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

L-9996 October 15, 1957

EUFEMIA EVANGELISTA, MANUELA EVANGELISTA, and FRANCISCA EVANGELISTA, petitioners, vs. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. Santiago F. Alidio and Angel S. Dakila, Jr., for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete for Respondents. CONCEPCION, J.: This is a petition filed by Eufemia Evangelista, Manuela Evangelista and Francisca Evangelista, for review of a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, the dispositive part of which reads: FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, we hold that the petitioners are liable for the income tax, real estate dealer's tax and the residence tax for the years 1945 to 1949, inclusive, in accordance with the respondent's assessment for the same in the total amount of P6,878.34, which is hereby affirmed and the petition for review filed by petitioner is hereby dismissed with costs against petitioners. It appears from the stipulation submitted by the parties: 1. That the petitioners borrowed from their father the sum of P59,1400.00 which amount together with their personal monies was used by them for the purpose of buying real properties,. 2. That on February 2, 1943, they bought from Mrs. Josefina Florentino a lot with an area of 3,713.40 sq. m. including improvements thereon from the sum of P100,000.00; this property has an assessed value of P57,517.00 as of 1948; 3. That on April 3, 1944 they purchased from Mrs. Josefa Oppus 21 parcels of land with an aggregate area of 3,718.40 sq. m. including improvements thereon for P130,000.00; this property has an assessed value of P82,255.00 as of 1948; 4. That on April 28, 1944 they purchased from the Insular Investments Inc., a lot of 4,353 sq. m. including improvements thereon for P108,825.00. This property has an assessed value of P4,983.00 as of 1948; 5. That on April 28, 1944 they bought form Mrs. Valentina Afable a lot of 8,371 sq. m. including improvements thereon for P237,234.34. This property has an assessed value of P59,140.00 as of 1948;

6. That in a document dated August 16, 1945, they appointed their brother Simeon Evangelista to 'manage their properties with full power to lease; to collect and receive rents; to issue receipts therefor; in default of such payment, to bring suits against the defaulting tenants; to sign all letters, contracts, etc., for and in their behalf, and to endorse and deposit all notes and checks for them; 7. That after having bought the above-mentioned real properties the petitioners had the same rented or leases to various tenants; 8. That from the month of March, 1945 up to an including December, 1945, the total amount collected as rents on their real properties was P9,599.00 while the expenses amounted to P3,650.00 thereby leaving them a net rental income of P5,948.33; 9. That on 1946, they realized a gross rental income of in the sum of P24,786.30, out of which amount was deducted in the sum of P16,288.27 for expenses thereby leaving them a net rental income of P7,498.13; 10. That in 1948, they realized a gross rental income of P17,453.00 out of the which amount was deducted the sum of P4,837.65 as expenses, thereby leaving them a net rental income of P12,615.35. It further appears that on September 24, 1954 respondent Collector of Internal Revenue demanded the payment of income tax on corporations, real estate dealer's fixed tax and corporation residence tax for the years 1945-1949, computed, according to assessment made by said officer, as follows: INCOME TAXES 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 Total including surcharge and compromise 14.84 1,144.71 10.34 1,912.30 1,575.90 P6,157.09

REAL ESTATE DEALER'S FIXED TAX 1946 1947 1948 1949 Total including penalty P37.50 150.00 150.00 150.00 P527.00

RESIDENCE TAXES OF CORPORATION 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 Total including surcharge TOTAL TAXES DUE P38.75 38.75 38.75 38.75 38.75 P193.75 P6,878.34.

Said letter of demand and corresponding assessments were delivered to petitioners on December 3, 1954, whereupon they instituted the present case in the Court of Tax Appeals, with a prayer that "the decision of the respondent contained in his letter of demand dated September 24, 1954" be reversed, and that they be absolved from the payment of the taxes in question, with costs against the respondent. After appropriate proceedings, the Court of Tax Appeals the above-mentioned decision for the respondent, and a petition for reconsideration and new trial having been subsequently denied, the case is now before Us for review at the instance of the petitioners. The issue in this case whether petitioners are subject to the tax on corporations provided for in section 24 of Commonwealth Act. No. 466, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code, as well as to the residence tax for corporations and the real estate dealers fixed tax. With respect to the tax on corporations, the issue hinges on the meaning of the terms "corporation" and "partnership," as used in section 24 and 84 of said Code, the pertinent parts of which read: SEC. 24. Rate of tax on corporations.There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources by every corporation organized in, or existing under the laws of the Philippines, no matter how created or organized but not including duly registered general co-partnerships (compaias colectivas), a tax upon such income equal to the sum of the following: . . . SEC. 84 (b). The term 'corporation' includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized, joint-stock companies, joint accounts (cuentas en participacion), associations or insurance companies, but does not include duly registered general copartnerships. (compaias colectivas). Article 1767 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, properly, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Pursuant to the article, the essential elements of a partnership are two, namely: (a) an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to divide the profits among

the contracting parties. The first element is undoubtedly present in the case at bar, for, admittedly, petitioners have agreed to, and did, contribute money and property to a common fund. Hence, the issue narrows down to their intent in acting as they did. Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, we are fully satisfied that their purpose was to engage in real estate transactions for monetary gain and then divide the same among themselves, because: 1. Said common fund was not something they found already in existence. It was not property inherited by them pro indiviso. They created it purposely. What is more they jointly borrowed a substantial portion thereof in order to establish said common fund. 2. They invested the same, not merely not merely in one transaction, but in a series of transactions. On February 2, 1943, they bought a lot for P100,000.00. On April 3, 1944, they purchased 21 lots for P18,000.00. This was soon followed on April 23, 1944, by the acquisition of another real estate for P108,825.00. Five (5) days later (April 28, 1944), they got a fourth lot for P237,234.14. The number of lots (24) acquired and transactions undertaken, as well as the brief interregnum between each, particularly the last three purchases, is strongly indicative of a pattern or common design that was not limited to the conservation and preservation of the aforementioned common fund or even of the property acquired by the petitioners in February, 1943. In other words, one cannot but perceive a character of habitually peculiar to business transactions engaged in the purpose of gain. 3. The aforesaid lots were not devoted to residential purposes, or to other personal uses, of petitioners herein. The properties were leased separately to several persons, who, from 1945 to 1948 inclusive, paid the total sum of P70,068.30 by way of rentals. Seemingly, the lots are still being so let, for petitioners do not even suggest that there has been any change in the utilization thereof. 4. Since August, 1945, the properties have been under the management of one person, namely Simeon Evangelista, with full power to lease, to collect rents, to issue receipts, to bring suits, to sign letters and contracts, and to indorse and deposit notes and checks. Thus, the affairs relative to said properties have been handled as if the same belonged to a corporation or business and enterprise operated for profit. 5. The foregoing conditions have existed for more than ten (10) years, or, to be exact, over fifteen (15) years, since the first property was acquired, and over twelve (12) years, since Simeon Evangelista became the manager. 6. Petitioners have not testified or introduced any evidence, either on their purpose in creating the set up already adverted to, or on the causes for its continued existence. They did not even try to offer an explanation therefor. Although, taken singly, they might not suffice to establish the intent necessary to constitute a partnership, the collective effect of these circumstances is such as to leave no room for doubt on the existence of said intent in petitioners herein. Only one or two of the aforementioned circumstances were present in the cases cited by petitioners herein, and, hence, those cases are not in point. Petitioners insist, however, that they are mere co-owners, not copartners, for, in consequence of the acts performed by them, a legal entity, with a personality independent of that of its members, did not come into existence, and some of the characteristics of partnerships are lacking in the case at bar. This pretense was correctly rejected by the Court of Tax Appeals.

To begin with, the tax in question is one imposed upon "corporations", which, strictly speaking, are distinct and different from "partnerships". When our Internal Revenue Code includes "partnerships" among the entities subject to the tax on "corporations", said Code must allude, therefore, to organizations which are not necessarily "partnerships", in the technical sense of the term. Thus, for instance, section 24 of said Code exempts from the aforementioned tax "duly registered general partnerships which constitute precisely one of the most typical forms of partnerships in this jurisdiction. Likewise, as defined in section 84(b) of said Code, "the term corporation includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized." This qualifying expression clearly indicates that a joint venture need not be undertaken in any of the standard forms, or in conformity with the usual requirements of the law on partnerships, in order that one could be deemed constituted for purposes of the tax on corporations. Again, pursuant to said section 84(b), the term "corporation" includes, among other, joint accounts, (cuentas en participation)" and "associations," none of which has a legal personality of its own, independent of that of its members. Accordingly, the lawmaker could not have regarded that personality as a condition essential to the existence of the partnerships therein referred to. In fact, as above stated, "duly registered general copartnerships" which are possessed of the aforementioned personality have been expressly excluded by law (sections 24 and 84 [b] from the connotation of the term "corporation" It may not be amiss to add that petitioners' allegation to the effect that their liability in connection with the leasing of the lots above referred to, under the management of one person even if true, on which we express no opinion tends to increase the similarity between the nature of their venture and that corporations, and is, therefore, an additional argument in favor of the imposition of said tax on corporations. Under the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States, "corporations" are taxed differently from "partnerships". By specific provisions of said laws, such "corporations" include "associations, jointstock companies and insurance companies." However, the term "association" is not used in the aforementioned laws. . . . in any narrow or technical sense. It includes any organization, created for the transaction of designed affairs, or the attainment of some object, which like a corporation, continues notwithstanding that its members or participants change, and the affairs of which, like corporate affairs, are conducted by a single individual, a committee, a board, or some other group, acting in a representative capacity. It is immaterial whether such organization is created by an agreement, a declaration of trust, a statute, or otherwise. It includes a voluntary association, a joint-stock corporation or company, a 'business' trusts a 'Massachusetts' trust, a 'common law' trust, and 'investment' trust (whether of the fixed or the management type), an interinsuarance exchange operating through an attorney in fact, a partnership association, and any other type of organization (by whatever name known) which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust or an estate, or a partnership. (7A Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 788; emphasis supplied.). Similarly, the American Law. . . . provides its own concept of a partnership, under the term 'partnership 'it includes not only a partnership as known at common law but, as well, a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organizations which carries on any business financial operation, or venture, and which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust, estate, or a corporation. . . (7A Merten's Law of Federal Income taxation, p. 789; emphasis supplied.) The term 'partnership' includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on, . . .. ( 8 Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 562 Note 63; emphasis supplied.) .

For purposes of the tax on corporations, our National Internal Revenue Code, includes these partnerships with the exception only of duly registered general copartnerships within the purview of the term "corporation." It is, therefore, clear to our mind that petitioners herein constitute a partnership, insofar as said Code is concerned and are subject to the income tax for corporations. As regards the residence of tax for corporations, section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 465 provides in part: Entities liable to residence tax.-Every corporation, no matter how created or organized, whether domestic or resident foreign, engaged in or doing business in the Philippines shall pay an annual residence tax of five pesos and an annual additional tax which in no case, shall exceed one thousand pesos, in accordance with the following schedule: . . . The term 'corporation' as used in this Act includes joint-stock company, partnership, joint account (cuentas en participacion), association or insurance company, no matter how created or organized. (emphasis supplied.) Considering that the pertinent part of this provision is analogous to that of section 24 and 84 (b) of our National Internal Revenue Code (commonwealth Act No. 466), and that the latter was approved on June 15, 1939, the day immediately after the approval of said Commonwealth Act No. 465 (June 14, 1939), it is apparent that the terms "corporation" and "partnership" are used in both statutes with substantially the same meaning. Consequently, petitioners are subject, also, to the residence tax for corporations. Lastly, the records show that petitioners have habitually engaged in leasing the properties above mentioned for a period of over twelve years, and that the yearly gross rentals of said properties from June 1945 to 1948 ranged from P9,599 to P17,453. Thus, they are subject to the tax provided in section 193 (q) of our National Internal Revenue Code, for "real estate dealers," inasmuch as, pursuant to section 194 (s) thereof: 'Real estate dealer' includes any person engaged in the business of buying, selling, exchanging, leasing, or renting property or his own account as principal and holding himself out as a full or part time dealer in real estate or as an owner of rental property or properties rented or offered to rent for an aggregate amount of three thousand pesos or more a year. . . (emphasis supplied.) Wherefore, the appealed decision of the Court of Tax appeals is hereby affirmed with costs against the petitioners herein. It is so ordered. Bengzon, Paras, C.J., Padilla, Reyes, A., Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J., concurring: I agree with the opinion that petitioners have actually contributed money to a common fund with express purpose of engaging in real estate business for profit. The series of transactions which they had undertaken attest to this. This appears in the following portion of the decision: 2. They invested the same, not merely in one transaction, but in a series of transactions. On February 2, 1943, they bought a lot for P100,000. On April 3, 1944, they purchase 21 lots for

P18,000. This was soon followed on April 23, 1944, by the acquisition of another real state for P108,825. Five (5) days later (April 28, 1944), they got a fourth lot for P237,234.14. The number of lots (24) acquired and transactions undertaken, as well as the brief interregnum between each, particularly the last three purchases, is strongly indicative of a pattern or common design that was not limited to the conservation and preservation of the aforementioned common fund or even of the property acquired by the petitioner in February, 1943, In other words, we cannot but perceive a character of habitually peculiar to business transactions engaged in for purposes of gain. I wish however to make to make the following observation: Article 1769 of the new Civil Code lays down the rule for determining when a transaction should be deemed a partnership or a co-ownership. Said article paragraphs 2 and 3, provides: (2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property; (3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish partnership, whether or not the person sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived; From the above it appears that the fact that those who agree to form a co-ownership shared or do not share any profits made by the use of property held in common does not convert their venture into a partnership. Or the sharing of the gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership whether or not the persons sharing therein have a joint or common right or interest in the property. This only means that, aside from the circumstance of profit, the presence of other elements constituting partnership is necessary, such as the clear intent to form a partnership, the existence of a judicial personality different from that of the individual partners, and the freedom to transfer or assign any interest in the property by one with the consent of the others (Padilla, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. I, 1953 ed., pp. 635- 636). It is evident that an isolated transaction whereby two or more persons contribute funds to buy certain real estate for profit in the absence of other circumstances showing a contrary intention cannot be considered a partnership. Persons who contribute property or funds for a common enterprise and agree to share the gross returns of that enterprise in proportion to their contribution, but who severally retain the title to their respective contribution, are not thereby rendered partners. They have no common stock or capital, and no community of interest as principal proprietors in the business itself which the proceeds derived. (Elements of the law of Partnership by Floyd R. Mechem, 2n Ed., section 83, p. 74.) A joint venture purchase of land, by two, does not constitute a copartnership in respect thereto; nor does not agreement to share the profits and loses on the sale of land create a partnership; the parties are only tenants in common. (Clark vs. Sideway, 142 U.S. 682, 12 S Ct. 327, 35 L. Ed., 1157.) Where plaintiff, his brother, and another agreed to become owners of a single tract of reality, holding as tenants in common, and to divide the profits of disposing of it, the brother and the other not being entitled to share in plaintiff's commissions, no partnership existed as between the parties, whatever relation may have been as to third parties. (Magee vs. Magee, 123 N. E. 6763, 233 Mass. 341.)

In order to constitute a partnership inter sese there must be: (a) An intent to form the same; (b) generally a participating in both profits and losses; (c) and such a community of interest, as far as third persons are concerned as enables each party to make contract, manage the business, and dispose of the whole property. (Municipal Paving Co. vs Herring, 150 P. 1067, 50 Ill. 470.) The common ownership of property does not itself create a partnership between the owners, though they may use it for purpose of making gains; and they may, without becoming partners, agree among themselves as to the management and use of such property and the application of the proceeds therefrom. (Spurlock vs. Wilson, 142 S. W. 363, 160 No. App. 14.) This is impliedly recognized in the following portion of the decision: "Although, taken singly, they might not suffice to establish the intent necessary to constitute a partnership, the collective effect of these circumstances (referring to the series of transactions) such as to leave no room for doubt on the existence of said intent in petitioners herein."

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 413 February 2, 1903

JOSE FERNANDEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA, defendant-appellee. Vicente Miranda, for appellant. Simplicio del Rosario, for appellee. LADD, J.: The object of this action is to obtain from the court a declaration that a partnership exists between the parties, that the plaintiff has a consequent interested in certain cascoes which are alleged to be partnership property, and that the defendant is bound to render an account of his administration of the cascoes and the business carried on with them. Judgment was rendered for the defendant in the court below and the plaintiff appealed. The respective claims of the parties as to the facts, so far as it is necessary to state them in order to indicate the point in dispute, may be briefly summarized. The plaintiff alleges that in January, 1900, he entered into a verbal agreement with the defendant to form a partnership for the purchase of cascoes and the carrying on of the business of letting the same for hire in Manila, the defendant to buy the cascoes and each partner to furnish for that purpose such amount of money as he could, the profits to be divided proportionately; that in the same January the plaintiff furnished the defendant 300 pesos to purchase a casco designated as No. 1515, which the defendant did purchase for 500

pesos of Doa Isabel Vales, taking the title in his own name; that the plaintiff furnished further sums aggregating about 300 pesos for repairs on this casco; that on the fifth of the following March he furnished the defendant 825 pesos to purchase another casco designated as No. 2089, which the defendant did purchase for 1,000 pesos of Luis R. Yangco, taking the title to this casco also in his own name; that in April the parties undertook to draw up articles of partnership for the purpose of embodying the same in an authentic document, but that the defendant having proposed a draft of such articles which differed materially from the terms of the earlier verbal agreement, and being unwillingly to include casco No. 2089 in the partnership, they were unable to come to any understanding and no written agreement was executed; that the defendant having in the meantime had the control and management of the two cascoes, the plaintiff made a demand for an accounting upon him, which the defendant refused to render, denying the existence of the partnership altogether. The defendant admits that the project of forming a partnership in the casco business in which he was already engaged to some extent individually was discussed between himself and the plaintiff in January, 1900, and earlier, one Marcos Angulo, who was a partner of the plaintiff in a bakery business, being also a party to the negotiations, but he denies that any agreement was ever consummated. He denies that the plaintiff furnished any money in January, 1900, for the purchase of casco No. 1515, or for repairs on the same, but claims that he borrowed 300 pesos on his individual account in January from the bakery firm, consisting of the plaintiff, Marcos Angulo, and Antonio Angulo. The 825 pesos, which he admits he received from the plaintiff March 5, he claims was for the purchase of casco No. 1515, which he alleged was bought March 12, and he alleges that he never received anything from the defendant toward the purchase of casco No. 2089. He claims to have paid, exclusive of repairs, 1,200 pesos for the first casco and 2,000 pesos for the second one. The case comes to this court under the old procedure, and it is therefore necessary for us the review the evidence and pass upon the facts. Our general conclusions may be stated as follows: (1) Doa Isabel Vales, from whom the defendant bought casco No. 1515, testifies that the sale was made and the casco delivered in January, although the public document of sale was not executed till some time afterwards. This witness is apparently disinterested, and we think it is safe to rely upon the truth of her testimony, especially as the defendant, while asserting that the sale was in March, admits that he had the casco taken to the ways for repairs in January. It is true that the public document of sale was executed March 10, and that the vendor declares therein that she is the owner of the casco, but such declaration does not exclude proof as to the actual date of the sale, at least as against the plaintiff, who was not a party to the instrument. (Civil Code, sec. 1218.) It often happens, of course, in such cases, that the actual sale precedes by a considerable time the execution of the formal instrument of transfer, and this is what we think occurred here. (2) The plaintiff presented in evidence the following receipt: "I have this day received from D. Jose Fernandez eight hundred and twenty-five pesos for the cost of a casco which we are to purchase in company. Manila, March 5, 1900. Francisco de la Rosa." The authenticity of this receipt is admitted by the defendant. If casco No. 1515 was bought, as we think it was, in January, the casco referred to in the receipt which the parties "are to purchase in company" must be casco No. 2089, which was bought March 22. We find this to be the fact, and that the plaintiff furnished and the defendant received 825 pesos toward the purchase of this casco, with the understanding that it was to be purchased on joint account. (3) Antonio Fernandez testifies that in the early part of January, 1900, he saw Antonio Angulo give the defendant, in the name of the plaintiff, a sum of money, the amount of which he is unable to

state, for the purchase of a casco to be used in the plaintiff's and defendant's business. Antonio Angulo also testifies, but the defendant claims that the fact that Angulo was a partner of the plaintiff rendered him incompetent as a witness under the provisions of article 643 of the then Code of Civil Procedure, and without deciding whether this point is well taken, we have discarded his testimony altogether in considering the case. The defendant admits the receipt of 300 pesos from Antonio Angulo in January, claiming, as has been stated, that it was a loan from the firm. Yet he sets up the claim that the 825 pesos which he received from the plaintiff in March were furnished toward the purchase of casco No. 1515, thereby virtually admitting that casco was purchased in company with the plaintiff. We discover nothing in the evidence to support the claim that the 300 pesos received in January was a loan, unless it may be the fact that the defendant had on previous occasions borrowed money from the bakery firm. We think all the probabilities of the case point to the truth of the evidence of Antonio Fernandez as to this transaction, and we find the fact to be that the sum in question was furnished by the plaintiff toward the purchase for joint ownership of casco No. 1515, and that the defendant received it with the understanding that it was to be used for this purposed. We also find that the plaintiff furnished some further sums of money for the repair of casco. (4) The balance of the purchase price of each of the two cascoes over and above the amount contributed by the plaintiff was furnished by the defendant. (5) We are unable to find upon the evidence before us that there was any specific verbal agreement of partnership, except such as may be implied from the fact as to the purchase of the casco. (6) Although the evidence is somewhat unsatisfactory upon this point, we think it more probable than otherwise that no attempt was made to agree upon articles of partnership till about the middle of the April following the purchase of the cascoes. (7) At some time subsequently to the failure of the attempt to agree upon partnership articles and after the defendant had been operating the cascoes for some time, the defendant returned to the plaintiff 1,125 pesos, in two different sums, one of 300 and one of 825 pesos. The only evidence in the record as to the circumstances under which the plaintiff received these sums is contained in his answer to the interrogatories proposed to him by the defendant, and the whole of his statement on this point may properly be considered in determining the fact as being in the nature of an indivisible admission. He states that both sums were received with an express reservation on his part of all his rights as a partner. We find this to be the fact. Two questions of law are raised by the foregoing facts: (1) Did a partnership exist between the parties? (2) If such partnership existed, was it terminated as a result of the act of the defendant in receiving back the 1,125 pesos? (1) "Partnership is a contract by which two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves." (Civil Code, art. 1665.) The essential points upon which the minds of the parties must meet in a contract of partnership are, therefore, (1) mutual contribution to a common stock, and (2) a joint interest in the profits. If the contract contains these two elements the partnership relation results, and the law itself fixes the incidents of this relation if the parties fail to do so. (Civil Code, secs. 1689, 1695.) We have found as a fact that money was furnished by the plaintiff and received by the defendant with the understanding that it was to be used for the purchase of the cascoes in question. This establishes the first element of the contract, namely, mutual contribution to a common stock. The second element, namely, the intention to share profits, appears to be an unavoidable deduction from

