of such relationship all must share in the losses and/or gains of the venture in proportion to their contribution. The petitioner, therefore, questions the appellate court's findings ordering him to reimburse certain amounts given by the respondents to the petitioner as their contributions to the intended corporation, to wit: However, defendant Lim should be held liable to pay his codefendants' cross-claims in the total amount of P184,878.74 as correctly found by the trial court, with interest from the filing of the cross-complaints until the amount is fully paid. Defendant Lim should pay one-half of the said amount to Bormaheco and the Cervanteses and the other one-half to defendant Maglana. It is established in the records that defendant Lim had duly received the amount of Pl51,000.00 from defendants Bormaheco and Maglana representing the latter's participation in the ownership of the subject airplanes and spare parts (Exhibit 58). In addition, the cross-party plaintiffs incurred additional expenses, hence, the total sum of P 184,878.74. We first state the principles. While it has been held that as between themselves the rights of the stockholders in a defectively incorporated association should be governed by the supposed charter and the laws of the state relating thereto and not by the rules governing partners (Cannon v. Brush Electric Co., 54 A. 121, 96 Md. 446, 94 Am. S.R. 584), it is ordinarily held that persons who attempt, but fail, to form a corporation and

who carry on business under the corporate name occupy the position of partners inter se (Lynch v. Perryman, 119 P. 229, 29 Okl. 615, Ann. Cas. 1913A 1065). Thus, where persons associate themselves together under articles to purchase property to carry on a business, and their organization is so defective as to come short of creating a corporation within the statute, they become in legal effect partners inter se, and their rights as members of the company to the property acquired by the company will be recognized (Smith v. Schoodoc Pond Packing Co., 84 A. 268,109 Me. 555; Whipple v. Parker, 29 Mich. 369). So, where certain persons associated themselves as a corporation for the development of land for irrigation purposes, and each conveyed land to the corporation, and two of them contracted to pay a third the difference in the proportionate value of the land conveyed by him, and no stock was ever issued in the corporation, it was treated as a trustee for the associates in an action between them for an accounting, and its capital stock was treated as partnership assets, sold, and the proceeds distributed among them in proportion to the value of the property contributed by each (Shorb v. Beaudry, 56 Cal. 446). However, such a relation does not necessarily exist, for ordinarily persons cannot be made to assume the relation of partners, as between themselves, when their purpose is that no partnership shall exist (London Assur. Corp. v. Drennen, Minn., 6 S.Ct. 442, 116 U.S. 461, 472, 29 L.Ed. 688), and it should be implied only when necessary to do justice between the parties; thus, one who takes no part except to subscribe for stock in a proposed corporation which is never legally formed does not become a partner with other subscribers who engage in business under the name of the pretended corporation, so as to be liable as such in an action for settlement of the alleged partnership and contribution (Ward v. Brigham, 127 Mass. 24). A partnership relation between certain stockholders and other stockholders, who were also directors, will not be implied in the absence of an agreement, so as to make the former liable to contribute for payment of debts illegally contracted by the latter (Heald v. Owen, 44 N.W. 210, 79 Iowa 23). (Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 68, p. 464). (Italics supplied). In the instant case, it is to be noted that the petitioner was declared non-suited for his failure to appear during the pretrial despite notification. In his answer, the petitioner denied having received any amount from respondents Bormaheco, the Cervanteses and Maglana. The trial court and the appellate court, however, found through Exhibit

58, that the petitioner received the amount of P151,000.00 representing the participation of Bormaheco and Atty. Constancio B. Maglana in the ownership of the subject airplanes and spare parts. The record shows that defendant Maglana gave P75,000.00 to petitioner Jacob Lim thru the Cervanteses. It is therefore clear that the petitioner never had the intention to form a corporation with the respondents despite his representations to them. This gives credence to the cross-claims of the respondents to the effect that they were induced and lured by the petitioner to make contributions to a proposed corporation which was never formed because the petitioner reneged on their agreement. Maglana alleged in his crossclaim: ... that sometime in early 1965, Jacob Lim proposed to Francisco Cervantes and Maglana to expand his airline business. Lim was to procure two DC-3's from Japan and secure the necessary certificates of public convenience and necessity as well as the required permits for the operation thereof. Maglana sometime in May 1965, gave Cervantes his share of P75,000.00 for delivery to Lim which Cervantes did and Lim acknowledged receipt thereof. Cervantes, likewise, delivered his share of the undertaking. Lim in an undertaking sometime on or about August 9,1965, promised to incorporate his airline in accordance with their agreement and proceeded to acquire the planes on his own account. Since then up to the filing of this answer, Lim has refused, failed and still refuses to set up the corporation or return the money of Maglana. (Record on Appeal, pp. 337-338). while respondents Bormaheco and the Cervanteses alleged in their answer, counterclaim, cross-claim and third party complaint: Sometime in April 1965, defendant Lim lured and induced the answering defendants to purchase two airplanes and spare parts from Japan which the latter considered as their lawful contribution and participation in the proposed corporation to be known as SAL. Arrangements and negotiations were undertaken by defendant Lim. Down payments were advanced by defendants Bormaheco and the Cervanteses and Constancio Maglana (Exh. E- 1). Contrary to the agreement among the defendants, defendant Lim in connivance with the plaintiff, signed and executed the alleged chattel mortgage and

surety bond agreement in his personal capacity as the alleged proprietor of the SAL. The answering defendants learned for the first time of this trickery and misrepresentation of the other, Jacob Lim, when the herein plaintiff chattel mortgage (sic) allegedly executed by defendant Lim, thereby forcing them to file an adverse claim in the form of third party claim. Notwithstanding repeated oral demands made by defendants Bormaheco and Cervanteses, to defendant Lim, to surrender the possession of the two planes and their accessories and or return the amount advanced by the former amounting to an aggregate sum of P 178,997.14 as evidenced by a statement of accounts, the latter ignored, omitted and refused to comply with them. (Record on Appeal, pp. 341-342). Applying therefore the principles of law earlier cited to the facts of the case, necessarily, no de facto partnership was created among the parties which would entitle the petitioner to a reimbursement of the supposed losses of the proposed corporation. The record shows that the petitioner was acting on his own and not in behalf of his other would-be incorporators in transacting the sale of the airplanes and spare parts. WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DISMISSED. The questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur. Feliciano, J., took no part.