the fact of the purchase of the cascoes in common, in the absence of any other explanation of the object of the parties in making the purchase in that form, and, it may be added, in view of the admitted fact that prior to the purchase of the first casco the formation of a partnership had been a subject of negotiation between them. Under other circumstances the relation of joint ownership, a relation distinct though perhaps not essentially different in its practical consequence from that of partnership, might have been the result of the joint purchase. If, for instance, it were shown that the object of the parties in purchasing in company had been to make a more favorable bargain for the two cascoes that they could have done by purchasing them separately, and that they had no ulterior object except to effect a division of the common property when once they had acquired it, theaffectio societatis would be lacking and the parties would have become joint tenants only; but, as nothing of this sort appears in the case, we must assume that the object of the purchase was active use and profit and not mere passive ownership in common. It is thus apparent that a complete and perfect contract of partnership was entered into by the parties. This contract, it is true, might have been subject to a suspensive condition, postponing its operation until an agreement was reached as to the respective participation of the partners in the profits, the character of the partnership as collective or en comandita, and other details, but although it is asserted by counsel for the defendant that such was the case, there is little or nothing in the record to support this claim, and that fact that the defendant did actually go on and purchase the boat, as it would seem, before any attempt had been made to formulate partnership articles, strongly discountenances the theory. The execution of a written agreement was not necessary in order to give efficacy to the verbal contract of partnership as a civil contract, the contributions of the partners not having been in the form of immovables or rights in immovables. (Civil Code, art. 1667.) The special provision cited, requiring the execution of a public writing in the single case mentioned and dispensing with all formal requirements in other cases, renders inapplicable to this species of contract the general provisions of article 1280 of the Civil Code. (2) The remaining question is as to the legal effect of the acceptance by the plaintiff of the money returned to him by the defendant after the definitive failure of the attempt to agree upon partnership articles. The amount returned fell short, in our view of the facts, of that which the plaintiff had contributed to the capital of the partnership, since it did not include the sum which he had furnished for the repairs of casco No. 1515. Moreover, it is quite possible, as claimed by the plaintiff, that a profit may have been realized from the business during the period in which the defendant have been administering it prior to the return of the money, and if so he still retained that sum in his hands. For these reasons the acceptance of the money by the plaintiff did not have the effect of terminating the legal existence of the partnership by converting it into a societas leonina, as claimed by counsel for the defendant. Did the defendant waive his right to such interest as remained to him in the partnership property by receiving the money? Did he by so doing waive his right to an accounting of the profits already realized, if any, and a participation in them in proportion to the amount he had originally contributed to the common fund? Was the partnership dissolved by the "will or withdrawal of one of the partners" under article 1705 of the Civil Code? We think these questions must be answered in the negative. There was no intention on the part of the plaintiff in accepting the money to relinquish his rights as a partner, nor is there any evidence that by anything that he said or by anything that he omitted to say he gave the defendant any ground whatever to believe that he intended to relinquish them. On the contrary he notified the defendant that he waived none of his rights in the partnership. Nor was the

acceptance of the money an act which was in itself inconsistent with the continuance of the partnership relation, as would have been the case had the plaintiff withdrawn his entire interest in the partnership. There is, therefore, nothing upon which a waiver, either express or implied, can be predicated. The defendant might have himself terminated the partnership relation at any time, if he had chosen to do so, by recognizing the plaintiff's right in the partnership property and in the profits. Having failed to do this he can not be permitted to force a dissolution upon his co-partner upon terms which the latter is unwilling to accept. We see nothing in the case which can give the transaction in question any other aspect than that of the withdrawal by one partner with the consent of the other of a portion of the common capital. The result is that we hold and declare that a partnership was formed between the parties in January, 1900, the existence of which the defendant is bound to recognize; that cascoes No. 1515 and 2089 constitute partnership property, and that the plaintiff is entitled to an accounting of the defendant's administration of such property, and of the profits derived therefrom. This declaration does not involve an adjudication as to any disputed items of the partnership account. The judgment of the court below will be reversed without costs, and the record returned for the execution of the judgment now rendered. So ordered. Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, and Mapa, JJ., concur. Willard, J., dissenting.

ON MOTION FOR A REHEARING. MAPA, J.: This case has been decided on appeal in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant has moved for a rehearing upon the following grounds: 1. Because that part of the decision which refers to the existence of the partnership which is the object of the complaint is not based upon clear and decisive legal grounds; and 2. Because, upon the supposition of the existence of the partnership, the decision does not clearly determine whether the juridical relation between the partners suffered any modification in consequence of the withdrawal by the plaintiff of the sum of 1,125 pesos from the funds of the partnership, or if it continued as before, the parties being thereby deprived, he alleges, of one of the principal bases for determining with exactness the amount due to each. With respect to the first point, the appellant cites the fifth conclusion of the decision, which is as follows: "We are unable to find from the evidence before us that there was any specific verbal agreement of partnership, except such as may be implied from the facts as to the purchase of the cascoes." Discussing this part of the decision, the defendant says that, in the judgment of the court, if on the one hand there is no direct evidence of a contract, on the other its existence can only be inferred from certain facts, and the defendant adds that the possibility of an inference is not sufficient ground upon which to consider as existing what may be inferred to exist, and still less as sufficient ground for declaring its efficacy to produce legal effects.

This reasoning rests upon a false basis. We have not taken into consideration the mere possibility of an inference, as the appellant gratuitously stated, for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that a contract of partnership was entered into between him and the plaintiff, but have considered the proof which is derived from the facts connected with the purchase of the cascoes. It is stated in the decision that with the exception of this evidence we find no other which shows the making of the contract. But this does not mean (for it says exactly the contrary) that this fact is not absolutely proven, as the defendant erroneously appears to think. From this data we infer a fact which to our mind is certain and positive, and not a mere possibility; we infer not that it is possible that the contract may have existed, but that it actually did exist. The proofs constituted by the facts referred to, although it is the only evidence, and in spite of the fact that it is not direct, we consider, however, sufficient to produce such a conviction, which may certainly be founded upon any of the various classes of evidence which the law admits. There is all the more reason for its being so in this case, because a civil partnership may be constituted in any form, according to article 1667 of the Civil Code, unless real property or real rights are contributed to it the only case of exception in which it is necessary that the agreement be recorded in a public instrument. It is of no importance that the parties have failed to reach an agreement with respect to the minor details of contract. These details pertain to the accidental and not to the essential part of the contract. We have already stated in the opinion what are the essential requisites of a contract of partnership, according to the definition of article 1665. Considering as a whole the probatory facts which appears from the record, we have reached the conclusion that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the essential parts of that contract, and did in fact constitute a partnership, with the funds of which were purchased the cascoes with which this litigation deals, although it is true that they did not take the precaution to precisely establish and determine from the beginning the conditions with respect to the participation of each partner in the profits or losses of the partnership. The disagreements subsequently arising between them, when endeavoring to fix these conditions, should not and can not produce the effect of destroying that which has been done, to the prejudice of one of the partners, nor could it divest his rights under the partnership which had accrued by the actual contribution of capital which followed the agreement to enter into a partnership, together with the transactions effected with partnership funds. The law has foreseen the possibility of the constitution of a partnership without an express stipulation by the partners upon those conditions, and has established rules which may serve as a basis for the distribution of profits and losses among the partners. (Art. 1689 of the Civil Code. ) We consider that the partnership entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant falls within the provisions of this article. With respect to the second point, it is obvious that upon declaring the existence of a partnership and the right of the plaintiff to demand from the defendant an itemized accounting of his management thereof, it was impossible at the same time to determine the effects which might have been produced with respect to the interest of the partnership by the withdrawal by the plaintiff of the sum of 1,125 pesos. This could only be determined after a liquidation of the partnership. Then, and only then, can it be known if this sum is to be charged to the capital contributed by the plaintiff, or to his share of the profits, or to both. It might well be that the partnership has earned profits, and that the plaintiff's participation therein is equivalent to or exceeds the sum mentioned. In this case it is evident that, notwithstanding that payment, his interest in the partnership would still continue. This is one case. It would be easy to imagine many others, as the possible results of a liquidation are innumerable. The liquidation will finally determine the condition of the legal relations of the partners inter se at the time of the withdrawal of the sum mentioned. It was not, nor is it possible to determine this status a priori without prejudging the result, as yet unknown, of the litigation. Therefore it is that in the decision no direct statement has been made upon this point. It is for the same reason that it was expressly stated in the decision that it "does not involve an adjudication as to any disputed item of the partnership account."

The contentions advanced by the moving party are so evidently unfounded that we can not see the necessity or convenience of granting the rehearing prayed for, and the motion is therefore denied. Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, and Ladd, JJ., concur. Willard and McDonough, JJ., did not sit in this case. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-2880 December 4, 1906 FRANK S. BOURNS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. D. M. CARMAN, ET AL., defendants-appellants. W. A. Kincaid for appellants. J. N. Wolfson for appellee.

MAPA, J.: The plaintiff in this action seeks to recover the sum of $437.50, United Stated currency, balance due on a contract for the sawing of lumber for the lumber yard of Lo-Chim-Lim. the contract relating to the said work was entered into by the said Lo-Chim-Lim, acting as in his own name with the plaintiff, and it appears that the said Lo-Chim-Lim personally agreed to pay for the work himself. The plaintiff, however, has brought this action against Lo-Chim-Lim and his codefendants jointly, alleging that, at the time the contract was made, they were the joint proprietors and operators of the said lumber yard engaged in the purchase and sale of lumber under the name and style of Lo-Chim-Lim. Apparently the plaintiff tries to show by the words above italicized that the other defendants were the partners of Lo-Chim-Lim in the said lumber-yard business.
lawphil.net

The court below dismissed the action as to the defendants D. M. Carman and Fulgencio Tan-Tongco on the ground that they were not the partners of Lo-Chim-Lim, and rendered judgment against the other defendants for the amount claimed in the complaint with the costs of proceedings. Vicente Palanca and Go-Tauco only excepted to the said judgment, moved for a new trial, and have brought the case to this court by bill of exceptions. The evidence of record shows, according to the judgment of the court, "That Lo-Chim-Lim had a certain lumber yard in Calle Lemery of the city of Manila, and that he was the manager of the same, having ordered the plaintiff to do some work for him at his sawmill in the city of Manila; and that Vicente Palanca was his partner, and had an interest in the said business as well as in the profits and losses thereof . . .," and that Go-Tuaco received part of the earnings of the lumber yard in the management of which he was interested.

The court below accordingly found that "Lo-Chim-Lim, Vicente Palanca, Go-Tuaco had a lumber yard in Calle Lemmery of the city of Manila in the year 1904, and participated in the profits and losses of business and that Lo-Chim-Lim was managing partner of the said lumber yard." In other words, coparticipants with the said Lo-Chim-Lim in the business in question. Although the evidence upon this point as stated by the by the however, that is plainly and manifestly in conflict with the above finding of that court. Such finding should therefore be sustained.
lawphil.net

The question thus raised is, therefore, purely one of law and reduces itself to determining the real legal nature of the participation which the appellants had in Lo-Chim-Lim's lumber yard, and consequently their liability toward the plaintiff, in connection with the transaction which gave rise to the present suit. It seems that the alleged partnership between Lo-Chim-Lim and the appellants was formed by verbal agreement only. At least there is no evidence tending to show that the said agreement was reduced to writing, or that it was ever recorded in a public instrument. Moreover, that partnership had no corporate name. The plaintiff himself alleges in his complaint that the partnership was engaged in business under the name and style of Lo-Chim-Lim only, which according to the evidence was the name of one of the defendants. On the other hand, and this is very important, it does not appear that there was any mutual agreement, between the parties, and if there were any, it has not been shown what the agreement was. As far as the evidence shows it seems that the business was conducted by Lo-Chim-Lim in his own name, although he gave to the appellants a share was has been shown with certainty. The contracts made with the plaintiff were made by Lo-Chim-Lim individually in his own name, and there is no evidence that the partnership over contracted in any other form. Under such circumstances we find nothing upon which to consider this partnership other than as a partnership of cuentas en participacion. It may be that, as a matter of fact, it is something different, but a simple business and scant evidence introduced by the partnership We see nothing, according to the evidence, but a simple business conducted by LoChim-Lim exclusively, in his own name, the names of other persons interested in the profits and losses of the business nowhere appearing. A partnership constituted in such a manner, the existence of which was only known to those who had an interest in the same, being no mutual agreements between the partners and without a corporate name indicating to the public in some way that there were other people besides the one who ostensibly managed and conducted the business, is exactly the accidental partnership of cuentas en participacion defined in article 239 of the Code of Commerce. Those who contract with the person under whose name the business of such partnership of cuentas en participacion is conducted, shall have only a right of action against such person and not against the other persons interested, and the latter, on the other hand, shall have no right of action against the third person who contracted with the manager unless such manager formally transfers his right to them. (Art 242 of the code Of Commerce.) It follows, therefore that the plaintiff has no right to demand from the appellants the payment of the amount claimed in the complaint, as Lo-Chim-Lim was the only one who contracted with him. the action of the plaintiff lacks, therefore, a legal foundation and should be accordingly dismissed. The judgment appealed from this hereby reversed and the appellants are absolved of the complaint without express provisions as to the costs of both instances. After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and ten days thereafter the cause be remanded to the court below for execution. So ordered. Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-35469 March 17, 1932

E. S. LYONS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. C. W. ROSENSTOCK, Executor of the Estate of Henry W. Elser, deceased, defendant-appellee. Harvey & O'Brien for appellant. DeWitt, Perkins & Brandy for appellee. STREET, J.: This action was institute in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, by E. S. Lyons against C. W. Rosenstock, as executor of the estate of H. W. Elser, deceased, consequent upon the taking of an appeal by the executor from the allowance of the claim sued upon by the committee on claims in said estate. The purpose of the action is to recover four hundred forty-six and two thirds shares of the stock of J. K. Pickering & Co., Ltd., together with the sum of about P125,000, representing the dividends which accrued on said stock prior to October 21, 1926, with lawful interest. Upon hearing the cause the trial court absolved the defendant executor from the complaint, and the plaintiff appealed. Prior to his death on June 18, 1923, Henry W. Elser had been a resident of the City of Manila where he was engaged during the years with which we are here concerned in buying, selling, and administering real estate. In several ventures which he had made in buying and selling property of this kind the plaintiff, E. S. Lyons, had joined with him, the profits being shared by the two in equal parts. In April, 1919, Lyons, whose regular vocation was that of a missionary, or missionary agent, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, went on leave to the United States and was gone for nearly a year and a half, returning on September 21, 1920. On the eve of his departure Elser made a written statements showing that Lyons was, at that time, half owner with Elser of three particular pieces of real property. Concurrently with this act Lyons execute in favor of Elser a general power of attorney empowering him to manage and dispose of said properties at will and to represent Lyons fully and amply, to the mutual advantage of both. During the absence of Lyons two of the pieces of property above referred to were sold by Elser, leaving in his hands a single piece of property located at 616618 Carried Street, in the City of Manila, containing about 282 square meters of land, with the improvements thereon. In the spring of 1920 the attention of Elser was drawn to a piece of land, containing about 1,500,000 square meters, near the City of Manila, and he discerned therein a fine opportunity for the promotion and development of a suburban improvement. This property, which will be herein referred to as the San Juan Estate, was offered by its owners for P570,000. To afford a little time for maturing his plans, Elser purchased an option on this property for P5,000, and when this option was about to expire without his having been able to raise the necessary funds, he paid P15,000 more for an extension of the option, with the understanding in both cases that, in case the option should be exercised, the amounts thus paid should be credited as part of the first payment. The amounts paid

for this option and its extension were supplied by Elser entirely from his own funds. In the end he was able from his own means, and with the assistance which he obtained from others, to acquire said estate. The amount required for the first payment was P150,000, and as Elser had available only about P120,000, including the P20,000 advanced upon the option, it was necessary to raise the remainder by obtaining a loan for P50,000. This amount was finally obtained from a Chinese merchant of the city named Uy Siuliong. This loan was secured through Uy Cho Yee, a son of the lender; and in order to get the money it was necessary for Elser not only to give a personal note signed by himself and his two associates in the projected enterprise, but also by the Fidelity & Surety Company. The money thus raised was delivered to Elser by Uy Siuliong on June 24, 1920. With this money and what he already had in bank Elser purchased the San Juan Estate on or about June 28, 1920. For the purpose of the further development of the property a limited partnership had, about this time, been organized by Elser and three associates, under the name of J. K. Pickering & Company; and when the transfer of the property was effected the deed was made directly to this company. As Elser was the principal capitalist in the enterprise he received by far the greater number of the shares issued, his portion amount in the beginning to 3,290 shares. While these negotiations were coming to a head, Elser contemplated and hoped that Lyons might be induced to come in with him and supply part of the means necessary to carry the enterprise through. In this connection it appears that on May 20, 1920, Elser wrote Lyons a letter, informing him that he had made an offer for a big subdivision and that, if it should be acquired and Lyons would come in, the two would be well fixed. (Exhibit M-5.) On June 3, 1920, eight days before the first option expired, Elser cabled Lyons that he had bought the San Juan Estate and thought it advisable for Lyons to resign (Exhibit M-13), meaning that he should resign his position with the mission board in New York. On the same date he wrote Lyons a letter explaining some details of the purchase, and added "have advised in my cable that you resign and I hope you can do so immediately and will come and join me on the lines we have so often spoken about. . . . There is plenty of business for us all now and I believe we have started something that will keep us going for some time." In one or more communications prior to this, Elser had sought to impress Lyons with the idea that he should raise all the money he could for the purpose of giving the necessary assistance in future deals in real estate. The enthusiasm of Elser did not communicate itself in any marked degree to Lyons, and found him averse from joining in the purchase of the San Juan Estate. In fact upon this visit of Lyons to the United States a grave doubt had arisen as to whether he would ever return to Manila, and it was only in the summer of 1920 that the board of missions of his church prevailed upon him to return to Manila and resume his position as managing treasurer and one of its trustees. Accordingly, on June 21, 1920, Lyons wrote a letter from New York thanking Elser for his offer to take Lyons into his new project and adding that from the standpoint of making money, he had passed up a good thing. One source of embarrassment which had operated on Lyson to bring him to the resolution to stay out of this venture, was that the board of mission was averse to his engaging in business activities other than those in which the church was concerned; and some of Lyons' missionary associates had apparently been criticizing his independent commercial activities. This fact was dwelt upon in the letter above-mentioned. Upon receipt of this letter Elser was of course informed that it would be out of the question to expect assistance from Lyons in carrying out the San Juan project. No further efforts to this end were therefore made by Elser. When Elser was concluding the transaction for the purchase of the San Juan Estate, his book showed that he was indebted to Lyons to the extent of, possibly, P11,669.72, which had accrued to Lyons from profits and earnings derived from other properties; and when the J. K. Pickering & Company was organized and stock issued, Elser indorsed to Lyons 200 of the shares allocated to himself, as he then believed that Lyons would be one of his associates in the deal. It will be noted that the par value of these 200 shares was more than P8,000 in excess of the amount which Elser in

fact owed to Lyons; and when the latter returned to the Philippine Islands, he accepted these shares and sold them for his own benefit. It seems to be supposed in the appellant's brief that the transfer of these shares to Lyons by Elser supplies some sort of basis for the present action, or at least strengthens the considerations involved in a feature of the case to be presently explained. This view is manifestly untenable, since the ratification of the transaction by Lyons and the appropriation by him of the shares which were issued to him leaves no ground whatever for treating the transaction as a source of further equitable rights in Lyons. We should perhaps add that after Lyons' return to the Philippine Islands he acted for a time as one of the members of the board of directors of the J. K. Pickering & Company, his qualification for this office being derived precisely from the ownership of these shares. We now turn to the incident which supplies the main basis of this action. It will be remembered that, when Elser obtained the loan of P50,000 to complete the amount needed for the first payment on the San Juan Estate, the lender, Uy Siuliong, insisted that he should procure the signature of the Fidelity & Surety Co. on the note to be given for said loan. But before signing the note with Elser and his associates, the Fidelity & Surety Co. insisted upon having security for the liability thus assumed by it. To meet this requirements Elser mortgaged to the Fidelity & Surety Co. the equity of redemption in the property owned by himself and Lyons on Carriedo Street. This mortgage was executed on June 30, 1920, at which time Elser expected that Lyons would come in on the purchase of the San Juan Estate. But when he learned from the letter from Lyons of July 21, 1920, that the latter had determined not to come into this deal, Elser began to cast around for means to relieve the Carriedo property of the encumbrance which he had placed upon it. For this purpose, on September 9, 1920, he addressed a letter to the Fidelity & Surety Co., asking it to permit him to substitute a property owned by himself at 644 M. H. del Pilar Street, Manila, and 1,000 shares of the J. K. Pickering & Company, in lieu of the Carriedo property, as security. The Fidelity & Surety Co. agreed to the proposition; and on September 15, 1920, Elser executed in favor of the Fidelity & Surety Co. a new mortgage on the M. H. del Pillar property and delivered the same, with 1,000 shares of J. K. Pickering & Company, to said company. The latter thereupon in turn executed a cancellation of the mortgage on the Carriedo property and delivered it to Elser. But notwithstanding the fact that these documents were executed and delivered, the new mortgage and the release of the old were never registered; and on September 25, 1920, thereafter, Elser returned the cancellation of the mortgage on the Carriedo property and took back from the Fidelity & Surety Co. the new mortgage on the M. H. del Pilar property, together with the 1,000 shares of the J. K. Pickering & Company which he had delivered to it. The explanation of this change of purpose is undoubtedly to be found in the fact that Lyons had arrived in Manila on September 21, 1920, and shortly thereafter, in the course of a conversation with Elser told him to let the Carriedo mortgage remain on the property ("Let the Carriedo mortgage ride"). Mrs. Elser testified to the conversation in which Lyons used the words above quoted, and as that conversation supplies the most reasonable explanation of Elser's recession from his purpose of relieving the Carriedo property, the trial court was, in our opinion, well justified in accepting as a proven fact the consent of Lyons for the mortgage to remain on the Carriedo property. This concession was not only reasonable under the circumstances, in view of the abundant solvency of Elser, but in view of the further fact that Elser had given to Lyons 200 shares of the stock of the J. K. Pickering & Co., having a value of nearly P8,000 in excess of the indebtedness which Elser had owed to Lyons upon statement of account. The trial court found in effect that the excess value of these shares over Elser's actual indebtedness was conceded by Elser to Lyons in consideration of the assistance that had been derived from the mortgage placed upon Lyon's interest in the Carriedo property. Whether the agreement was reached exactly upon this precise line of thought is of little moment, but the relations of the parties had been such that it was to be expected that Elser would be generous; and he could scarcely have failed to take account of the use he had made of the joint property of the two.

As the development of the San Juan Estate was a success from the start, Elser paid the note of P50,000 to Uy Siuliong on January 18, 1921, although it was not due until more than five months later. It will thus be seen that the mortgaging of the Carriedo property never resulted in damage to Lyons to the extent of a single cent; and although the court refused to allow the defendant to prove the Elser was solvent at this time in an amount much greater than the entire encumbrance placed upon the property, it is evident that the risk imposed upon Lyons was negligible. It is also plain that no money actually deriving from this mortgage was ever applied to the purchase of the San Juan Estate. What really happened was the Elser merely subjected the property to a contingent liability, and no actual liability ever resulted therefrom. The financing of the purchase of the San Juan Estate, apart from the modest financial participation of his three associates in the San Juan deal, was the work of Elser accomplished entirely upon his own account. The case for the plaintiff supposes that, when Elser placed a mortgage for P50,000 upon the equity of redemption in the Carriedo property, Lyons, as half owner of said property, became, as it were, involuntarily the owner of an undivided interest in the property acquired partly by that money; and it is insisted for him that, in consideration of this fact, he is entitled to the four hundred forty-six and two-thirds shares of J. K. Pickering & Company, with the earnings thereon, as claimed in his complaint. Lyons tells us that he did not know until after Elser's death that the money obtained from Uy Siuliong in the manner already explained had been used to held finance the purchase of the San Juan Estate. He seems to have supposed that the Carried property had been mortgaged to aid in putting through another deal, namely, the purchase of a property referred to in the correspondence as the "Ronquillo property"; and in this connection a letter of Elser of the latter part of May, 1920, can be quoted in which he uses this language: As stated in cablegram I have arranged for P50,000 loan on Carriedo property. Will use part of the money for Ronquillo buy (P60,000) if the owner comes through. Other correspondence shows that Elser had apparently been trying to buy the Ronquillo property, and Lyons leads us to infer that he thought that the money obtained by mortgaging the Carriedo property had been used in the purchase of this property. It doubtedless appeared so to him in the retrospect, but certain consideration show that he was inattentive to the contents of the quotation from the letter above given. He had already been informed that, although Elser was angling for the Ronquillo property, its price had gone up, thus introducing a doubt as to whether he could get it; and the quotation above given shows that the intended use of the money obtained by mortgaging the Carriedo property was that only part of the P50,000 thus obtained would be used in this way, if the deal went through. Naturally, upon the arrival of Lyons in September, 1920, one of his first inquiries would have been, if he did not know before, what was the status of the proposed trade for the Ronquillo property. Elser's widow and one of his clerks testified that about June 15, 1920, Elser cabled Lyons something to this effect;: "I have mortgaged the property on Carriedo Street, secured by my personal note. You are amply protected. I wish you to join me in the San Juan Subdivision. Borrow all money you can." Lyons says that no such cablegram was received by him, and we consider this point of fact of little moment, since the proof shows that Lyons knew that the Carriedo mortgage had been executed, and after his arrival in Manila he consented for the mortgage to remain on the property until it was paid off, as shortly occurred. It may well be that Lyons did not at first clearly understand all the ramifications of the situation, but he knew enough, we think, to apprise him of the material factors in the situation, and we concur in the conclusion of the trial court that Elser did not act in bad faith and was guilty of no fraud.

In the purely legal aspect of the case, the position of the appellant is, in our opinion, untenable. If Elser had used any money actually belonging to Lyons in this deal, he would under article 1724 of the Civil Code and article 264 of the Code of Commerce, be obligated to pay interest upon the money so applied to his own use. Under the law prevailing in this jurisdiction a trust does not ordinarily attach with respect to property acquired by a person who uses money belonging to another (Martinez vs. Martinez, 1 Phil., 647; Enriquez vs. Olaguer, 25 Phil., 641.). Of course, if an actual relation of partnership had existed in the money used, the case might be difference; and much emphasis is laid in the appellant's brief upon the relation of partnership which, it is claimed, existed. But there was clearly no general relation of partnership, under article 1678 of the Civil Code. It is clear that Elser, in buying the San Juan Estate, was not acting for any partnership composed of himself and Lyons, and the law cannot be distorted into a proposition which would make Lyons a participant in this deal contrary to his express determination. It seems to be supposed that the doctrines of equity worked out in the jurisprudence of England and the United States with reference to trust supply a basis for this action. The doctrines referred to operate, however, only where money belonging to one person is used by another for the acquisition of property which should belong to both; and it takes but little discernment to see that the situation here involved is not one for the application of that doctrine, for no money belonging to Lyons or any partnership composed of Elser and Lyons was in fact used by Elser in the purchase of the San Juan Estate. Of course, if any damage had been caused to Lyons by the placing of the mortgage upon the equity of redemption in the Carriedo property, Elser's estate would be liable for such damage. But it is evident that Lyons was not prejudice by that act. The appellee insist that the trial court committed error in admitting the testimony of Lyons upon matters that passed between him and Elser while the latter was still alive. While the admission of this testimony was of questionable propriety, any error made by the trial court on this point was error without injury, and the determination of the question is not necessary to this decision. We therefore pass the point without further discussion. The judgment appealed from will be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs against the appellant. Avancea, C.J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Villa-Real and Imperial, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 5837 September 15, 1911

CATALINO GALLEMIT, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CEFERINO TABILIRAN, defendant-appellee. Troadio Galicano, for appellant. Emilio Pineda, for appellee.

TORRES, J.: This is an appeal raised by the plaintiff from the judgment rendered by the Honorable Judge Ramon Avancea. On March, 10, 1908, the plaintiff filed a written complaint, twice amended with the permission of the court, wherein, after its second amendment, he alleged that the plaintiff and the defendant, while residents of the municipality of Dapitan, had acquired, in joint tenancy, in or about the month of January, 1904, a parcel of land from its original owner, Lui Ganong, under a verbal, civil contract of partnership, for the price of P44; that it was stipulated that each of the said purchasers should pay one-half of the price, or P22, and that an equal division should be made between them of the land thus purchased, situate in the place called Tangian, of the barrio of Dohinob, municipality of Dapitan, sub-district of the same name, Moro Province, and bounded on the north and east by the Tangian river, on the south and west by government forests, and containing 19.968 square meters, approximately, planted with 200 abaca plants; that, notwithstanding the demands he had repeatedly made upon the defendant to divide the said land, the latter, after having promised him on several occasions that he would make such partition, finally refused, without good reason, and still continued to refuse to divide the land and, moreover, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, gathered the abaca crops of the years 1904, 1905 and 1906, produced on the land in question, and extracted the hemp therefrom in the amount of about 12 arrobas to each crop, he being the sole beneficiary of the fiber obtained; that the plaintiff, relying upon the several promises made him by the defendant to divide the said land, took to the latter 1,500 seeds to be planted in the part thereof which would have fallen to the plaintiff in the division, all of which seeds died, as an indirect result of the defendant's never having made the partition he offered to make; and, that since the year 1904, up to the time of the complaint, he alone had been paying the taxes on the land, without the defendant's having contributed to their payment. There fore the plaintiff petitioned the court render judgment in his favor by ordering a partition to be made of the said land through the mediation of commissioners appointed for the purpose, and by sentencing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff, as damages, the total value of the seed lost, amounting to P50, to restore to him one-half of the abaca harvested or the value thereof, and to the payment of the costs of the case. Defendant's counsel received a copy of this amended complaint. The defendant, Ceferino Tabiliran, having been notified and summoned, in his answer to the preceding amended complaint denied each and all of the facts alleged in each and all of the paragraphs thereof and asked that he be absolved from the complaint, with the costs against the plaintiff. After the hearing of the case and the production of oral evidence by the parties thereto, the court, on the 10th of the same month, rendered judgment by absolving the defendant from the complaint, with the costs against the plaintiff. Counsel for the latter excepted to this judgment and by a written motion asked for its annulment, and the holding of a new trial on the ground that the findings of the court were contrary to law. This motion was denied by an order of March 11, 1909, excepted to by the plaintiff's counsel, and the proper bill of exceptions having been duly filed, the same was certified and forwarded to the clerk of this court. This suit concerns the partition of a piece of land held pro indiviso which the plaintiff and the defendant had acquired in common from its original owner. By the refusal of the defendant to divide the property, the plaintiff was compelled to bring the proper action for the enforcement of partition, referred to in section 181 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure. The record shows it to have been duly proved that Catalino Gallemit and Ceferino Tabiliran by mutual agreement acquired by purchase the land concerned, situate in Tangian, municipality of

Dapitan, from its original owner, Luis Ganong, for the sum of P44. It was stipulated between the purchasers that they each should pay one-half of the price and that the property should be divided equally between them. The vendor testified under oath that the plaintiff Gallemit paid him the sum of P22, one-half of the price that it was incumbent upon him to pay, and that four months afterwards the defendant paid his part of the price, although, owing to the refusal of the defendant, who was then the justice of the peace of the pueblo, to comply with the stipulation made, the deed of sale was not executed, nor was a partition effected of the land which they had acquired. The defendant, instead of delivering to the plaintiff the share that belonged to the latter, the proportionate price for which the plaintiff had already paid, kept all the land which belonged to them in common, in violation of the stipulations agreed upon, notwithstanding that he paid the vendor only one-half of the price thereof. There is community of property when the ownership of a thing belongs to different persons undividedly. (Art. 392, Civil Code.) No coownership shall be obliged to remain a party to the community. Each of them may ask at any time the division of the thing owned in common. (Art. 400 of the same code.) Considering the terms of the claim made by the plaintiff and those of the defendant's answer, and the relation of facts contained in the judgment appealed from, it does not appear that any contract of partnership whatever was made between them for the purposes expressed in article 1665 of the Civil Code, for the sole transaction performed by them was the acquisition jointly by mutual agreement of the land in question, since it was undivided, under the condition that they each should pay one-half of the price thereof and that the property so acquired should be divided between the two purchasers; and as, under this title, the plaintiff and the defendant are the coowners of the said land, the partition or division of such property held in joint tenancy must of course be allowed, and the present possessor of the land has no right to deny the plaintiff's claim on grounds or reasons unsupported by proof. The circumstance of the plaintiff's to present any document whatever to prove that he and the defendant did actually purchase jointly the land in litigation can not be a successful defense in the action for partition, notwithstanding the provision contained in paragraph 5 of section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as the trial record discloses that testimony was adduced, unobjected to on the part of the defendant, to prove that the purchase was actually made by both litigants of the land in question from its original owner, Luis Ganong; furthermore, it was proved that after the contract was made the deed of sale was not drawn up on account of the opposition of the defendant, Tabiliran, to this being done, with the indubitable purpose, as has been seen, of his keeping the whole of the land purchased, though he paid but one-half of its price. In the decision rendered in the case of Conlu et al. vs. Araneta and Guanko (15 Phil. Rep., 387), the following appears in the syllabus: The decision in the case of Thunga Chui vs. Que Bentec (1 Phil. Rep., 561) and Couto vs. Cortes (8 Phil. Rep., 459) followed to the extent of holding that "an oral contract for the sale of real estate, made prior to the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure in Civil Actions, is binding between the parties thereto." The contract exists and is valid though it may not be clothed with the necessary form, and the effect of a noncompliance with the provisions of the statute (sec. 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Civil Actions) is simply complied with; but a failure to except to the evidence because it does not conform with the statute, is a waiver of the provisions of the law. If the parties to the action, during the trial, made no objection to the admissibility of oral evidence to support the contract of sale of real property, thus permitting the contract to be proved, it will be just as binding upon the parties as if it had been reduced to writing.

So that, once it has been proven by the testimony of witnesses that the purchase of a piece of real estate was made by a verbal contract between the interested parties, if the oral evidence was taken at the petition of one of them without opposition on the part of the other, such proven verbal contract, as the one herein concerned, must be held to be valid. On these premises it is, therefore, not indispensable that a written instrument be presented in order to prove a contract of purchase and sale of real estate; neither it is necessary that the record show proof of a contract of partnership, in order that a demand may be made for the division of a real property acquired jointly and undividedly by two or more interested parties, inasmuch as the land was acquired by the two purchasers, not for the purpose of undertaking any business, nor for its cultivation in partnership, but solely to divide it equally between themselves. Therefore, it is sufficient to show proof of the fact that a real property was actually purchased by them jointly, in order to insure a successful issue of an action brought to enforce partition, in accordance with the provisions of sections 181 to 196 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Civil Actions, since the plaintiff is really a coowner of the undivided land. It is neither just nor permissible for the defendant to violate a contract made, even though verbally, with the plaintiff, and to keep without good reason, for his exclusive benefit and to the prejudice only of his coowner, the plaintiff, the whole of the land belonging to both of them in common, because each paid a half of the value thereof. "Contracts shall be binding," prescribes article 1278 of the Civil Code, "whatever may be the form in which they may have been executed, provided the essential conditions required for their validity exist." These conditions are enumerated in article 1261 of the same code, and they are also requisite in a verbal contract that has been proved. As the plaintiff suffered damage through the loss of the seed which could not be planted in the part of the land belonging to him, on account of the refusal of the defendant to accede to division of the property, in accordance with the agreement made, it is right and just that the latter be compelled to make indemnity for the amount of the damage occasioned through his fault. With respect to the abaca obtained by the defendant, to his exclusive benefit, from the land of joint ownership: inasmuch as the amount and value of the fiber gathered is not shown in the trial record, there are no means available in law whereby a proper determination may be reached in the matter. Therefore, we are of opinion that the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, reversed. It is held to be proper to effect the partition of the land in question, and the judge of the Court of First Instance is directed to decree, through the proceedings prescribed by law, the division of the said land in conformity with the petition made by the plaintiff, and an indemnity, in behalf of the latter, in the sum of P50, the value of the seed lost. The delivery to the plaintiff of one-half of the abaca harvested on the land, or the value thereof, can not be ordered, on account of the lack of proof in the premises. No special finding is made as to costs. So ordered. Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 136448 November 3, 1999 LIM TONG LIM, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE FISHING GEAR INDUSTRIES, INC., respondent.

PANGANIBAN, J.: A partnership may be deemed to exist among parties who agree to borrow money to pursue a business and to divide the profits or losses that may arise therefrom, even if it is shown that they have not contributed any capital of their own to a "common fund." Their contribution may be in the form of credit or industry, not necessarily cash or fixed assets. Being partner, they are all liable for debts incurred by or on behalf of the partnership. The liability for a contract entered into on behalf of an unincorporated association or ostensible corporation may lie in a person who may not have directly transacted on its behalf, but reaped benefits from that contract. The Case In the Petition for Review on Certiorari before us, Lim Tong Lim assails the November 26, 1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV 41477, 1 which disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, [there being] no reversible error in the appealed decision, the same is hereby affirmed. 2 The decretal portion of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling, which was affirmed by the CA, reads as follows: WHEREFORE, the Court rules: 1. That plaintiff is entitled to the writ of preliminary attachment issued by this Court on September 20, 1990; 2. That defendants are jointly liable to plaintiff for the following amounts, subject to the modifications as hereinafter made by reason of the special and unique facts and circumstances and the proceedings that transpired during the trial of this case; a. P532,045.00 representing [the] unpaid purchase price of the fishing nets covered by the Agreement plus P68,000.00 representing the unpaid price of the floats not covered by said Agreement; b. 12% interest per annum counted from date of plaintiff's invoices and computed on their respective amounts as follows: i. Accrued interest of P73,221.00 on Invoice No. 14407 for P385,377.80 dated February 9, 1990;

ii. Accrued interest for P27,904.02 on Invoice No. 14413 for P146,868.00 dated February 13, 1990; iii. Accrued interest of P12,920.00 on Invoice No. 14426 for P68,000.00 dated February 19, 1990; c. P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees, plus P8,500.00 representing P500.00 per appearance in court; d. P65,000.00 representing P5,000.00 monthly rental for storage charges on the nets counted from September 20, 1990 (date of attachment) to September 12, 1991 (date of auction sale); e. Cost of suit. With respect to the joint liability of defendants for the principal obligation or for the unpaid price of nets and floats in the amount of P532,045.00 and P68,000.00, respectively, or for the total amount P600,045.00, this Court noted that these items were attached to guarantee any judgment that may be rendered in favor of the plaintiff but, upon agreement of the parties, and, to avoid further deterioration of the nets during the pendency of this case, it was ordered sold at public auction for not less than P900,000.00 for which the plaintiff was the sole and winning bidder. The proceeds of the sale paid for by plaintiff was deposited in court. In effect, the amount of P900,000.00 replaced the attached property as a guaranty for any judgment that plaintiff may be able to secure in this case with the ownership and possession of the nets and floats awarded and delivered by the sheriff to plaintiff as the highest bidder in the public auction sale. It has also been noted that ownership of the nets [was] retained by the plaintiff until full payment [was] made as stipulated in the invoices; hence, in effect, the plaintiff attached its own properties. It [was] for this reason also that this Court earlier ordered the attachment bond filed by plaintiff to guaranty damages to defendants to be cancelled and for the P900,000.00 cash bidded and paid for by plaintiff to serve as its bond in favor of defendants. From the foregoing, it would appear therefore that whatever judgment the plaintiff may be entitled to in this case will have to be satisfied from the amount of P900,000.00 as this amount replaced the attached nets and floats. Considering, however, that the total judgment obligation as computed above would amount to only P840,216.92, it would be inequitable, unfair and unjust to award the excess to the defendants who are not entitled to damages and who did not put up a single centavo to raise the amount of P900,000.00 aside from the fact that they are not the owners of the nets and floats. For this reason, the defendants are hereby relieved from any and all liabilities arising from the monetary judgment obligation enumerated above and for plaintiff to retain possession and ownership of the nets and floats and for the reimbursement of the P900,000.00 deposited by it with the Clerk of Court. SO ORDERED. 3 The Facts

On behalf of "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation," Antonio Chua and Peter Yao entered into a Contract dated February 7, 1990, for the purchase of fishing nets of various sizes from the Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, Inc. (herein respondent). They claimed that they were engaged in a business venture with Petitioner Lim Tong Lim, who however was not a signatory to the agreement. The total price of the nets amounted to P532,045. Four hundred pieces of floats worth P68,000 were also sold to the Corporation. 4 The buyers, however, failed to pay for the fishing nets and the floats; hence, private respondents filed a collection suit against Chua, Yao and Petitioner Lim Tong Lim with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. The suit was brought against the three in their capacities as general partners, on the allegation that "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation" was a nonexistent corporation as shown by a Certification from the Securities and Exchange Commission. 5 On September 20, 1990,
the lower court issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment, which the sheriff enforced by attaching the fishing nets on board F/B Lourdes which was then docked at the Fisheries Port, Navotas, Metro Manila.

Instead of answering the Complaint, Chua filed a Manifestation admitting his liability and requesting a reasonable time within which to pay. He also turned over to respondent some of the nets which were in his possession. Peter Yao filed an Answer, after which he was deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence on his behalf, because of his failure to appear in subsequent hearings. Lim Tong Lim, on the other hand, filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim and moved for the lifting of the Writ of Attachment. 6The trial court maintained the Writ,
and upon motion of private respondent, ordered the sale of the fishing nets at a public auction. Philippine Fishing Gear Industries won the bidding and deposited with the said court the sales proceeds of P900,000. 7

On November 18, 1992, the trial court rendered its Decision, ruling that Philippine Fishing Gear Industries was entitled to the Writ of Attachment and that Chua, Yao and Lim, as general partners, were jointly liable to pay respondent. 8 The trial court ruled that a partnership among Lim, Chua and Yao existed based (1) on the testimonies of the witnesses presented and (2) on a Compromise Agreement executed by the three 9 in Civil Case No. 1492-MN which Chua and Yao had brought against Lim in the RTC of Malabon,
Branch 72, for (a) a declaration of nullity of commercial documents; (b) a reformation of contracts; (c) a declaration of ownership of fishing boats; (d) an injunction and (e) damages. 10 The Compromise Agreement provided:

a) That the parties plaintiffs & Lim Tong Lim agree to have the four (4) vessels sold in the amount of P5,750,000.00 including the fishing net. This P5,750,000.00 shall be applied as full payment for P3,250,000.00 in favor of JL Holdings Corporation and/or Lim Tong Lim; b) If the four (4) vessel[s] and the fishing net will be sold at a higher price than P5,750,000.00 whatever will be the excess will be divided into 3: 1/3 Lim Tong Lim; 1/3 Antonio Chua; 1/3 Peter Yao; c) If the proceeds of the sale the vessels will be less than P5,750,000.00 whatever the deficiency shall be shouldered and paid to JL Holding Corporation by 1/3 Lim Tong Lim; 1/3 Antonio Chua; 1/3 Peter Yao. 11

The trial court noted that the Compromise Agreement was silent as to the nature of their obligations, but that joint liability could be presumed from the equal distribution of the profit and loss. 21 Lim appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which, as already stated, affirmed the RTC. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In affirming the trial court, the CA held that petitioner was a partner of Chua and Yao in a fishing business and may thus be held liable as a such for the fishing nets and floats purchased by and for the use of the partnership. The appellate court ruled: The evidence establishes that all the defendants including herein appellant Lim Tong Lim undertook a partnership for a specific undertaking, that is for commercial fishing . . . . Oviously, the ultimate undertaking of the defendants was to divide the profits among themselves which is what a partnership essentially is . . . . By a contract of partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves (Article 1767, New Civil Code). 13 Hence, petitioner brought this recourse before this Court. 14 The Issues In his Petition and Memorandum, Lim asks this Court to reverse the assailed Decision on the following grounds: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING, BASED ON A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT THAT CHUA, YAO AND PETITIONER LIM ENTERED INTO IN A SEPARATE CASE, THAT A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT EXISTED AMONG THEM. II SINCE IT WAS ONLY CHUA WHO REPRESENTED THAT HE WAS ACTING FOR OCEAN QUEST FISHING CORPORATION WHEN HE BOUGHT THE NETS FROM PHILIPPINE FISHING, THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN IMPUTING LIABILITY TO PETITIONER LIM AS WELL. III THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ORDERED THE SEIZURE AND ATTACHMENT OF PETITIONER LIM'S GOODS. In determining whether petitioner may be held liable for the fishing nets and floats from respondent, the Court must resolve this key issue: whether by their acts, Lim, Chua and Yao could be deemed to have entered into a partnership. This Court's Ruling The Petition is devoid of merit. First and Second Issues: Existence of a Partnership

and Petitioner's Liability In arguing that he should not be held liable for the equipment purchased from respondent, petitioner controverts the CA finding that a partnership existed between him, Peter Yao and Antonio Chua. He asserts that the CA based its finding on the Compromise Agreement alone. Furthermore, he disclaims any direct participation in the purchase of the nets, alleging that the negotiations were conducted by Chua and Yao only, and that he has not even met the representatives of the respondent company. Petitioner further argues that he was a lessor, not a partner, of Chua and Yao, for the "Contract of Lease " dated February 1, 1990, showed that he had merely leased to the two the main asset of the purported partnership the fishing boat F/B Lourdes. The lease was for six months, with a monthly rental of P37,500 plus 25 percent of the gross catch of the boat. We are not persuaded by the arguments of petitioner. The facts as found by the two lower courts clearly showed that there existed a partnership among Chua, Yao and him, pursuant to Article 1767 of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 1767 By the contract of partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Specifically, both lower courts ruled that a partnership among the three existed based on the following factual findings: 15 (1) That Petitioner Lim Tong Lim requested Peter Yao who was engaged in commercial fishing to join him, while Antonio Chua was already Yao's partner; (2) That after convening for a few times, Lim, Chua, and Yao verbally agreed to acquire two fishing boats, the FB Lourdes and the FB Nelson for the sum of P3.35 million; (3) That they borrowed P3.25 million from Jesus Lim, brother of Petitioner Lim Tong Lim, to finance the venture. (4) That they bought the boats from CMF Fishing Corporation, which executed a Deed of Sale over these two (2) boats in favor of Petitioner Lim Tong Lim only to serve as security for the loan extended by Jesus Lim; (5) That Lim, Chua and Yao agreed that the refurbishing, re-equipping, repairing, dry docking and other expenses for the boats would be shouldered by Chua and Yao; (6) That because of the "unavailability of funds," Jesus Lim again extended a loan to the partnership in the amount of P1 million secured by a check, because of which, Yao and Chua entrusted the ownership papers of two other boats, Chua's FB Lady Anne Mel and Yao's FB Tracy to Lim Tong Lim. (7) That in pursuance of the business agreement, Peter Yao and Antonio Chua bought nets from Respondent Philippine Fishing Gear, in behalf of "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation," their purported business name. (8) That subsequently, Civil Case No. 1492-MN was filed in the Malabon RTC, Branch 72 by Antonio Chua and Peter Yao against Lim Tong Lim for (a) declaration

of nullity of commercial documents; (b) reformation of contracts; (c) declaration of ownership of fishing boats; (4) injunction; and (e) damages. (9) That the case was amicably settled through a Compromise Agreement executed between the parties-litigants the terms of which are already enumerated above. From the factual findings of both lower courts, it is clear that Chua, Yao and Lim had decided to engage in a fishing business, which they started by buying boats worth P3.35 million, financed by a loan secured from Jesus Lim who was petitioner's brother. In their Compromise Agreement, they subsequently revealed their intention to pay the loan with the proceeds of the sale of the boats, and to divide equally among them the excess or loss. These boats, the purchase and the repair of which were financed with borrowed money, fell under the term "common fund" under Article 1767. The contribution to such fund need not be cash or fixed assets; it could be an intangible like credit or industry. That the parties agreed that any loss or profit from the sale and operation of the boats would be divided equally among them also shows that they had indeed formed a partnership. Moreover, it is clear that the partnership extended not only to the purchase of the boat, but also to that of the nets and the floats. The fishing nets and the floats, both essential to fishing, were obviously acquired in furtherance of their business. It would have been inconceivable for Lim to involve himself so much in buying the boat but not in the acquisition of the aforesaid equipment, without which the business could not have proceeded. Given the preceding facts, it is clear that there was, among petitioner, Chua and Yao, a partnership engaged in the fishing business. They purchased the boats, which constituted the main assets of the partnership, and they agreed that the proceeds from the sales and operations thereof would be divided among them. We stress that under Rule 45, a petition for review like the present case should involve only questions of law. Thus, the foregoing factual findings of the RTC and the CA are binding on this Court, absent any cogent proof that the present action is embraced by one of the exceptions to the rule. 16 In assailing the factual findings of the two lower courts, petitioner effectively goes beyond the
bounds of a petition for review under Rule 45.

Compromise Agreement Not the Sole Basis of Partnership Petitioner argues that the appellate court's sole basis for assuming the existence of a partnership was the Compromise Agreement. He also claims that the settlement was entered into only to end the dispute among them, but not to adjudicate their preexisting rights and obligations. His arguments are baseless. The Agreement was but an embodiment of the relationship extant among the parties prior to its execution. A proper adjudication of claimants' rights mandates that courts must review and thoroughly appraise all relevant facts. Both lower courts have done so and have found, correctly, a preexisting partnership among the parties. In implying that the lower courts have decided on the basis of one piece of document alone, petitioner fails to appreciate that the CA and the RTC delved into the history of the document and explored all the possible consequential combinations in harmony with law, logic and fairness. Verily, the two lower courts' factual findings mentioned above nullified petitioner's argument that the existence of a partnership was based only on the Compromise Agreement.

Petitioner Was a Partner, Not a Lessor We are not convinced by petitioner's argument that he was merely the lessor of the boats to Chua and Yao, not a partner in the fishing venture. His argument allegedly finds support in the Contract of Lease and the registration papers showing that he was the owner of the boats, including F/B Lourdes where the nets were found. His allegation defies logic. In effect, he would like this Court to believe that he consented to the sale of his own boats to pay a debt of Chua and Yao, with the excess of the proceeds to be divided among the three of them. No lessor would do what petitioner did. Indeed, his consent to the sale proved that there was a preexisting partnership among all three. Verily, as found by the lower courts, petitioner entered into a business agreement with Chua and Yao, in which debts were undertaken in order to finance the acquisition and the upgrading of the vessels which would be used in their fishing business. The sale of the boats, as well as the division among the three of the balance remaining after the payment of their loans, proves beyond cavil that F/B Lourdes, though registered in his name, was not his own property but an asset of the partnership. It is not uncommon to register the properties acquired from a loan in the name of the person the lender trusts, who in this case is the petitioner himself. After all, he is the brother of the creditor, Jesus Lim. We stress that it is unreasonable indeed, it is absurd for petitioner to sell his property to pay a debt he did not incur, if the relationship among the three of them was merely that of lessor-lessee, instead of partners. Corporation by Estoppel Petitioner argues that under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel, liability can be imputed only to Chua and Yao, and not to him. Again, we disagree. Sec. 21 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines provides: Sec. 21. Corporation by estoppel. All persons who assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result thereof: Provided however, That when any such ostensible corporation is sued on any transaction entered by it as a corporation or on any tort committed by it as such, it shall not be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate personality. One who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as such, cannot resist performance thereof on the ground that there was in fact no corporation. Thus, even if the ostensible corporate entity is proven to be legally nonexistent, a party may be estopped from denying its corporate existence. "The reason behind this doctrine is obvious an unincorporated association has no personality and would be incompetent to act and appropriate for itself the power and attributes of a corporation as provided by law; it cannot create agents or confer authority on another to act in its behalf; thus, those who act or purport to act as its representatives or agents do so without authority and at their own risk. And as it is an elementary principle of law that a person who acts as an agent without authority or without a principal is himself regarded as the

principal, possessed of all the right and subject to all the liabilities of a principal, a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of a corporation which has no valid existence assumes such privileges and obligations and becomes personally liable for contracts entered into or for other acts performed as such agent. 17 The doctrine of corporation by estoppel may apply to the alleged corporation and to a third party. In the first instance, an unincorporated association, which represented itself to be a corporation, will be estopped from denying its corporate capacity in a suit against it by a third person who relied in good faith on such representation. It cannot allege lack of personality to be sued to evade its responsibility for a contract it entered into and by virtue of which it received advantages and benefits. On the other hand, a third party who, knowing an association to be unincorporated, nonetheless treated it as a corporation and received benefits from it, may be barred from denying its corporate existence in a suit brought against the alleged corporation. In such case, all those who benefited from the transaction made by the ostensible corporation, despite knowledge of its legal defects, may be held liable for contracts they impliedly assented to or took advantage of. There is no dispute that the respondent, Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, is entitled to be paid for the nets it sold. The only question here is whether petitioner should be held jointly 18 liable with Chua
and Yao. Petitioner contests such liability, insisting that only those who dealt in the name of the ostensible corporation should be held liable. Since his name does not appear on any of the contracts and since he never directly transacted with the respondent corporation, ergo, he cannot be held liable.

Unquestionably, petitioner benefited from the use of the nets found inside F/B Lourdes, the boat which has earlier been proven to be an asset of the partnership. He in fact questions the attachment of the nets, because the Writ has effectively stopped his use of the fishing vessel. It is difficult to disagree with the RTC and the CA that Lim, Chua and Yao decided to form a corporation. Although it was never legally formed for unknown reasons, this fact alone does not preclude the liabilities of the three as contracting parties in representation of it. Clearly, under the law on estoppel, those acting on behalf of a corporation and those benefited by it, knowing it to be without valid existence, are held liable as general partners. Technically, it is true that petitioner did not directly act on behalf of the corporation. However, having reaped the benefits of the contract entered into by persons with whom he previously had an existing relationship, he is deemed to be part of said association and is covered by the scope of the doctrine of corporation by estoppel. We reiterate the ruling of the Court in Alonso v. Villamor: 19 A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather, a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There should be no vested rights in technicalities. Third Issue: Validity of Attachment

Finally, petitioner claims that the Writ of Attachment was improperly issued against the nets. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this issue is now moot and academic. As previously discussed, F/B Lourdes was an asset of the partnership and that it was placed in the name of petitioner, only to assure payment of the debt he and his partners owed. The nets and the floats were specifically manufactured and tailor-made according to their own design, and were bought and used in the fishing venture they agreed upon. Hence, the issuance of the Writ to assure the payment of the price stipulated in the invoices is proper. Besides, by specific agreement, ownership of the nets remained with Respondent Philippine Fishing Gear, until full payment thereof. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Melo, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur. Vitug, J., pls. see concurring opinion. Separate Opinions VITUG, J., concurring opinion; I share the views expressed in the ponencia of an esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, particularly the finding that Antonio Chua, Peter Yao and petitioner Lim Tong Lim have incurred the liabilities of general partners. I merely would wish to elucidate a bit, albeit briefly, the liability of partners in a general partnership. When a person by his act or deed represents himself as a partner in an existing partnership or with one or more persons not actual partners, he is deemed an agent of such persons consenting to such representation and in the same manner, if he were a partner, with respect to persons who rely upon the representation. 1 The association formed by Chua, Yao and Lim, should be, as it has been deemed,
a de facto partnership with all the consequent obligations for the purpose of enforcing the rights of third persons. The liability of general partners (in a general partnership as so opposed to a limited partnership) is laid down in Article 1816 2 which posits that all partners shall be liable pro rata beyond the partnership assets for all the contracts which may have been entered into in its name, under its signature, and by a person authorized to act for the partnership. This rule is to be construed along with other provisions of the Civil Code which postulate that the partners can be held solidarily liable with the partnership specifically in these instances (1) where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership or with the authority of his co-partners, loss or injury is caused to any person, not being a partner in the partnership, or any penalty is incurred, the partnership is liable therefor to the same extent as the partner so acting or omitting to act; (2) where one partner acting within the scope of his apparent authority receives money or property of a third person and misapplies it; and (3) where the partnership in the course of its business receives money or property of a third person and the money or property so received is misapplied by any partner while it is in the custody of the partnership 3 consistently with the rules on the nature of civil liability in delicts and quasi-delicts.

Footnotes 1 Penned by J. Portia Alino-Hormachuelos; with the concurrence of JJ. Buenaventura J. Guerrero, Division chairman, and Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., member.

2 CA Decision, p. 12; rollo, p. 36. 3 RTC Decision penned by Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion. pp. 11-12; rollo, pp. 48-49. 4 CA Decision, pp. 1-2; rollo, pp. 25-26. 5 Ibid., p. 2; rollo, p. 26. 6 RTC Decision, p. 2; Rollo, p. 39. 7 Petition, p. 4; rollo, p. 11. 8 Ibid. 9 RTC Decision, pp. 6-7; rollo, pp. 43-44. 10 Respondent's Memorandum, pp. 5, 8; rollo, pp. 107, 109. 11 CA Decision, pp. 9-10; rollo, pp. 33-34. 12 RTC Decision, p. 10; rollo, p. 47. 13 Ibid. 14 This case was deemed submitted for resolution on August 10, 1999, when this Court received petitioner's Memorandum signed by Atty. Roberto A. Abad. Respondent's Memorandum signed by Atty. Benjamin S. Benito was filed earlier on July 27, 1999. 15 Nos. 1-7 are from CA Decision p. 9 (rollo, p. 33); No. 8 is from RTC Decision, p. 5 (rollo, p. 42); and No. 9 is from CA Decision, pp. 9-10 (rollo, pp. 33-34). 16 See Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 703, February 26, 1997. 17 Salvatierra v. Garlitos, 103 SCRA 757, May 23, 1958, per Felix J.; citing Fay v. Noble, 7 Cushing [Mass.] 188. 18 The liability is joint if it is not specifically stated that it is solidary," Maramba v. Lozano, 126 Phil 833, June 29, 1967, per Makalintal, J. See also Article 1207 of the Civil Code, which provides: "The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one [and] the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestation. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. 19 16 Phil. 315, July 26, 1910, per Moreland, J.

VITUG, J., concurring opinion; 1 Art. 1825. When a person, by words spoken or written or by conduct, represents himself, or consents to another representing him to anyone, as a partner in an existing partnership or with one or more persons not actual partners, he is liable to any such persons to whom such representation has been made, who has, on the faith of such representation, given credit to the actual or apparent partnership, and if he has made such representation or consented to its being made in a public manner he is liable to such person, whether the representation has or has not been made or communicated to such person so giving credit by or with the knowledge of the apparent partner making the representation or consenting to its being made: (1) When a partnership liability results, he is liable as though he were an actual member of the partnership; (2) When no partnership liability results, he is liable pro rata with the other persons, if any, so consenting to the contract or representation as to incur liability, otherwise separately. When a person has been thus represented to be a partner in an existing partnership, or with one or more persons not actual partners, he is an agent of the persons consenting to such representation to bind them to the same extent and in the same manner as though he were a partner in fact, with respect to persons who rely upon the representation. When all the members of the existing partnership consent to the representation, a partnership act or obligation results; but in all other cases it is the joint act or obligation of the person acting and the persons consenting to the representation. 2 All partners, including industrial ones, shall be liable pro rata with all their property and after all the partnership assets have been exhausted, for the contracts which may be entered into in the name and for the account of the partnership, under its signature and by a person authorized to act for the partnership. However, any partner may enter into a separate obligation to perform a partnership contract. 3 Art. 1824 in relation to Article 1822 and Article 1823, New Civil Code.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 136448 November 3, 1999

LIM TONG LIM, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE FISHING GEAR INDUSTRIES, INC., respondent.

PANGANIBAN, J.: A partnership may be deemed to exist among parties who agree to borrow money to pursue a business and to divide the profits or losses that may arise therefrom, even if it is shown that they have not contributed any capital of their own to a "common fund." Their contribution may be in the form of credit or industry, not necessarily cash or fixed assets. Being partner, they are all liable for debts incurred by or on behalf of the partnership. The liability for a contract entered into on behalf of an unincorporated association or ostensible corporation may lie in a person who may not have directly transacted on its behalf, but reaped benefits from that contract. The Case In the Petition for Review on Certiorari before us, Lim Tong Lim assails the November 26, 1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV 41477, 1 which disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, [there being] no reversible error in the appealed decision, the same is hereby affirmed. 2 The decretal portion of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling, which was affirmed by the CA, reads as follows: WHEREFORE, the Court rules: 1. That plaintiff is entitled to the writ of preliminary attachment issued by this Court on September 20, 1990; 2. That defendants are jointly liable to plaintiff for the following amounts, subject to the modifications as hereinafter made by reason of the special and unique facts and circumstances and the proceedings that transpired during the trial of this case; a. P532,045.00 representing [the] unpaid purchase price of the fishing nets covered by the Agreement plus P68,000.00 representing the unpaid price of the floats not covered by said Agreement; b. 12% interest per annum counted from date of plaintiff's invoices and computed on their respective amounts as follows: i. Accrued interest of P73,221.00 on Invoice No. 14407 for P385,377.80 dated February 9, 1990; ii. Accrued interest for P27,904.02 on Invoice No. 14413 for P146,868.00 dated February 13, 1990;

iii. Accrued interest of P12,920.00 on Invoice No. 14426 for P68,000.00 dated February 19, 1990; c. P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees, plus P8,500.00 representing P500.00 per appearance in court; d. P65,000.00 representing P5,000.00 monthly rental for storage charges on the nets counted from September 20, 1990 (date of attachment) to September 12, 1991 (date of auction sale); e. Cost of suit. With respect to the joint liability of defendants for the principal obligation or for the unpaid price of nets and floats in the amount of P532,045.00 and P68,000.00, respectively, or for the total amount P600,045.00, this Court noted that these items were attached to guarantee any judgment that may be rendered in favor of the plaintiff but, upon agreement of the parties, and, to avoid further deterioration of the nets during the pendency of this case, it was ordered sold at public auction for not less than P900,000.00 for which the plaintiff was the sole and winning bidder. The proceeds of the sale paid for by plaintiff was deposited in court. In effect, the amount of P900,000.00 replaced the attached property as a guaranty for any judgment that plaintiff may be able to secure in this case with the ownership and possession of the nets and floats awarded and delivered by the sheriff to plaintiff as the highest bidder in the public auction sale. It has also been noted that ownership of the nets [was] retained by the plaintiff until full payment [was] made as stipulated in the invoices; hence, in effect, the plaintiff attached its own properties. It [was] for this reason also that this Court earlier ordered the attachment bond filed by plaintiff to guaranty damages to defendants to be cancelled and for the P900,000.00 cash bidded and paid for by plaintiff to serve as its bond in favor of defendants. From the foregoing, it would appear therefore that whatever judgment the plaintiff may be entitled to in this case will have to be satisfied from the amount of P900,000.00 as this amount replaced the attached nets and floats. Considering, however, that the total judgment obligation as computed above would amount to only P840,216.92, it would be inequitable, unfair and unjust to award the excess to the defendants who are not entitled to damages and who did not put up a single centavo to raise the amount of P900,000.00 aside from the fact that they are not the owners of the nets and floats. For this reason, the defendants are hereby relieved from any and all liabilities arising from the monetary judgment obligation enumerated above and for plaintiff to retain possession and ownership of the nets and floats and for the reimbursement of the P900,000.00 deposited by it with the Clerk of Court. SO ORDERED. 3 The Facts On behalf of "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation," Antonio Chua and Peter Yao entered into a Contract dated February 7, 1990, for the purchase of fishing nets of various sizes from the Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, Inc. (herein respondent). They claimed that they were engaged in a

business venture with Petitioner Lim Tong Lim, who however was not a signatory to the agreement. The total price of the nets amounted to P532,045. Four hundred pieces of floats worth P68,000 were also sold to the Corporation. 4 The buyers, however, failed to pay for the fishing nets and the floats; hence, private respondents filed a collection suit against Chua, Yao and Petitioner Lim Tong Lim with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. The suit was brought against the three in their capacities as general partners, on the allegation that "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation" was a nonexistent corporation as shown by a Certification from the Securities and Exchange Commission. 5 On September 20, 1990,
the lower court issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment, which the sheriff enforced by attaching the fishing nets on board F/B Lourdes which was then docked at the Fisheries Port, Navotas, Metro Manila.

Instead of answering the Complaint, Chua filed a Manifestation admitting his liability and requesting a reasonable time within which to pay. He also turned over to respondent some of the nets which were in his possession. Peter Yao filed an Answer, after which he was deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence on his behalf, because of his failure to appear in subsequent hearings. Lim Tong Lim, on the other hand, filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim and moved for the lifting of the Writ of Attachment. 6The trial court maintained the Writ,
and upon motion of private respondent, ordered the sale of the fishing nets at a public auction. Philippine Fishing Gear Industries won the bidding and deposited with the said court the sales proceeds of P900,000. 7

On November 18, 1992, the trial court rendered its Decision, ruling that Philippine Fishing Gear Industries was entitled to the Writ of Attachment and that Chua, Yao and Lim, as general partners, were jointly liable to pay respondent. 8 The trial court ruled that a partnership among Lim, Chua and Yao existed based (1) on the testimonies of the witnesses presented and (2) on a Compromise Agreement executed by the three 9 in Civil Case No. 1492-MN which Chua and Yao had brought against Lim in the RTC of Malabon,
Branch 72, for (a) a declaration of nullity of commercial documents; (b) a reformation of contracts; (c) a declaration of ownership of fishing boats; (d) an injunction and (e) damages.10 The Compromise Agreement provided:

a) That the parties plaintiffs & Lim Tong Lim agree to have the four (4) vessels sold in the amount of P5,750,000.00 including the fishing net. This P5,750,000.00 shall be applied as full payment for P3,250,000.00 in favor of JL Holdings Corporation and/or Lim Tong Lim; b) If the four (4) vessel[s] and the fishing net will be sold at a higher price than P5,750,000.00 whatever will be the excess will be divided into 3: 1/3 Lim Tong Lim; 1/3 Antonio Chua; 1/3 Peter Yao; c) If the proceeds of the sale the vessels will be less than P5,750,000.00 whatever the deficiency shall be shouldered and paid to JL Holding Corporation by 1/3 Lim Tong Lim; 1/3 Antonio Chua; 1/3 Peter Yao. 11 The trial court noted that the Compromise Agreement was silent as to the nature of their obligations, but that joint liability could be presumed from the equal distribution of the profit and loss. 21 Lim appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which, as already stated, affirmed the RTC.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals In affirming the trial court, the CA held that petitioner was a partner of Chua and Yao in a fishing business and may thus be held liable as a such for the fishing nets and floats purchased by and for the use of the partnership. The appellate court ruled: The evidence establishes that all the defendants including herein appellant Lim Tong Lim undertook a partnership for a specific undertaking, that is for commercial fishing . . . . Oviously, the ultimate undertaking of the defendants was to divide the profits among themselves which is what a partnership essentially is . . . . By a contract of partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves (Article 1767, New Civil Code). 13 Hence, petitioner brought this recourse before this Court. 14 The Issues In his Petition and Memorandum, Lim asks this Court to reverse the assailed Decision on the following grounds: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING, BASED ON A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT THAT CHUA, YAO AND PETITIONER LIM ENTERED INTO IN A SEPARATE CASE, THAT A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT EXISTED AMONG THEM. II SINCE IT WAS ONLY CHUA WHO REPRESENTED THAT HE WAS ACTING FOR OCEAN QUEST FISHING CORPORATION WHEN HE BOUGHT THE NETS FROM PHILIPPINE FISHING, THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN IMPUTING LIABILITY TO PETITIONER LIM AS WELL. III THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ORDERED THE SEIZURE AND ATTACHMENT OF PETITIONER LIM'S GOODS. In determining whether petitioner may be held liable for the fishing nets and floats from respondent, the Court must resolve this key issue: whether by their acts, Lim, Chua and Yao could be deemed to have entered into a partnership. This Court's Ruling The Petition is devoid of merit. First and Second Issues: Existence of a Partnership and Petitioner's Liability In arguing that he should not be held liable for the equipment purchased from respondent, petitioner controverts the CA finding that a partnership existed between him, Peter Yao and Antonio Chua. He asserts that the CA based its finding on the Compromise Agreement alone. Furthermore, he

disclaims any direct participation in the purchase of the nets, alleging that the negotiations were conducted by Chua and Yao only, and that he has not even met the representatives of the respondent company. Petitioner further argues that he was a lessor, not a partner, of Chua and Yao, for the "Contract of Lease " dated February 1, 1990, showed that he had merely leased to the two the main asset of the purported partnership the fishing boat F/B Lourdes. The lease was for six months, with a monthly rental of P37,500 plus 25 percent of the gross catch of the boat. We are not persuaded by the arguments of petitioner. The facts as found by the two lower courts clearly showed that there existed a partnership among Chua, Yao and him, pursuant to Article 1767 of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 1767 By the contract of partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Specifically, both lower courts ruled that a partnership among the three existed based on the following factual findings: 15 (1) That Petitioner Lim Tong Lim requested Peter Yao who was engaged in commercial fishing to join him, while Antonio Chua was already Yao's partner; (2) That after convening for a few times, Lim, Chua, and Yao verbally agreed to acquire two fishing boats, the FB Lourdes and the FB Nelson for the sum of P3.35 million; (3) That they borrowed P3.25 million from Jesus Lim, brother of Petitioner Lim Tong Lim, to finance the venture. (4) That they bought the boats from CMF Fishing Corporation, which executed a Deed of Sale over these two (2) boats in favor of Petitioner Lim Tong Lim only to serve as security for the loan extended by Jesus Lim; (5) That Lim, Chua and Yao agreed that the refurbishing, re-equipping, repairing, dry docking and other expenses for the boats would be shouldered by Chua and Yao; (6) That because of the "unavailability of funds," Jesus Lim again extended a loan to the partnership in the amount of P1 million secured by a check, because of which, Yao and Chua entrusted the ownership papers of two other boats, Chua's FB Lady Anne Mel and Yao's FB Tracy to Lim Tong Lim. (7) That in pursuance of the business agreement, Peter Yao and Antonio Chua bought nets from Respondent Philippine Fishing Gear, in behalf of "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation," their purported business name. (8) That subsequently, Civil Case No. 1492-MN was filed in the Malabon RTC, Branch 72 by Antonio Chua and Peter Yao against Lim Tong Lim for (a) declaration of nullity of commercial documents; (b) reformation of contracts; (c) declaration of ownership of fishing boats; (4) injunction; and (e) damages. (9) That the case was amicably settled through a Compromise Agreement executed between the parties-litigants the terms of which are already enumerated above.

From the factual findings of both lower courts, it is clear that Chua, Yao and Lim had decided to engage in a fishing business, which they started by buying boats worth P3.35 million, financed by a loan secured from Jesus Lim who was petitioner's brother. In their Compromise Agreement, they subsequently revealed their intention to pay the loan with the proceeds of the sale of the boats, and to divide equally among them the excess or loss. These boats, the purchase and the repair of which were financed with borrowed money, fell under the term "common fund" under Article 1767. The contribution to such fund need not be cash or fixed assets; it could be an intangible like credit or industry. That the parties agreed that any loss or profit from the sale and operation of the boats would be divided equally among them also shows that they had indeed formed a partnership. Moreover, it is clear that the partnership extended not only to the purchase of the boat, but also to that of the nets and the floats. The fishing nets and the floats, both essential to fishing, were obviously acquired in furtherance of their business. It would have been inconceivable for Lim to involve himself so much in buying the boat but not in the acquisition of the aforesaid equipment, without which the business could not have proceeded. Given the preceding facts, it is clear that there was, among petitioner, Chua and Yao, a partnership engaged in the fishing business. They purchased the boats, which constituted the main assets of the partnership, and they agreed that the proceeds from the sales and operations thereof would be divided among them. We stress that under Rule 45, a petition for review like the present case should involve only questions of law. Thus, the foregoing factual findings of the RTC and the CA are binding on this Court, absent any cogent proof that the present action is embraced by one of the exceptions to the rule. 16 In assailing the factual findings of the two lower courts, petitioner effectively goes beyond the
bounds of a petition for review under Rule 45.

Compromise Agreement Not the Sole Basis of Partnership Petitioner argues that the appellate court's sole basis for assuming the existence of a partnership was the Compromise Agreement. He also claims that the settlement was entered into only to end the dispute among them, but not to adjudicate their preexisting rights and obligations. His arguments are baseless. The Agreement was but an embodiment of the relationship extant among the parties prior to its execution. A proper adjudication of claimants' rights mandates that courts must review and thoroughly appraise all relevant facts. Both lower courts have done so and have found, correctly, a preexisting partnership among the parties. In implying that the lower courts have decided on the basis of one piece of document alone, petitioner fails to appreciate that the CA and the RTC delved into the history of the document and explored all the possible consequential combinations in harmony with law, logic and fairness. Verily, the two lower courts' factual findings mentioned above nullified petitioner's argument that the existence of a partnership was based only on the Compromise Agreement. Petitioner Was a Partner, Not a Lessor We are not convinced by petitioner's argument that he was merely the lessor of the boats to Chua and Yao, not a partner in the fishing venture. His argument allegedly finds support in the Contract of

Lease and the registration papers showing that he was the owner of the boats, including F/B Lourdes where the nets were found. His allegation defies logic. In effect, he would like this Court to believe that he consented to the sale of his own boats to pay a debt of Chua and Yao, with the excess of the proceeds to be divided among the three of them. No lessor would do what petitioner did. Indeed, his consent to the sale proved that there was a preexisting partnership among all three. Verily, as found by the lower courts, petitioner entered into a business agreement with Chua and Yao, in which debts were undertaken in order to finance the acquisition and the upgrading of the vessels which would be used in their fishing business. The sale of the boats, as well as the division among the three of the balance remaining after the payment of their loans, proves beyond cavil that F/B Lourdes, though registered in his name, was not his own property but an asset of the partnership. It is not uncommon to register the properties acquired from a loan in the name of the person the lender trusts, who in this case is the petitioner himself. After all, he is the brother of the creditor, Jesus Lim. We stress that it is unreasonable indeed, it is absurd for petitioner to sell his property to pay a debt he did not incur, if the relationship among the three of them was merely that of lessor-lessee, instead of partners. Corporation by Estoppel Petitioner argues that under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel, liability can be imputed only to Chua and Yao, and not to him. Again, we disagree. Sec. 21 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines provides: Sec. 21. Corporation by estoppel. All persons who assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result thereof: Provided however, That when any such ostensible corporation is sued on any transaction entered by it as a corporation or on any tort committed by it as such, it shall not be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate personality. One who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as such, cannot resist performance thereof on the ground that there was in fact no corporation. Thus, even if the ostensible corporate entity is proven to be legally nonexistent, a party may be estopped from denying its corporate existence. "The reason behind this doctrine is obvious an unincorporated association has no personality and would be incompetent to act and appropriate for itself the power and attributes of a corporation as provided by law; it cannot create agents or confer authority on another to act in its behalf; thus, those who act or purport to act as its representatives or agents do so without authority and at their own risk. And as it is an elementary principle of law that a person who acts as an agent without authority or without a principal is himself regarded as the principal, possessed of all the right and subject to all the liabilities of a principal, a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of a corporation which has no valid existence assumes such privileges and obligations and becomes personally liable for contracts entered into or for other acts performed as such agent. 17 The doctrine of corporation by estoppel may apply to the alleged corporation and to a third party. In the first instance, an unincorporated association, which represented itself to be a corporation, will be

estopped from denying its corporate capacity in a suit against it by a third person who relied in good faith on such representation. It cannot allege lack of personality to be sued to evade its responsibility for a contract it entered into and by virtue of which it received advantages and benefits. On the other hand, a third party who, knowing an association to be unincorporated, nonetheless treated it as a corporation and received benefits from it, may be barred from denying its corporate existence in a suit brought against the alleged corporation. In such case, all those who benefited from the transaction made by the ostensible corporation, despite knowledge of its legal defects, may be held liable for contracts they impliedly assented to or took advantage of. There is no dispute that the respondent, Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, is entitled to be paid for the nets it sold. The only question here is whether petitioner should be held jointly 18 liable with Chua
and Yao. Petitioner contests such liability, insisting that only those who dealt in the name of the ostensible corporation should be held liable. Since his name does not appear on any of the contracts and since he never directly transacted with the respondent corporation, ergo, he cannot be held liable.

Unquestionably, petitioner benefited from the use of the nets found inside F/B Lourdes, the boat which has earlier been proven to be an asset of the partnership. He in fact questions the attachment of the nets, because the Writ has effectively stopped his use of the fishing vessel. It is difficult to disagree with the RTC and the CA that Lim, Chua and Yao decided to form a corporation. Although it was never legally formed for unknown reasons, this fact alone does not preclude the liabilities of the three as contracting parties in representation of it. Clearly, under the law on estoppel, those acting on behalf of a corporation and those benefited by it, knowing it to be without valid existence, are held liable as general partners. Technically, it is true that petitioner did not directly act on behalf of the corporation. However, having reaped the benefits of the contract entered into by persons with whom he previously had an existing relationship, he is deemed to be part of said association and is covered by the scope of the doctrine of corporation by estoppel. We reiterate the ruling of the Court in Alonso v. Villamor: 19 A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather, a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There should be no vested rights in technicalities. Third Issue: Validity of Attachment Finally, petitioner claims that the Writ of Attachment was improperly issued against the nets. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this issue is now moot and academic. As previously discussed, F/B Lourdes was an asset of the partnership and that it was placed in the name of petitioner, only to assure payment of the debt he and his partners owed. The nets and the floats were specifically manufactured and tailor-made according to their own design, and were bought and used in the fishing venture they agreed upon. Hence, the issuance of the Writ to assure the payment

of the price stipulated in the invoices is proper. Besides, by specific agreement, ownership of the nets remained with Respondent Philippine Fishing Gear, until full payment thereof. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Melo, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur. Vitug, J., pls. see concurring opinion. Separate Opinions VITUG, J., concurring opinion; I share the views expressed in the ponencia of an esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, particularly the finding that Antonio Chua, Peter Yao and petitioner Lim Tong Lim have incurred the liabilities of general partners. I merely would wish to elucidate a bit, albeit briefly, the liability of partners in a general partnership. When a person by his act or deed represents himself as a partner in an existing partnership or with one or more persons not actual partners, he is deemed an agent of such persons consenting to such representation and in the same manner, if he were a partner, with respect to persons who rely upon the representation. 1 The association formed by Chua, Yao and Lim, should be, as it has been deemed,
a de facto partnership with all the consequent obligations for the purpose of enforcing the rights of third persons. The liability of general partners (in a general partnership as so opposed to a limited partnership) is laid down in Article 1816 2 which posits that all partners shall be liable pro rata beyond the partnership assets for all the contracts which may have been entered into in its name, under its signature, and by a person authorized to act for the partnership. This rule is to be construed along with other provisions of the Civil Code which postulate that the partners can be held solidarily liable with the partnership specifically in these instances (1) where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership or with the authority of his co-partners, loss or injury is caused to any person, not being a partner in the partnership, or any penalty is incurred, the partnership is liable therefor to the same extent as the partner so acting or omitting to act; (2) where one partner acting within the scope of his apparent authority receives money or property of a third person and misapplies it; and (3) where the partnership in the course of its business receives money or property of a third person and the money or property so received is misapplied by any partner while it is in the custody of the partnership 3 consistently with the rules on the nature of civil liability in delicts and quasi-delicts.

Footnotes 1 Penned by J. Portia Alino-Hormachuelos; with the concurrence of JJ. Buenaventura J. Guerrero, Division chairman, and Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., member. 2 CA Decision, p. 12; rollo, p. 36. 3 RTC Decision penned by Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion. pp. 11-12; rollo, pp. 48-49. 4 CA Decision, pp. 1-2; rollo, pp. 25-26.

5 Ibid., p. 2; rollo, p. 26. 6 RTC Decision, p. 2; Rollo, p. 39. 7 Petition, p. 4; rollo, p. 11. 8 Ibid. 9 RTC Decision, pp. 6-7; rollo, pp. 43-44. 10 Respondent's Memorandum, pp. 5, 8; rollo, pp. 107, 109. 11 CA Decision, pp. 9-10; rollo, pp. 33-34. 12 RTC Decision, p. 10; rollo, p. 47. 13 Ibid. 14 This case was deemed submitted for resolution on August 10, 1999, when this Court received petitioner's Memorandum signed by Atty. Roberto A. Abad. Respondent's Memorandum signed by Atty. Benjamin S. Benito was filed earlier on July 27, 1999. 15 Nos. 1-7 are from CA Decision p. 9 (rollo, p. 33); No. 8 is from RTC Decision, p. 5 (rollo, p. 42); and No. 9 is from CA Decision, pp. 9-10 (rollo, pp. 33-34). 16 See Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 703, February 26, 1997. 17 Salvatierra v. Garlitos, 103 SCRA 757, May 23, 1958, per Felix J.; citing Fay v. Noble, 7 Cushing [Mass.] 188. 18 The liability is joint if it is not specifically stated that it is solidary," Maramba v. Lozano, 126 Phil 833, June 29, 1967, per Makalintal, J. See also Article 1207 of the Civil Code, which provides: "The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one [and] the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestation. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. 19 16 Phil. 315, July 26, 1910, per Moreland, J. VITUG, J., concurring opinion; 1 Art. 1825. When a person, by words spoken or written or by conduct, represents himself, or consents to another representing him to anyone, as a partner in an existing partnership or with one or more persons not actual partners, he is liable to any such persons to whom such representation has been made, who has, on the faith of such representation, given credit to the actual or apparent partnership, and if he has made such representation or

consented to its being made in a public manner he is liable to such person, whether the representation has or has not been made or communicated to such person so giving credit by or with the knowledge of the apparent partner making the representation or consenting to its being made: (1) When a partnership liability results, he is liable as though he were an actual member of the partnership; (2) When no partnership liability results, he is liable pro rata with the other persons, if any, so consenting to the contract or representation as to incur liability, otherwise separately. When a person has been thus represented to be a partner in an existing partnership, or with one or more persons not actual partners, he is an agent of the persons consenting to such representation to bind them to the same extent and in the same manner as though he were a partner in fact, with respect to persons who rely upon the representation. When all the members of the existing partnership consent to the representation, a partnership act or obligation results; but in all other cases it is the joint act or obligation of the person acting and the persons consenting to the representation. 2 All partners, including industrial ones, shall be liable pro rata with all their property and after all the partnership assets have been exhausted, for the contracts which may be entered into in the name and for the account of the partnership, under its signature and by a person authorized to act for the partnership. However, any partner may enter into a separate obligation to perform a partnership contract. 3 Art. 1824 in relation to Article 1822 and Article 1823, New Civil Code.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 136448 November 3, 1999 LIM TONG LIM, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE FISHING GEAR INDUSTRIES, INC., respondent.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

A partnership may be deemed to exist among parties who agree to borrow money to pursue a business and to divide the profits or losses that may arise therefrom, even if it is shown that they have not contributed any capital of their own to a "common fund." Their contribution may be in the form of credit or industry, not necessarily cash or fixed assets. Being partner, they are all liable for debts incurred by or on behalf of the partnership. The liability for a contract entered into on behalf of an unincorporated association or ostensible corporation may lie in a person who may not have directly transacted on its behalf, but reaped benefits from that contract. The Case In the Petition for Review on Certiorari before us, Lim Tong Lim assails the November 26, 1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV 41477, 1 which disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, [there being] no reversible error in the appealed decision, the same is hereby affirmed. 2 The decretal portion of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling, which was affirmed by the CA, reads as follows: WHEREFORE, the Court rules: 1. That plaintiff is entitled to the writ of preliminary attachment issued by this Court on September 20, 1990; 2. That defendants are jointly liable to plaintiff for the following amounts, subject to the modifications as hereinafter made by reason of the special and unique facts and circumstances and the proceedings that transpired during the trial of this case; a. P532,045.00 representing [the] unpaid purchase price of the fishing nets covered by the Agreement plus P68,000.00 representing the unpaid price of the floats not covered by said Agreement; b. 12% interest per annum counted from date of plaintiff's invoices and computed on their respective amounts as follows: i. Accrued interest of P73,221.00 on Invoice No. 14407 for P385,377.80 dated February 9, 1990; ii. Accrued interest for P27,904.02 on Invoice No. 14413 for P146,868.00 dated February 13, 1990; iii. Accrued interest of P12,920.00 on Invoice No. 14426 for P68,000.00 dated February 19, 1990; c. P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees, plus P8,500.00 representing P500.00 per appearance in court; d. P65,000.00 representing P5,000.00 monthly rental for storage charges on the nets counted from September 20, 1990 (date of attachment) to September 12, 1991 (date of auction sale);

e. Cost of suit. With respect to the joint liability of defendants for the principal obligation or for the unpaid price of nets and floats in the amount of P532,045.00 and P68,000.00, respectively, or for the total amount P600,045.00, this Court noted that these items were attached to guarantee any judgment that may be rendered in favor of the plaintiff but, upon agreement of the parties, and, to avoid further deterioration of the nets during the pendency of this case, it was ordered sold at public auction for not less than P900,000.00 for which the plaintiff was the sole and winning bidder. The proceeds of the sale paid for by plaintiff was deposited in court. In effect, the amount of P900,000.00 replaced the attached property as a guaranty for any judgment that plaintiff may be able to secure in this case with the ownership and possession of the nets and floats awarded and delivered by the sheriff to plaintiff as the highest bidder in the public auction sale. It has also been noted that ownership of the nets [was] retained by the plaintiff until full payment [was] made as stipulated in the invoices; hence, in effect, the plaintiff attached its own properties. It [was] for this reason also that this Court earlier ordered the attachment bond filed by plaintiff to guaranty damages to defendants to be cancelled and for the P900,000.00 cash bidded and paid for by plaintiff to serve as its bond in favor of defendants. From the foregoing, it would appear therefore that whatever judgment the plaintiff may be entitled to in this case will have to be satisfied from the amount of P900,000.00 as this amount replaced the attached nets and floats. Considering, however, that the total judgment obligation as computed above would amount to only P840,216.92, it would be inequitable, unfair and unjust to award the excess to the defendants who are not entitled to damages and who did not put up a single centavo to raise the amount of P900,000.00 aside from the fact that they are not the owners of the nets and floats. For this reason, the defendants are hereby relieved from any and all liabilities arising from the monetary judgment obligation enumerated above and for plaintiff to retain possession and ownership of the nets and floats and for the reimbursement of the P900,000.00 deposited by it with the Clerk of Court. SO ORDERED. 3 The Facts On behalf of "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation," Antonio Chua and Peter Yao entered into a Contract dated February 7, 1990, for the purchase of fishing nets of various sizes from the Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, Inc. (herein respondent). They claimed that they were engaged in a business venture with Petitioner Lim Tong Lim, who however was not a signatory to the agreement. The total price of the nets amounted to P532,045. Four hundred pieces of floats worth P68,000 were also sold to the Corporation. 4 The buyers, however, failed to pay for the fishing nets and the floats; hence, private respondents filed a collection suit against Chua, Yao and Petitioner Lim Tong Lim with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. The suit was brought against the three in their capacities as general partners, on the allegation that "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation" was a nonexistent corporation as shown by a Certification from the Securities and Exchange Commission. 5 On September 20, 1990,

the lower court issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment, which the sheriff enforced by attaching the fishing nets on board F/B Lourdes which was then docked at the Fisheries Port, Navotas, Metro Manila.

Instead of answering the Complaint, Chua filed a Manifestation admitting his liability and requesting a reasonable time within which to pay. He also turned over to respondent some of the nets which were in his possession. Peter Yao filed an Answer, after which he was deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence on his behalf, because of his failure to appear in subsequent hearings. Lim Tong Lim, on the other hand, filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim and moved for the lifting of the Writ of Attachment. 6The trial court maintained the Writ,
and upon motion of private respondent, ordered the sale of the fishing nets at a public auction. Philippine Fishing Gear Industries won the bidding and deposited with the said court the sales proceeds of P900,000. 7

On November 18, 1992, the trial court rendered its Decision, ruling that Philippine Fishing Gear Industries was entitled to the Writ of Attachment and that Chua, Yao and Lim, as general partners, were jointly liable to pay respondent. 8 The trial court ruled that a partnership among Lim, Chua and Yao existed based (1) on the testimonies of the witnesses presented and (2) on a Compromise Agreement executed by the three 9 in Civil Case No. 1492-MN which Chua and Yao had brought against Lim in the RTC of Malabon,
Branch 72, for (a) a declaration of nullity of commercial documents; (b) a reformation of contracts; (c) a declaration of ownership of fishing boats; (d) an injunction and (e) damages. 10 The Compromise Agreement provided:

a) That the parties plaintiffs & Lim Tong Lim agree to have the four (4) vessels sold in the amount of P5,750,000.00 including the fishing net. This P5,750,000.00 shall be applied as full payment for P3,250,000.00 in favor of JL Holdings Corporation and/or Lim Tong Lim; b) If the four (4) vessel[s] and the fishing net will be sold at a higher price than P5,750,000.00 whatever will be the excess will be divided into 3: 1/3 Lim Tong Lim; 1/3 Antonio Chua; 1/3 Peter Yao; c) If the proceeds of the sale the vessels will be less than P5,750,000.00 whatever the deficiency shall be shouldered and paid to JL Holding Corporation by 1/3 Lim Tong Lim; 1/3 Antonio Chua; 1/3 Peter Yao. 11 The trial court noted that the Compromise Agreement was silent as to the nature of their obligations, but that joint liability could be presumed from the equal distribution of the profit and loss. 21 Lim appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which, as already stated, affirmed the RTC. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In affirming the trial court, the CA held that petitioner was a partner of Chua and Yao in a fishing business and may thus be held liable as a such for the fishing nets and floats purchased by and for the use of the partnership. The appellate court ruled: The evidence establishes that all the defendants including herein appellant Lim Tong Lim undertook a partnership for a specific undertaking, that is for commercial fishing .

. . . Oviously, the ultimate undertaking of the defendants was to divide the profits among themselves which is what a partnership essentially is . . . . By a contract of partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves (Article 1767, New Civil Code). 13 Hence, petitioner brought this recourse before this Court. 14 The Issues In his Petition and Memorandum, Lim asks this Court to reverse the assailed Decision on the following grounds: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING, BASED ON A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT THAT CHUA, YAO AND PETITIONER LIM ENTERED INTO IN A SEPARATE CASE, THAT A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT EXISTED AMONG THEM. II SINCE IT WAS ONLY CHUA WHO REPRESENTED THAT HE WAS ACTING FOR OCEAN QUEST FISHING CORPORATION WHEN HE BOUGHT THE NETS FROM PHILIPPINE FISHING, THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN IMPUTING LIABILITY TO PETITIONER LIM AS WELL. III THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ORDERED THE SEIZURE AND ATTACHMENT OF PETITIONER LIM'S GOODS. In determining whether petitioner may be held liable for the fishing nets and floats from respondent, the Court must resolve this key issue: whether by their acts, Lim, Chua and Yao could be deemed to have entered into a partnership. This Court's Ruling The Petition is devoid of merit. First and Second Issues: Existence of a Partnership and Petitioner's Liability In arguing that he should not be held liable for the equipment purchased from respondent, petitioner controverts the CA finding that a partnership existed between him, Peter Yao and Antonio Chua. He asserts that the CA based its finding on the Compromise Agreement alone. Furthermore, he disclaims any direct participation in the purchase of the nets, alleging that the negotiations were conducted by Chua and Yao only, and that he has not even met the representatives of the respondent company. Petitioner further argues that he was a lessor, not a partner, of Chua and Yao, for the "Contract of Lease " dated February 1, 1990, showed that he had merely leased to the two the main asset of the purported partnership the fishing boat F/B Lourdes. The lease was for six months, with a monthly rental of P37,500 plus 25 percent of the gross catch of the boat.

We are not persuaded by the arguments of petitioner. The facts as found by the two lower courts clearly showed that there existed a partnership among Chua, Yao and him, pursuant to Article 1767 of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 1767 By the contract of partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Specifically, both lower courts ruled that a partnership among the three existed based on the following factual findings: 15 (1) That Petitioner Lim Tong Lim requested Peter Yao who was engaged in commercial fishing to join him, while Antonio Chua was already Yao's partner; (2) That after convening for a few times, Lim, Chua, and Yao verbally agreed to acquire two fishing boats, the FB Lourdes and the FB Nelson for the sum of P3.35 million; (3) That they borrowed P3.25 million from Jesus Lim, brother of Petitioner Lim Tong Lim, to finance the venture. (4) That they bought the boats from CMF Fishing Corporation, which executed a Deed of Sale over these two (2) boats in favor of Petitioner Lim Tong Lim only to serve as security for the loan extended by Jesus Lim; (5) That Lim, Chua and Yao agreed that the refurbishing, re-equipping, repairing, dry docking and other expenses for the boats would be shouldered by Chua and Yao; (6) That because of the "unavailability of funds," Jesus Lim again extended a loan to the partnership in the amount of P1 million secured by a check, because of which, Yao and Chua entrusted the ownership papers of two other boats, Chua's FB Lady Anne Mel and Yao's FB Tracy to Lim Tong Lim. (7) That in pursuance of the business agreement, Peter Yao and Antonio Chua bought nets from Respondent Philippine Fishing Gear, in behalf of "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation," their purported business name. (8) That subsequently, Civil Case No. 1492-MN was filed in the Malabon RTC, Branch 72 by Antonio Chua and Peter Yao against Lim Tong Lim for (a) declaration of nullity of commercial documents; (b) reformation of contracts; (c) declaration of ownership of fishing boats; (4) injunction; and (e) damages. (9) That the case was amicably settled through a Compromise Agreement executed between the parties-litigants the terms of which are already enumerated above. From the factual findings of both lower courts, it is clear that Chua, Yao and Lim had decided to engage in a fishing business, which they started by buying boats worth P3.35 million, financed by a loan secured from Jesus Lim who was petitioner's brother. In their Compromise Agreement, they subsequently revealed their intention to pay the loan with the proceeds of the sale of the boats, and to divide equally among them the excess or loss. These boats, the purchase and the repair of which were financed with borrowed money, fell under the term "common fund" under Article 1767. The

contribution to such fund need not be cash or fixed assets; it could be an intangible like credit or industry. That the parties agreed that any loss or profit from the sale and operation of the boats would be divided equally among them also shows that they had indeed formed a partnership. Moreover, it is clear that the partnership extended not only to the purchase of the boat, but also to that of the nets and the floats. The fishing nets and the floats, both essential to fishing, were obviously acquired in furtherance of their business. It would have been inconceivable for Lim to involve himself so much in buying the boat but not in the acquisition of the aforesaid equipment, without which the business could not have proceeded. Given the preceding facts, it is clear that there was, among petitioner, Chua and Yao, a partnership engaged in the fishing business. They purchased the boats, which constituted the main assets of the partnership, and they agreed that the proceeds from the sales and operations thereof would be divided among them. We stress that under Rule 45, a petition for review like the present case should involve only questions of law. Thus, the foregoing factual findings of the RTC and the CA are binding on this Court, absent any cogent proof that the present action is embraced by one of the exceptions to the rule. 16 In assailing the factual findings of the two lower courts, petitioner effectively goes beyond the
bounds of a petition for review under Rule 45.

Compromise Agreement Not the Sole Basis of Partnership Petitioner argues that the appellate court's sole basis for assuming the existence of a partnership was the Compromise Agreement. He also claims that the settlement was entered into only to end the dispute among them, but not to adjudicate their preexisting rights and obligations. His arguments are baseless. The Agreement was but an embodiment of the relationship extant among the parties prior to its execution. A proper adjudication of claimants' rights mandates that courts must review and thoroughly appraise all relevant facts. Both lower courts have done so and have found, correctly, a preexisting partnership among the parties. In implying that the lower courts have decided on the basis of one piece of document alone, petitioner fails to appreciate that the CA and the RTC delved into the history of the document and explored all the possible consequential combinations in harmony with law, logic and fairness. Verily, the two lower courts' factual findings mentioned above nullified petitioner's argument that the existence of a partnership was based only on the Compromise Agreement. Petitioner Was a Partner, Not a Lessor We are not convinced by petitioner's argument that he was merely the lessor of the boats to Chua and Yao, not a partner in the fishing venture. His argument allegedly finds support in the Contract of Lease and the registration papers showing that he was the owner of the boats, including F/B Lourdes where the nets were found. His allegation defies logic. In effect, he would like this Court to believe that he consented to the sale of his own boats to pay a debt of Chua and Yao, with the excess of the proceeds to be divided

among the three of them. No lessor would do what petitioner did. Indeed, his consent to the sale proved that there was a preexisting partnership among all three. Verily, as found by the lower courts, petitioner entered into a business agreement with Chua and Yao, in which debts were undertaken in order to finance the acquisition and the upgrading of the vessels which would be used in their fishing business. The sale of the boats, as well as the division among the three of the balance remaining after the payment of their loans, proves beyond cavil that F/B Lourdes, though registered in his name, was not his own property but an asset of the partnership. It is not uncommon to register the properties acquired from a loan in the name of the person the lender trusts, who in this case is the petitioner himself. After all, he is the brother of the creditor, Jesus Lim. We stress that it is unreasonable indeed, it is absurd for petitioner to sell his property to pay a debt he did not incur, if the relationship among the three of them was merely that of lessor-lessee, instead of partners. Corporation by Estoppel Petitioner argues that under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel, liability can be imputed only to Chua and Yao, and not to him. Again, we disagree. Sec. 21 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines provides: Sec. 21. Corporation by estoppel. All persons who assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result thereof: Provided however, That when any such ostensible corporation is sued on any transaction entered by it as a corporation or on any tort committed by it as such, it shall not be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate personality. One who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as such, cannot resist performance thereof on the ground that there was in fact no corporation. Thus, even if the ostensible corporate entity is proven to be legally nonexistent, a party may be estopped from denying its corporate existence. "The reason behind this doctrine is obvious an unincorporated association has no personality and would be incompetent to act and appropriate for itself the power and attributes of a corporation as provided by law; it cannot create agents or confer authority on another to act in its behalf; thus, those who act or purport to act as its representatives or agents do so without authority and at their own risk. And as it is an elementary principle of law that a person who acts as an agent without authority or without a principal is himself regarded as the principal, possessed of all the right and subject to all the liabilities of a principal, a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of a corporation which has no valid existence assumes such privileges and obligations and becomes personally liable for contracts entered into or for other acts performed as such agent. 17 The doctrine of corporation by estoppel may apply to the alleged corporation and to a third party. In the first instance, an unincorporated association, which represented itself to be a corporation, will be estopped from denying its corporate capacity in a suit against it by a third person who relied in good faith on such representation. It cannot allege lack of personality to be sued to evade its responsibility for a contract it entered into and by virtue of which it received advantages and benefits.

On the other hand, a third party who, knowing an association to be unincorporated, nonetheless treated it as a corporation and received benefits from it, may be barred from denying its corporate existence in a suit brought against the alleged corporation. In such case, all those who benefited from the transaction made by the ostensible corporation, despite knowledge of its legal defects, may be held liable for contracts they impliedly assented to or took advantage of. There is no dispute that the respondent, Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, is entitled to be paid for the nets it sold. The only question here is whether petitioner should be held jointly 18 liable with Chua
and Yao. Petitioner contests such liability, insisting that only those who dealt in the name of the ostensible corporation should be held liable. Since his name does not appear on any of the contracts and since he never directly transacted with the respondent corporation, ergo, he cannot be held liable.

Unquestionably, petitioner benefited from the use of the nets found inside F/B Lourdes, the boat which has earlier been proven to be an asset of the partnership. He in fact questions the attachment of the nets, because the Writ has effectively stopped his use of the fishing vessel. It is difficult to disagree with the RTC and the CA that Lim, Chua and Yao decided to form a corporation. Although it was never legally formed for unknown reasons, this fact alone does not preclude the liabilities of the three as contracting parties in representation of it. Clearly, under the law on estoppel, those acting on behalf of a corporation and those benefited by it, knowing it to be without valid existence, are held liable as general partners. Technically, it is true that petitioner did not directly act on behalf of the corporation. However, having reaped the benefits of the contract entered into by persons with whom he previously had an existing relationship, he is deemed to be part of said association and is covered by the scope of the doctrine of corporation by estoppel. We reiterate the ruling of the Court in Alonso v. Villamor: 19 A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather, a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There should be no vested rights in technicalities. Third Issue: Validity of Attachment Finally, petitioner claims that the Writ of Attachment was improperly issued against the nets. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this issue is now moot and academic. As previously discussed, F/B Lourdes was an asset of the partnership and that it was placed in the name of petitioner, only to assure payment of the debt he and his partners owed. The nets and the floats were specifically manufactured and tailor-made according to their own design, and were bought and used in the fishing venture they agreed upon. Hence, the issuance of the Writ to assure the payment of the price stipulated in the invoices is proper. Besides, by specific agreement, ownership of the nets remained with Respondent Philippine Fishing Gear, until full payment thereof. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED. Melo, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur. Vitug, J., pls. see concurring opinion. Separate Opinions VITUG, J., concurring opinion; I share the views expressed in the ponencia of an esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, particularly the finding that Antonio Chua, Peter Yao and petitioner Lim Tong Lim have incurred the liabilities of general partners. I merely would wish to elucidate a bit, albeit briefly, the liability of partners in a general partnership. When a person by his act or deed represents himself as a partner in an existing partnership or with one or more persons not actual partners, he is deemed an agent of such persons consenting to such representation and in the same manner, if he were a partner, with respect to persons who rely upon the representation. 1 The association formed by Chua, Yao and Lim, should be, as it has been deemed,
a de facto partnership with all the consequent obligations for the purpose of enforcing the rights of third persons. The liability of general partners (in a general partnership as so opposed to a limited partnership) is laid down in Article 1816 2 which posits that all partners shall be liable pro rata beyond the partnership assets for all the contracts which may have been entered into in its name, under its signature, and by a person authorized to act for the partnership. This rule is to be construed along with other provisions of the Civil Code which postulate that the partners can be held solidarily liable with the partnership specifically in these instances (1) where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership or with the authority of his co-partners, loss or injury is caused to any person, not being a partner in the partnership, or any penalty is incurred, the partnership is liable therefor to the same extent as the partner so acting or omitting to act; (2) where one partner acting within the scope of his apparent authority receives money or property of a third person and misapplies it; and (3) where the partnership in the course of its business receives money or property of a third person and the money or property so received is misapplied by any partner while it is in the custody of the partnership 3 consistently with the rules on the nature of civil liability in delicts and quasi-delicts.

Footnotes 1 Penned by J. Portia Alino-Hormachuelos; with the concurrence of JJ. Buenaventura J. Guerrero, Division chairman, and Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., member. 2 CA Decision, p. 12; rollo, p. 36. 3 RTC Decision penned by Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion. pp. 11-12; rollo, pp. 48-49. 4 CA Decision, pp. 1-2; rollo, pp. 25-26. 5 Ibid., p. 2; rollo, p. 26. 6 RTC Decision, p. 2; Rollo, p. 39. 7 Petition, p. 4; rollo, p. 11.

8 Ibid. 9 RTC Decision, pp. 6-7; rollo, pp. 43-44. 10 Respondent's Memorandum, pp. 5, 8; rollo, pp. 107, 109. 11 CA Decision, pp. 9-10; rollo, pp. 33-34. 12 RTC Decision, p. 10; rollo, p. 47. 13 Ibid. 14 This case was deemed submitted for resolution on August 10, 1999, when this Court received petitioner's Memorandum signed by Atty. Roberto A. Abad. Respondent's Memorandum signed by Atty. Benjamin S. Benito was filed earlier on July 27, 1999. 15 Nos. 1-7 are from CA Decision p. 9 (rollo, p. 33); No. 8 is from RTC Decision, p. 5 (rollo, p. 42); and No. 9 is from CA Decision, pp. 9-10 (rollo, pp. 33-34). 16 See Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 703, February 26, 1997. 17 Salvatierra v. Garlitos, 103 SCRA 757, May 23, 1958, per Felix J.; citing Fay v. Noble, 7 Cushing [Mass.] 188. 18 The liability is joint if it is not specifically stated that it is solidary," Maramba v. Lozano, 126 Phil 833, June 29, 1967, per Makalintal, J. See also Article 1207 of the Civil Code, which provides: "The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one [and] the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestation. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. 19 16 Phil. 315, July 26, 1910, per Moreland, J. VITUG, J., concurring opinion; 1 Art. 1825. When a person, by words spoken or written or by conduct, represents himself, or consents to another representing him to anyone, as a partner in an existing partnership or with one or more persons not actual partners, he is liable to any such persons to whom such representation has been made, who has, on the faith of such representation, given credit to the actual or apparent partnership, and if he has made such representation or consented to its being made in a public manner he is liable to such person, whether the representation has or has not been made or communicated to such person so giving credit by or with the knowledge of the apparent partner making the representation or consenting to its being made:

(1) When a partnership liability results, he is liable as though he were an actual member of the partnership; (2) When no partnership liability results, he is liable pro rata with the other persons, if any, so consenting to the contract or representation as to incur liability, otherwise separately. When a person has been thus represented to be a partner in an existing partnership, or with one or more persons not actual partners, he is an agent of the persons consenting to such representation to bind them to the same extent and in the same manner as though he were a partner in fact, with respect to persons who rely upon the representation. When all the members of the existing partnership consent to the representation, a partnership act or obligation results; but in all other cases it is the joint act or obligation of the person acting and the persons consenting to the representation. 2 All partners, including industrial ones, shall be liable pro rata with all their property and after all the partnership assets have been exhausted, for the contracts which may be entered into in the name and for the account of the partnership, under its signature and by a person authorized to act for the partnership. However, any partner may enter into a separate obligation to perform a partnership contract. 3 Art. 1824 in relation to Article 1822 and Article 1823, New Civil Code.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-59956 October 31, 1984 ISABELO MORAN, JR., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIANO E. PECSON, respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

+.wph! 1

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals which ordered petitioner Isabelo Moran, Jr. to pay damages to respondent Mariano E, Pecson. As found by the respondent Court of Appeals, the undisputed facts indicate that: xxx xxx xxx
t.hqw

... on February 22, 1971 Pecson and Moran entered into an agreement whereby both would contribute P15,000 each for the purpose of printing 95,000 posters (featuring the delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention), with Moran actually supervising the work; that Pecson would receive a commission of P l,000 a month starting on April 15, 1971 up to December 15, 1971; that on December 15, 1971, a liquidation of the accounts in the distribution and printing of the 95,000 posters would be made, that Pecson gave Moran P10,000 for which the latter issued a receipt; that only a few posters were printed; that on or about May 28, 1971, Moran executed in favor of Pecson a promissory note in the amount of P20,000 payable in two equal installments (P10,000 payable on or before June 15, 1971 and P10,000 payable on or before June 30, 1971), the whole sum becoming due upon default in the payment of the first installment on the date due, complete with the costs of collection. Private respondent Pecson filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila an action for the recovery of a sum of money and alleged in his complaint three (3) causes of action, namely: (1) on the alleged partnership agreement, the return of his contribution of P10,000.00, payment of his share in the profits that the partnership would have earned, and, payment of unpaid commission; (2) on the alleged promissory note, payment of the sum of P20,000.00; and, (3) moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. After the trial, the Court of First Instance held that:
t.hqw

From the evidence presented it is clear in the mind of the court that by virtue of the partnership agreement entered into by the parties-plaintiff and defendant the plaintiff did contribute P10,000.00, and another sum of P7,000.00 for the Voice of the Veteran or Delegate Magazine. Of the expected 95,000 copies of the posters, the defendant was able to print 2,000 copies only authorized of which, however, were sold at P5.00 each. Nothing more was done after this and it can be said that the venture did not really get off the ground. On the other hand, the plaintiff failed to give his full contribution of P15,000.00. Thus, each party is entitled to rescind the contract which right is implied in reciprocal obligations under Article 1385 of the Civil Code whereunder 'rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract ... WHEREFORE, the court hereby renders judgment ordering defendant Isabelo C. Moran, Jr. to return to plaintiff Mariano E. Pecson the sum of P17,000.00, with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint on June 19, 1972, and the costs of the suit. For insufficiency of evidence, the counterclaim is hereby dismissed. From this decision, both parties appealed to the respondent Court of Appeals. The latter likewise rendered a decision against the petitioner. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
t.hqw

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE, and a new one is hereby rendered, ordering defendant-appellant Isabelo C. Moran, Jr. to pay plaintiff- appellant Mariano E. Pecson: (a) Forty-seven thousand five hundred (P47,500) (the amount that could have accrued to Pecson under their agreement); (b) Eight thousand (P8,000), (the commission for eight months);

(c) Seven thousand (P7,000) (as a return of Pecson's investment for the Veteran's Project); (d) Legal interest on (a), (b) and (c) from the date the complaint was filed (up to the time payment is made) The petitioner contends that the respondent Court of Appeals decided questions of substance in a way not in accord with law and with Supreme Court decisions when it committed the following errors: I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING PETITIONER ISABELO C. MORAN, JR. LIABLE TO RESPONDENT MARIANO E. PECSON IN THE SUM OF P47,500 AS THE SUPPOSED EXPECTED PROFITS DUE HIM. II THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING PETITIONER ISABELO C. MORAN, JR. LIABLE TO RESPONDENT MARIANO E. PECSON IN THE SUM OF P8,000, AS SUPPOSED COMMISSION IN THE PARTNERSHIP ARISING OUT OF PECSON'S INVESTMENT. III THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING PETITIONER ISABELO C. MORAN, JR. LIABLE TO RESPONDENT MARIANO E. PECSON IN THE SUM OF P7,000 AS A SUPPOSED RETURN OF INVESTMENT IN A MAGAZINE VENTURE. IV ASSUMING WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT PETITIONER IS AT ALL LIABLE FOR ANY AMOUNT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT EVEN OFFSET PAYMENTS ADMITTEDLY RECEIVED BY PECSON FROM MORAN. V THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE PETITIONER'S COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM FOR DAMAGES. The first question raised in this petition refers to the award of P47,500.00 as the private respondent's share in the unrealized profits of the partnership. The petitioner contends that the award is highly speculative. The petitioner maintains that the respondent court did not take into account the great risks involved in the business undertaking. We agree with the petitioner that the award of speculative damages has no basis in fact and law. There is no dispute over the nature of the agreement between the petitioner and the private respondent. It is a contract of partnership. The latter in his complaint alleged that he was induced by the petitioner to enter into a partnership with him under the following terms and conditions:
t.hqw

1. That the partnership will print colored posters of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention; 2. That they will invest the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) each; 3. That they will print Ninety Five Thousand (95,000) copies of the said posters; 4. That plaintiff will receive a commission of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) a month starting April 15, 1971 up to December 15, 1971; 5. That upon the termination of the partnership on December 15, 1971, a liquidation of the account pertaining to the distribution and printing of the said 95,000 posters shall be made. The petitioner on the other hand admitted in his answer the existence of the partnership. The rule is, when a partner who has undertaken to contribute a sum of money fails to do so, he becomes a debtor of the partnership for whatever he may have promised to contribute (Art. 1786, Civil Code) and for interests and damages from the time he should have complied with his obligation (Art. 1788, Civil Code). Thus in Uy v. Puzon (79 SCRA 598), which interpreted Art. 2200 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, we allowed a total of P200,000.00 compensatory damages in favor of the appellee because the appellant therein was remiss in his obligations as a partner and as prime contractor of the construction projects in question. This case was decided on a particular set of facts. We awarded compensatory damages in the Uy case because there was a finding that the constructing business is a profitable one and that the UP construction company derived some profits from its contractors in the construction of roads and bridges despite its deficient capital." Besides, there was evidence to show that the partnership made some profits during the periods from July 2, 1956 to December 31, 1957 and from January 1, 1958 up to September 30, 1959. The profits on two government contracts worth P2,327,335.76 were not speculative. In the instant case, there is no evidence whatsoever that the partnership between the petitioner and the private respondent would have been a profitable venture. In fact, it was a failure doomed from the start. There is therefore no basis for the award of speculative damages in favor of the private respondent. Furthermore, in the Uy case, only Puzon failed to give his full contribution while Uy contributed much more than what was expected of him. In this case, however, there was mutual breach. Private respondent failed to give his entire contribution in the amount of P15,000.00. He contributed only P10,000.00. The petitioner likewise failed to give any of the amount expected of him. He further failed to comply with the agreement to print 95,000 copies of the posters. Instead, he printed only 2,000 copies. Article 1797 of the Civil Code provides:
t.hqw

The losses and profits shall be distributed in conformity with the agreement. If only the share of each partner in the profits has been agreed upon, the share of each in the losses shall be in the same proportion. Being a contract of partnership, each partner must share in the profits and losses of the venture. That is the essence of a partnership. And even with an assurance made by one of the partners that they would earn a huge amount of profits, in the absence of fraud, the other partner cannot claim a right to recover the highly speculative profits. It is a rare business venture guaranteed to give 100% profits. In this case, on an investment of P15,000.00, the respondent was supposed to earn a guaranteed P1,000.00 a month for eight months and around P142,500.00 on 95,000 posters costing

P2.00 each but 2,000 of which were sold at P5.00 each. The fantastic nature of expected profits is obvious. We have to take various factors into account. The failure of the Commission on Elections to proclaim all the 320 candidates of the Constitutional Convention on time was a major factor. The petitioner undesirable his best business judgment and felt that it would be a losing venture to go on with the printing of the agreed 95,000 copies of the posters. Hidden risks in any business venture have to be considered. It does not follow however that the private respondent is not entitled to recover any amount from the petitioner. The records show that the private respondent gave P10,000.00 to the petitioner. The latter used this amount for the printing of 2,000 posters at a cost of P2.00 per poster or a total printing cost of P4,000.00. The records further show that the 2,000 copies were sold at P5.00 each. The gross income therefore was P10,000.00. Deducting the printing costs of P4,000.00 from the gross income of P10,000.00 and with no evidence on the cost of distribution, the net profits amount to only P6,000.00. This net profit of P6,000.00 should be divided between the petitioner and the private respondent. And since only P4,000.00 was undesirable by the petitioner in printing the 2,000 copies, the remaining P6,000.00 should therefore be returned to the private respondent. Relative to the second alleged error, the petitioner submits that the award of P8,000.00 as Pecson's supposed commission has no justifiable basis in law. Again, we agree with the petitioner. The partnership agreement stipulated that the petitioner would give the private respondent a monthly commission of Pl,000.00 from April 15, 1971 to December 15, 1971 for a total of eight (8) monthly commissions. The agreement does not state the basis of the commission. The payment of the commission could only have been predicated on relatively extravagant profits. The parties could not have intended the giving of a commission inspite of loss or failure of the venture. Since the venture was a failure, the private respondent is not entitled to the P8,000.00 commission. Anent the third assigned error, the petitioner maintains that the respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding him liable to the private respondent in the sum of P7,000.00 as a supposed return of investment in a magazine venture. In awarding P7,000.00 to the private respondent as his supposed return of investment in the "Voice of the Veterans" magazine venture, the respondent court ruled that:
t.hqw

xxx xxx xxx ... Moran admittedly signed the promissory note of P20,000 in favor of Pecson. Moran does not question the due execution of said note. Must Moran therefore pay the amount of P20,000? The evidence indicates that the P20,000 was assigned by Moran to cover the following:
t.hqw

(a) P 7,000 the amount of the PNB check given by Pecson to Moran representing Pecson's investment in Moran's other project (the publication and printing of the 'Voice of the Veterans'); (b) P10,000 to cover the return of Pecson's contribution in the project of the Posters;

(c) P3,000 representing Pecson's commission for three months (April, May, June, 1971). Of said P20,000 Moran has to pay P7,000 (as a return of Pecson's investment for the Veterans' project, for this project never left the ground) ... As a rule, the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to this Court (Amigo v. Teves, 96 Phil. 252), provided they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence (Alsua-Betts v. Court of Appeals, 92 SCRA 332). However, this rule admits of certain exceptions. Thus, inCarolina Industries Inc. v. CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc., et al., (97 SCRA 734), we held that this Court retains the power to review and rectify the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals when (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken absurd and impossible; (3) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; and (5) when the court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee. In this case, there is misapprehension of facts. The evidence of the private respondent himself shows that his investment in the "Voice of Veterans" project amounted to only P3,000.00. The remaining P4,000.00 was the amount of profit that the private respondent expected to receive. The records show the following exhibitst.hqw

E Xerox copy of PNB Manager's Check No. 234265 dated March 22, 1971 in favor of defendant. Defendant admitted the authenticity of this check and of his receipt of the proceeds thereof (t.s.n., pp. 3-4, Nov. 29, 1972). This exhibit is being offered for the purpose of showing plaintiff's capital investment in the printing of the "Voice of the Veterans" for which he was promised a fixed profit of P8,000. This investment of P6,000.00 and the promised profit of P8,000 are covered by defendant's promissory note for P14,000 dated March 31, 1971 marked by defendant as Exhibit 2 (t.s.n., pp. 20-21, Nov. 29, 1972), and by plaintiff as Exhibit P. Later, defendant returned P3,000.00 of the P6,000.00 investment thereby proportionately reducing the promised profit to P4,000. With the balance of P3,000 (capital) and P4,000 (promised profit), defendant signed and executed the promissory note for P7,000 marked Exhibit 3 for the defendant and Exhibit M for plaintiff. Of this P7,000, defendant paid P4,000 representing full return of the capital investment and P1,000 partial payment of the promised profit. The P3,000 balance of the promised profit was made part consideration of the P20,000 promissory note (t.s.n., pp. 22-24, Nov. 29, 1972). It is, therefore, being presented to show the consideration for the P20,000 promissory note. F Xerox copy of PNB Manager's check dated May 29, 1971 for P7,000 in favor of defendant. The authenticity of the check and his receipt of the proceeds thereof were admitted by the defendant (t.s.n., pp. 3-4, Nov. 29, 1972). This P 7,000 is part consideration, and in cash, of the P20,000 promissory note (t.s.n., p. 25, Nov. 29, 1972), and it is being presented to show the consideration for the P20,000 note and the existence and validity of the obligation. xxx xxx xxx L-Book entitled "Voice of the Veterans" which is being offered for the purpose of showing the subject matter of the other partnership agreement and in which plaintiff

invested the P6,000 (Exhibit E) which, together with the promised profit of P8,000 made up for the consideration of the P14,000 promissory note (Exhibit 2; Exhibit P). As explained in connection with Exhibit E. the P3,000 balance of the promised profit was later made part consideration of the P20,000 promissory note. M-Promissory note for P7,000 dated March 30, 1971. This is also defendant's Exhibit E. This document is being offered for the purpose of further showing the transaction as explained in connection with Exhibits E and L. N-Receipt of plaintiff dated March 30, 1971 for the return of his P3,000 out of his capital investment of P6,000 (Exh. E) in the P14,000 promissory note (Exh. 2; P). This is also defendant's Exhibit 4. This document is being offered in support of plaintiff's explanation in connection with Exhibits E, L, and M to show the transaction mentioned therein. xxx xxx xxx P-Promissory note for P14,000.00. This is also defendant's Exhibit 2. It is being offered for the purpose of showing the transaction as explained in connection with Exhibits E, L, M, and N above. Explaining the above-quoted exhibits, respondent Pecson testified that:
t.hqw

Q During the pre-trial of this case, Mr. Pecson, the defendant presented a promissory note in the amount of P14,000.00 which has been marked as Exhibit 2. Do you know this promissory note? A Yes, sir. Q What is this promissory note, in connection with your transaction with the defendant? A This promissory note is for the printing of the "Voice of the Veterans". Q What is this "Voice of the Veterans", Mr. Pecson? A It is a book.
t.hqw

(T.S.N., p. 19, Nov. 29, 1972) Q And what does the amount of P14,000.00 indicated in the promissory note, Exhibit 2, represent? A It represents the P6,000.00 cash which I gave to Mr. Moran, as evidenced by the Philippine National Bank Manager's check and the P8,000.00 profit assured me by Mr. Moran which I will derive from the printing of this "Voice of the Veterans" book.

Q You said that the P6,000.00 of this P14,000.00 is covered by, a Manager's check. I show you Exhibit E, is this the Manager's check that mentioned? A Yes, sir. Q What happened to this promissory note of P14,000.00 which you said represented P6,000.00 of your investment and P8,000.00 promised profits? A Latter, Mr. Moran returned to me P3,000.00 which represented one-half (1/2) of the P6,000.00 capital I gave to him. Q As a consequence of the return by Mr. Moran of one-half (1/2) of the P6,000.00 capital you gave to him, what happened to the promised profit of P8,000.00? A It was reduced to one-half (1/2) which is P4,000.00. Q Was there any document executed by Mr. Moran in connection with the Balance of P3,000.00 of your capital investment and the P4,000.00 promised profits? A Yes, sir, he executed a promissory note. Q I show you a promissory note in the amount of P7,000.00 dated March 30, 1971 which for purposes of Identification I request the same to be marked as Exhibit M. . . Court
t.hqw

Mark it as Exhibit M. Q (continuing) is this the promissory note which you said was executed by Mr. Moran in connection with your transaction regarding the printing of the "Voice of the Veterans"? A Yes, sir. (T.S.N., pp. 20-22, Nov. 29, 1972). Q What happened to this promissory note executed by Mr. Moran, Mr. Pecson? A Mr. Moran paid me P4,000.00 out of the P7,000.00 as shown by the promissory note. Q Was there a receipt issued by you covering this payment of P4,000.00 in favor of Mr. Moran? A Yes, sir.

(T.S.N., p. 23, Nov. 29, 1972). Q You stated that Mr. Moran paid the amount of P4,000.00 on account of the P7,000.00 covered by the promissory note, Exhibit M. What does this P4,000.00 covered by Exhibit N represent? A This P4,000.00 represents the P3,000.00 which he has returned of my P6,000.00 capital investment and the P1,000.00 represents partial payment of the P4,000.00 profit that was promised to me by Mr. Moran. Q And what happened to the balance of P3,000.00 under the promissory note, Exhibit M? A The balance of P3,000.00 and the rest of the profit was applied as part of the consideration of the promissory note of P20,000.00. (T.S.N., pp. 23-24, Nov. 29, 1972). The respondent court erred when it concluded that the project never left the ground because the project did take place. Only it failed. It was the private respondent himself who presented a copy of the book entitled "Voice of the Veterans" in the lower court as Exhibit "L". Therefore, it would be error to state that the project never took place and on this basis decree the return of the private respondent's investment. As already mentioned, there are risks in any business venture and the failure of the undertaking cannot entirely be blamed on the managing partner alone, specially if the latter exercised his best business judgment, which seems to be true in this case. In view of the foregoing, there is no reason to pass upon the fourth and fifth assignments of errors raised by the petitioner. We likewise find no valid basis for the grant of the counterclaim. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court) is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one is rendered ordering the petitioner Isabelo Moran, Jr., to pay private respondent Mariano Pecson SIX THOUSAND (P6,000.00) PESOS representing the amount of the private respondent's contribution to the partnership but which remained unused; and THREE THOUSAND (P3,000.00) PESOS representing one half (1/2) of the net profits gained by the partnership in the sale of the two thousand (2,000) copies of the posters, with interests at the legal rate on both amounts from the date the complaint was filed until full payment is made. SO ORDERED.
1w ph1.t

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana and Relova, JJ., concur. De la Fuente J., took no part. Philippines

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

SUPREME COURT Manila

THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 135813 October 25, 2001

FERNANDO SANTOS, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES, respondents. PANGANIBAN, J.: As a general rule, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are binding on the Supreme Court. However, there are several exceptions to this principle. In the present case, we find occasion to apply both the rule and one of the exceptions. The Case Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the November 28, 1997 Decision,1 as well as the August 17, 1998 and the October 9, 1998 Resolutions,2 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 34742. The Assailed Decision disposed as follows: "WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED save as for the counterclaim which is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against [petitioner]."3 Resolving respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, the August 17, 1998 Resolution ruled as follows: "WHEREFORE, [respondents'] motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Accordingly, the court's decision dated November 28, 1997 is hereby MODIFIED in that the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against [petitioner]."4 The October 9, 1998 Resolution denied "for lack of merit" petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the August 17, 1998 Resolution.5 The Facts The events that led to this case are summarized by the CA as follows: "Sometime in June, 1986, [Petitioner] Fernando Santos and [Respondent] Nieves Reyes were introduced to each other by one Meliton Zabat regarding a lending business venture proposed by Nieves. It was verbally agreed that [petitioner would] act as financier while [Nieves] and Zabat [would] take charge of solicitation of members and collection of loan payments. The venture was launched on June 13, 1986, with the understanding that [petitioner] would receive 70% of the profits while x x x Nieves and Zabat would earn 15% each. "In July, 1986, x x x Nieves introduced Cesar Gragera to [petitioner]. Gragera, as chairman of the Monte Maria Development Corporation6 (Monte Maria, for brevity), sought short-term loans for members of the corporation. [Petitioner] and Gragera executed an agreement providing funds for Monte Maria's members. Under the agreement, Monte Maria, represented by Gragera, was entitled to P1.31 commission per thousand paid daily to

[petitioner] (Exh. 'A')x x x . Nieves kept the books as representative of [petitioner] while [Respondent] Arsenio, husband of Nieves, acted as credit investigator. "On August 6, 1986, [petitioner], x x x [Nieves] and Zabat executed the 'Article of Agreement' which formalized their earlier verbal arrangement. "[Petitioner] and [Nieves] later discovered that their partner Zabat engaged in the same lending business in competition with their partnership[.] Zabat was thereby expelled from the partnership. The operations with Monte Maria continued. "On June 5, 1987, [petitioner] filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money and damages. [Petitioner] charged [respondents], allegedly in their capacities as employees of [petitioner], with having misappropriated funds intended for Gragera for the period July 8, 1986 up to March 31, 1987. Upon Gragera's complaint that his commissions were inadequately remitted, [petitioner] entrusted P200,000.00 to x x x Nieves to be given to Gragerax x x . Nieves allegedly failed to account for the amount. [Petitioner] asserted that after examination of the records, he found that of the total amount of P4,623,201.90 entrusted to [respondents], only P3,068,133.20 was remitted to Gragera, thereby leaving the balance of P1,555,065.70 unaccounted for. "In their answer, [respondents] asserted that they were partners and not mere employees of [petitioner]. The complaint, they alleged, was filed to preempt and prevent them from claiming their rightful share to the profits of the partnership. "x x x Arsenio alleged that he was enticed by [petitioner] to take the place of Zabat after [petitioner] learned of Zabat's activities. Arsenio resigned from his job at the Asian Development Bank to join the partnership. "For her part, x x x Nieves claimed that she participated in the business as a partner, as the lending activity with Monte Maria originated from her initiative. Except for the limited period of July 8, 1986 through August 20, 1986, she did not handle sums intended for Gragera. Collections were turned over to Gragera because he guaranteed 100% payment of all sums loaned by Monte Maria. Entries she made on worksheets were based on this assumptive 100% collection of all loans. The loan releases were made less Gragera's agreed commission. Because of this arrangement, she neither received payments from borrowers nor remitted any amount to Gragera. Her job was merely to make worksheets (Exhs. '15' to '15-DDDDDDDDDD') to convey to [petitioner] how much he would earn if all the sums guaranteed by Gragera were collected. "[Petitioner] on the other hand insisted that [respondents] were his mere employees and not partners with respect to the agreement with Gragera. He claimed that after he discovered Zabat's activities, he ceased infusing funds, thereby causing the extinguishment of the partnership. The agreement with Gragera was a distinct partnership [from] that of [respondent] and Zabat. [Petitioner] asserted that [respondents] were hired as salaried employees with respect to the partnership between [petitioner] and Gragera. "[Petitioner] further asserted that in Nieves' capacity as bookkeeper, she received all payments from which Nieves deducted Gragera's commission. The commission would then be remitted to Gragera. She likewise determined loan releases. "During the pre-trial, the parties narrowed the issues to the following points: whether [respondents] were employees or partners of [petitioner], whether [petitioner] entrusted

money to [respondents] for delivery to Gragera, whether the P1,555,068.70 claimed under the complaint was actually remitted to Gragera and whether [respondents] were entitled to their counterclaim for share in the profits."7 Ruling of the Trial Court In its August 13, 1991 Decision, the trial court held that respondents were partners, not mere employees, of petitioner. It further ruled that Gragera was only a commission agent of petitioner, not his partner. Petitioner moreover failed to prove that he had entrusted any money to Nieves. Thus, respondents' counterclaim for their share in the partnership and for damages was granted. The trial court disposed as follows: "39. 39.1. 39.2. WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows: THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT dated July 26, 1989 is DISMISSED. The [Petitioner] FERNANDO J. SANTOS is ordered to pay the [Respondent] NIEVES S. REYES, the following: - The 15 percent share of the [respondent] NIEVES S. REYES in the profits of her joint venture with the [petitioner]. - As damages from August 3, 1987 until the P3,064,428.00 is fully paid. - As moral damages - As exemplary damages

39.2.1. P3,064,428.00

39.2.2. Six(6) percent of P3,064,428.00 39.2.3. P50,000.00 39.2.4. P10,000.00 39.3.

The [petitioner] FERNANDO J. SANTOS is ordered to pay the [respondent] ARSENIO REYES, the following: - The balance of the 15 percent share of the [respondent] ARSENIO REYES in the profits of his joint venture with the [petitioner]. - As damages from August 3, 1987 until the P2,899,739.50 is fully paid. - As moral damages - As exemplary damages The [petitioner] FERNANDO J. SANTOS is ordered to pay the [respondents]: - As attorney's fees; and

39.3.1. P2,899,739.50

39.3.2. Six(6) percent of P2,899,739.50 39.3.3. P25,000.00 39.3.4. P10,000.00 39.4. 39.4.1. P50,000.00

39.4.2. The cost of the suit."8 Ruling of the Court of Appeals On appeal, the Decision of the trial court was upheld, and the counterclaim of respondents was dismissed. Upon the latter's Motion for Reconsideration, however, the trial court's Decision was reinstated in toto. Subsequently, petitioner's own Motion for Reconsideration was denied in the CA Resolution of October 9, 1998.

The CA ruled that the following circumstances indicated the existence of a partnership among the parties: (1) it was Nieves who broached to petitioner the idea of starting a money-lending business and introduced him to Gragera; (2) Arsenio received "dividends" or "profit-shares" covering the period July 15 to August 7, 1986 (Exh. "6"); and (3) the partnership contract was executed after the Agreement with Gragera and petitioner and thus showed the parties' intention to consider it as a transaction of the partnership. In their common venture, petitioner invested capital while respondents contributed industry or services, with the intention of sharing in the profits of the business. The CA disbelieved petitioner's claim that Nieves had misappropriated a total of P200,000 which was supposed to be delivered to Gragera to cover unpaid commissions. It was his task to collect the amounts due, while hers was merely to prepare the daily cash flow reports (Exhs. "1515DDDDDDDDDD") to keep track of his collections. Hence, this Petition.9 Issue Petitioner asks this Court to rule on the following issues:10 "Whether or not Respondent Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to excess or lack of jurisdiction in: 1. Holding that private respondents were partners/joint venturers and not employees of Santos in connection with the agreement between Santos and Monte Maria/Gragera; 2. Affirming the findings of the trial court that the phrase 'Received by' on documents signed by Nieves Reyes signified receipt of copies of the documents and not of the sums shown thereon; 3. Affirming that the signature of Nieves Reyes on Exhibit 'E' was a forgery; 4. Finding that Exhibit 'H' [did] not establish receipt by Nieves Reyes of P200,000.00 for delivery to Gragera; 5 Affirming the dismissal of Santos' [Second] Amended Complaint; 6. Affirming the decision of the trial court, upholding private respondents' counterclaim; 7. Denying Santos' motion for reconsideration dated September 11, 1998." Succinctly put, the following were the issues raised by petitioner: (1) whether the parties' relationship was one of partnership or of employer employee; (2) whether Nieves misappropriated the sums of money allegedly entrusted to her for delivery to Gragera as his commissions; and (3) whether respondents were entitled to the partnership profits as determined by the trial court. The Court's Ruling The Petition is partly meritorious. First Issue: Business Relationship

Petitioner maintains that he employed the services of respondent spouses in the money-lending venture with Gragera, with Nieves as bookkeeper and Arsenio as credit investigator. That Nieves introduced Gragera to Santos did not make her a partner. She was only a witness to the Agreement between the two. Separate from the partnership between petitioner and Gragera was that which existed among petitioner, Nieves and Zabat, a partnership that was dissolved when Zabat was expelled. On the other hand, both the CA and the trial court rejected petitioner's contentions and ruled that the business relationship was one of partnership. We quote from the CA Decision, as follows: "[Respondents] were industrial partners of [petitioner]x x x . Nieves herself provided the initiative in the lending activities with Monte Maria. In consonance with the agreement between appellant, Nieves and Zabat (later replaced by Arsenio), [respondents] contributed industry to the common fund with the intention of sharing in the profits of the partnership. [Respondents] provided services without which the partnership would not have [had] the wherewithal to carry on the purpose for which it was organized and as such [were] considered industrial partners (Evangelista v. Abad Santos, 51 SCRA 416 [1973]). "While concededly, the partnership between [petitioner,] Nieves and Zabat was technically dissolved by the expulsion of Zabat therefrom, the remaining partners simply continued the business of the partnership without undergoing the procedure relative to dissolution. Instead, they invited Arsenio to participate as a partner in their operations. There was therefore, no intent to dissolve the earlier partnership. The partnership between [petitioner,] Nieves and Arsenio simply took over and continued the business of the former partnership with Zabat, one of the incidents of which was the lending operations with Monte Maria. xxx xxx xxx

"Gragera and [petitioner] were not partners. The money-lending activities undertaken with Monte Maria was done in pursuit of the business for which the partnership between [petitioner], Nieves and Zabat (later Arsenio) was organized. Gragera who represented Monte Maria was merely paid commissions in exchange for the collection of loans. The commissions were fixed on gross returns, regardless of the expenses incurred in the operation of the business. The sharing of gross returns does not in itself establish a partnership."11 We agree with both courts on this point. By the contract of partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.12 The "Articles of Agreement" stipulated that the signatories shall share the profits of the business in a 70-15-15 manner, with petitioner getting the lion's share.13 This stipulation clearly proved the establishment of a partnership. We find no cogent reason to disagree with the lower courts that the partnership continued lending money to the members of the Monte Maria Community Development Group, Inc., which later on changed its business name to Private Association for Community Development, Inc. (PACDI). Nieves was not merely petitioner's employee. She discharged her bookkeeping duties in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Agreement, which states as follows: "2. That the SECOND PARTY and THIRD PARTY shall handle the solicitation and screening of prospective borrowers, and shall x x x each be responsible in handling the collection of the loan payments of the borrowers that they each solicited.

"3. That the bookkeeping and daily balancing of account of the business operation shall be handled by the SECOND PARTY."14 The "Second Party" named in the Agreement was none other than Nieves Reyes. On the other hand, Arsenio's duties as credit investigator are subsumed under the phrase "screening of prospective borrowers." Because of this Agreement and the disbursement of monthly "allowances" and "profit shares" or "dividends" (Exh. "6") to Arsenio, we uphold the factual finding of both courts that he replaced Zabat in the partnership. Indeed, the partnership was established to engage in a money-lending business, despite the fact that it was formalized only after the Memorandum of Agreement had been signed by petitioner and Gragera. Contrary to petitioner's contention, there is no evidence to show that a different business venture is referred to in this Agreement, which was executed on August 6, 1986, or about a month after the Memorandum had been signed by petitioner and Gragera on July 14, 1986. The Agreement itself attests to this fact: "WHEREAS, the parties have decided to formalize the terms of their business relationship in order that their respective interests may be properly defined and established for their mutual benefit and understanding."15 Second Issue: No Proof of Misappropriation of Gragera's Unpaid Commission Petitioner faults the CA finding that Nieves did not misappropriate money intended for Gragera's commission. According to him, Gragera remitted his daily collection to Nieves. This is shown by Exhibit "B." (the "Schedule of Daily Payments"), which bears her signature under the words "received by." For the period July 1986 to March 1987, Gragera should have earned a total commission of P4,282,429.30. However, only P3,068,133.20 was received by him. Thus, petitioner infers that she misappropriated the difference of P1,214,296.10, which represented the unpaid commissions. Exhibit "H." is an untitled tabulation which, according to him, shows that Gragera was also entitled to a commission of P200,000, an amount that was never delivered by Nieves.16 On this point, the CA ruled that Exhibits "B," "F," "E" and "H" did not show that Nieves received for delivery to Gragera any amount from which the P1,214,296.10 unpaid commission was supposed to come, and that such exhibits were insufficient proof that she had embezzled P200,000. Said the CA: "The presentation of Exhibit "D" vaguely denominated as 'members ledger' does not clearly establish that Nieves received amounts from Monte Maria's members. The document does not clearly state what amounts the entries thereon represent. More importantly, Nieves made the entries for the limited period of January 11, 1987 to February 17, 1987 only while the rest were made by Gragera's own staff. "Neither can we give probative value to Exhibit 'E' which allegedly shows acknowledgment of the remittance of commissions to Verona Gonzales. The document is a private one and its due execution and authenticity have not been duly proved as required in [S]ection 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which states: 'SECTION 20. Proof of Private Document Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. 'Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.' "The court a quo even ruled that the signature thereon was a forgery, as it found that: 'x x x . But NIEVES denied that Exh. E-1 is her signature; she claimed that it is a forgery. The initial stroke of Exh. E-1 starts from up and goes downward. The initial stroke of the genuine signatures of NIEVES (Exhs. A-3, B-1, F-1, among others) starts from below and goes upward. This difference in the start of the initial stroke of the signatures Exhs. E-1 and of the genuine signatures lends credence to Nieves' claim that the signature Exh. E-1 is a forgery.' xxx xxx xxx

"Nieves' testimony that the schedules of daily payment (Exhs. 'B' and 'F') were based on the predetermined 100% collection as guaranteed by Gragera is credible and clearly in accord with the evidence. A perusal of Exhs. "B" and "F" as well as Exhs. '15' to 15-DDDDDDDDDD' reveal that the entries were indeed based on the 100% assumptive collection guaranteed by Gragera. Thus, the total amount recorded on Exh. 'B' is exactly the number of borrowers multiplied by the projected collection of P150.00 per borrower. This holds true for Exh. 'F.' "Corollarily, Nieves' explanation that the documents were pro forma and that she signed them not to signify that she collected the amounts but that she received the documents themselves is more believable than [petitioner's] assertion that she actually handled the amounts. "Contrary to [petitioner's] assertion, Exhibit 'H' does not unequivocally establish that x x x Nieves received P200,000.00 as commission for Gragera. As correctly stated by the court a quo, the document showed a liquidation of P240.000 00 and not P200,000.00. "Accordingly, we find Nieves' testimony that after August 20, 1986, all collections were made by Gragera believable and worthy of credence. Since Gragera guaranteed a daily 100% payment of the loans, he took charge of the collections. As [petitioner's] representative, Nieves merely prepared the daily cash flow reports (Exh. '15' to '15 DDDDDDDDDD') to enable [petitioner] to keep track of Gragera's operations. Gragera on the other hand devised the schedule of daily payment (Exhs. 'B' and 'F') to record the projected gross daily collections. "As aptly observed by the court a quo: '26.1. As between the versions of SANTOS and NIEVES on how the commissions of GRAGERA [were] paid to him[,] that of NIEVES is more logical and practical and therefore, more believable. SANTOS' version would have given rise to this improbable situation: GRAGERA would collect the daily amortizations and then give them to NIEVES; NIEVES would get GRAGERA's commissions from the amortizations and then give such commission to GRAGERA."'17 These findings are in harmony with the trial court's ruling, which we quote below:

"21. Exh. H does not prove that SANTOS gave to NIEVES and the latter received P200,000.00 for delivery to GRAGERA. Exh. H shows under its sixth column 'ADDITIONAL CASH' that the additional cash was P240,000.00. If Exh. H were the liquidation of the P200,000.00 as alleged by SANTOS, then his claim is not true. This is so because it is a liquidation of the sum of P240,000.00. "21.1. SANTOS claimed that he learned of NIEVES' failure to give the P200,000.00 to GRAGERA when he received the latter's letter complaining of its delayed release. Assuming as true SANTOS' claim that he gave P200,000.00 to GRAGERA, there is no competent evidence that NIEVES did not give it to GRAGERA. The only proof that NIEVES did not give it is the letter. But SANTOS did not even present the letter in evidence. He did not explain why he did not. "21.2. The evidence shows that all money transactions of the money-lending business of SANTOS were covered by petty cash vouchers. It is therefore strange why SANTOS did not present any voucher or receipt covering the P200,000.00."18 In sum, the lower courts found it unbelievable that Nieves had embezzled P1,555,068.70 from the partnership. She did not remit P1,214,296.10 to Gragera, because he had deducted his commissions before remitting his collections. Exhibits "B" and "F" are merely computations of what Gragera should collect for the day; they do not show that Nieves received the amounts stated therein. Neither is there sufficient proof that she misappropriated P200,000, because Exhibit "H." does not indicate that such amount was received by her; in fact, it shows a different figure. Petitioner has utterly failed to demonstrate why a review of these factual findings is warranted. Wellentrenched is the basic rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court.19 Although there are exceptions to this rule, petitioner has not satisfactorily shown that any of them is applicable to this issue. Third Issue: Accounting of Partnership Petitioner refuses any liability for respondents' claims on the profits of the partnership. He maintains that "both business propositions were flops," as his investments were "consumed and eaten up by the commissions orchestrated to be due Gragera" a situation that "could not have been rendered possible without complicity between Nieves and Gragera." Respondent spouses, on the other hand, postulate that petitioner instituted the action below to avoid payment of the demands of Nieves, because sometime in March 1987, she "signified to petitioner that it was about time to get her share of the profits which had already accumulated to some P3 million." Respondents add that while the partnership has not declared dividends or liquidated its earnings, the profits are already reflected on paper. To prove the counterclaim of Nieves, the spouses show that from June 13, 1986 up to April 19, 1987, the profit totaled P20,429,520 (Exhs. "10" et seq. and "15" et seq.). Based on that income, her 15 percent share under the joint venture amounts to P3,064,428 (Exh. "10-I-3"); and Arsenio's, P2,026,000 minus the P30,000 which was already advanced to him (Petty Cash Vouchers, Exhs. "6, 6-A to 6-B"). The CA originally held that respondents' counterclaim was premature, pending an accounting of the partnership. However, in its assailed Resolution of August 17, 1998, it turned volte face. Affirming the trial court's ruling on the counterclaim, it held as follows:

"We earlier ruled that there is still need for an accounting of the profits and losses of the partnership before we can rule with certainty as to the respective shares of the partners. Upon a further review of the records of this case, however, there appears to be sufficient basis to determine the amount of shares of the parties and damages incurred by [respondents]. The fact is that the court a quo already made such a determination [in its] decision dated August 13, 1991 on the basis of the facts on record."20 The trial court's ruling alluded to above is quoted below: "27. The defendants' counterclaim for the payment of their share in the profits of their joint venture with SANTOS is supported by the evidence. "27.1. NIEVES testified that: Her claim to a share in the profits is based on the agreement (Exhs. 5, 5-A and 5-B). The profits are shown in the working papers (Exhs. 10 to 10-I, inclusive) which she prepared. Exhs. 10 to 10-I (inclusive) were based on the daily cash flow reports of which Exh. 3 is a sample. The originals of the daily cash flow reports (Exhs. 3 and 15 to 15-D(10) were given to SANTOS. The joint venture had a net profit of P20,429,520.00 (Exh. 10-I-1), from its operations from June 13, 1986 to April 19, 1987 (Exh. 1-I-4). She had a share of P3,064,428.00 (Exh. 10-I-3) and ARSENIO, about P2,926,000.00, in the profits. "27.1.1 SANTOS never denied NIEVES' testimony that the money-lending business he was engaged in netted a profit and that the originals of the daily case flow reports were furnished to him. SANTOS however alleged that the money-lending operation of his joint venture with NIEVES and ZABAT resulted in a loss of about half a million pesos to him. But such loss, even if true, does not negate NIEVES' claim that overall, the joint venture among them SANTOS, NIEVES and ARSENIO netted a profit. There is no reason for the Court to doubt the veracity of [the testimony of] NIEVES. "27.2 The P26,260.50 which ARSENIO received as part of his share in the profits (Exhs. 6, 6-A and 6-B) should be deducted from his total share."21 After a close examination of respondents' exhibits, we find reason to disagree with the CA. Exhibit "10-I"22 shows that the partnership earned a "total income" of P20,429,520 for the period June 13, 1986 until April 19, 1987. This entry is derived from the sum of the amounts under the following column headings: "2-Day Advance Collection," "Service Fee," "Notarial Fee," "Application Fee," "Net Interest Income" and "Interest Income on Investment." Such entries represent the collections of the money-lending business or its gross income. The "total income" shown on Exhibit "10-I" did not consider the expenses sustained by the partnership. For instance, it did not factor in the "gross loan releases" representing the money loaned to clients. Since the business is money-lending, such releases are comparable with the inventory or supplies in other business enterprises. Noticeably missing from the computation of the "total income" is the deduction of the weekly allowance disbursed to respondents. Exhibits "I" et seq. and "J" et seq.23 show that Arsenio received allowances from July 19, 1986 to March 27, 1987 in the aggregate amount of P25,500; and Nieves, from July 12, 1986 to March 27, 1987, in the total amount of P25,600. These allowances are different from the profit already received by Arsenio. They represent expenses that should have been deducted from the business profits. The point is that all expenses incurred by the moneylending enterprise of the parties must first be deducted from the "total income" in order to arrive at the "net profit" of the partnership. The share of each one of them should be based on this "net profit"

and not from the "gross income" or "total income" reflected in Exhibit "10-I," which the two courts invariably referred to as "cash flow" sheets. Similarly, Exhibits "15" et seq.,24 which are the "Daily Cashflow Reports," do not reflect the business expenses incurred by the parties, because they show only the daily cash collections. Contrary to the rulings of both the trial and the appellate courts, respondents' exhibits do not reflect the complete financial condition of the money-lending business. The lower courts obviously labored over a mistaken notion that Exhibit " 10-I-1" represented the "net profits" earned by the partnership. For the purpose of determining the profit that should go to an industrial partner (who shares in the profits but is not liable for the losses), the gross income from all the transactions carried on by the firm must be added together, and from this sum must be subtracted the expenses or the losses sustained in the business. Only in the difference representing the net profits does the industrial partner share. But if, on the contrary, the losses exceed the income, the industrial partner does not share in the losses.25 When the judgment of the CA is premised on a misapprehension of facts or a failure to notice certain relevant facts that would otherwise justify a different conclusion, as in this particular issue, a review of its factual findings may be conducted, as an exception to the general rule applied to the first two issues.26 The trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses while they are testifying, an opportunity not available to appellate courts. Thus, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great weight, even finality, when supported by substantial evidence; more so when such assessment is affirmed by the CA. But when the issue involves the evaluation of exhibits or documents that are attached to the case records, as in the third issue, the rule may be relaxed. Under that situation, this Court has a similar opportunity to inspect, examine and evaluate those records, independently of the lower courts. Hence, we deem the award of the partnership share, as computed by the trial court and adopted by the CA, to be incomplete and not binding on this Court. WHEREFORE, the Petition is partly GRANTED. The assailed November 28, 1997 Decision is AFFIRMED, but the challenged Resolutions dated August 17, 1998 and October 9, 1998 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs. SO ORDERED. Melo, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur. Vitug, J., on official leave.

Footnotes
1

First Division, composed of JJ Fidel P. Purisima, chairman; Corona Ibay-Somera, member; and Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, member and ponente.
2

Special Former First Division, composed of JJ. Quirino D. Abad Santos Jr., chairman (vice J. Purisima); Ibay-Somera and Agcaoili.
3

CA Decision, p. 12; rollo, p. 96.

CA Resolution, p. 3; rollo, p. 241. Rollo, p; 128.

Referred to by petitioner in his Memorandum (p. 4) as "Monte Maria Community Development Group, Inc."
7

CA Decision, pp. 2-4; rollo, 86-88. RTC Decision, pp. 16-17; rollo, pp. 82-83.

On November 4, 1999, the Court received the Memorandum for the Respondents, signed by Atty. Benito P. Fabie. Petitioner's Memorandum, signed by Atty. Arcangelita M. RomillaLontok, was received on October 20, 1999. In its October 27, 1999 Resolution, this Court required the CA to explain the discrepancy in the copies of the August 17, 1998 Resolution received by the parties and to furnish it with an authentic copy thereof. The CA complied on November 12, 1999, the date on which this case was deemed submitted for resolution.
10

Memorandum for the Petitioner, pp. 7-8; rollo, pp. 180-181. CA Decision, pp. 7-8; rollo, pp. 91-92.

11

12

Art. 1767, Civil Code. The essential elements of a partnership are as follows: (1) an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (2) an intent to divide the profits among the contracting parties. Vitug, Compendium of Civil Law & Jurisprudence, 1993 rev. ed., p. 707; Fue Leung v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 169 SCRA 746, 754, January 31, 1989; and Evangelista v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 102 Phil. 140, 144, October 15, 1957.
13

Par. 4, Articles of Agreement, Annex "D"; rollo, p. 56. Annex "D" of the Petition; rollo, p. 56. Annex "D" of the Petition; rollo, p. 56.

14

15

16

Petitioner claims that Nieves embezzled P1,555,068.70 from the partnership (rollo, p. 12), the amount broken down as follows: P1,214,296.10 - unpaid commission due Gragera (Exh. "C-l") 140,772.60 - unpaid commission for the two-day advance payment of clients (Exh. "C-l l ") 200,000.00 - cash actually delivered by petitioner to Nieves (Exh. "H")
17

CA Decision, pp. 10-11; rollo, pp. 94-95. RTC Decision, p. 12; rollo, p. 78.

18

19

National Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 45, 66, December 12, 1997; Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 703, 708-709, February 26, 1997; Sps. Lagandaon v. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 330, 341, May 21, 1998.
20

CA Resolution, p. 2; rollo, p. 240. RTC Decision, p. 14; rollo, p. 80. "Daily Interest Income & Other Income Control," Folder II, Records. Folder I, Records. Folder II, Records.

21

22

23

24

25

Criado v. Gutierrez Hermanos, 37 Phil. 883, 894-895, March 23, 1918; and Moran Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 88, 96, October 31, 1984.
26

Fuentes v. CA, supra at 709.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-68118 October 29, 1985 JOSE P. OBILLOS, JR., SARAH P. OBILLOS, ROMEO P. OBILLOS and REMEDIOS P. OBILLOS, brothers and sisters, petitioners vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. Demosthenes B. Gadioma for petitioners.

AQUINO, J.: This case is about the income tax liability of four brothers and sisters who sold two parcels of land which they had acquired from their father. On March 2, 1973 Jose Obillos, Sr. completed payment to Ortigas & Co., Ltd. on two lots with areas of 1,124 and 963 square meters located at Greenhills, San Juan, Rizal. The next day he transferred his rights to his four children, the petitioners, to enable them to build their residences. The company sold the two lots to petitioners for P178,708.12 on March 13 (Exh. A and B, p. 44, Rollo). Presumably, the Torrens titles issued to them would show that they were co-owners of the two lots.

In 1974, or after having held the two lots for more than a year, the petitioners resold them to the Walled City Securities Corporation and Olga Cruz Canda for the total sum of P313,050 (Exh. C and D). They derived from the sale a total profit of P134,341.88 or P33,584 for each of them. They treated the profit as a capital gain and paid an income tax on one-half thereof or of P16,792. In April, 1980, or one day before the expiration of the five-year prescriptive period, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue required the four petitioners to pay corporate income tax on the total profit of P134,336 in addition to individual income tax on their shares thereof He assessed P37,018 as corporate income tax, P18,509 as 50% fraud surcharge and P15,547.56 as 42% accumulated interest, or a total of P71,074.56. Not only that. He considered the share of the profits of each petitioner in the sum of P33,584 as a " taxable in full (not a mere capital gain of which is taxable) and required them to pay deficiency income taxes aggregating P56,707.20 including the 50% fraud surcharge and the accumulated interest. Thus, the petitioners are being held liable for deficiency income taxes and penalties totalling P127,781.76 on their profit of P134,336, in addition to the tax on capital gains already paid by them. The Commissioner acted on the theory that the four petitioners had formed an unregistered partnership or joint venture within the meaning of sections 24(a) and 84(b) of the Tax Code (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Batangas Trans. Co., 102 Phil. 822). The petitioners contested the assessments. Two Judges of the Tax Court sustained the same. Judge Roaquin dissented. Hence, the instant appeal. We hold that it is error to consider the petitioners as having formed a partnership under article 1767 of the Civil Code simply because they allegedly contributed P178,708.12 to buy the two lots, resold the same and divided the profit among themselves. To regard the petitioners as having formed a taxable unregistered partnership would result in oppressive taxation and confirm the dictum that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. That eventuality should be obviated. As testified by Jose Obillos, Jr., they had no such intention. They were co-owners pure and simple. To consider them as partners would obliterate the distinction between a co-ownership and a partnership. The petitioners were not engaged in any joint venture by reason of that isolated transaction. Their original purpose was to divide the lots for residential purposes. If later on they found it not feasible to build their residences on the lots because of the high cost of construction, then they had no choice but to resell the same to dissolve the co-ownership. The division of the profit was merely incidental to the dissolution of the co-ownership which was in the nature of things a temporary state. It had to be terminated sooner or later. Castan Tobeas says: Como establecer el deslinde entre la comunidad ordinaria o copropiedad y la sociedad? El criterio diferencial-segun la doctrina mas generalizada-esta: por razon del origen, en que la sociedad presupone necesariamente la convencion, mentras que la comunidad puede existir y existe ordinariamente sin ela; y

por razon del fin objecto, en que el objeto de la sociedad es obtener lucro, mientras que el de la indivision es solo mantener en su integridad la cosa comun y favorecer su conservacion. Reflejo de este criterio es la sentencia de 15 de Octubre de 1940, en la que se dice que si en nuestro Derecho positive se ofrecen a veces dificultades al tratar de fijar la linea divisoria entre comunidad de bienes y contrato de sociedad, la moderna orientacion de la doctrina cientifica seala como nota fundamental de diferenciacion aparte del origen de fuente de que surgen, no siempre uniforme, la finalidad perseguida por los interesados: lucro comun partible en la sociedad, y mera conservacion y aprovechamiento en la comunidad. (Derecho Civil Espanol, Vol. 2, Part 1, 10 Ed., 1971, 328- 329). Article 1769(3) of the Civil Code provides that "the sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived". There must be an unmistakable intention to form a partnership or joint venture.* Such intent was present in Gatchalian vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 67 Phil. 666, where 15 persons contributed small amounts to purchase a two-peso sweepstakes ticket with the agreement that they would divide the prize The ticket won the third prize of P50,000. The 15 persons were held liable for income tax as an unregistered partnership. The instant case is distinguishable from the cases where the parties engaged in joint ventures for profit. Thus, in Oa vs. ** This view is supported by the following rulings of respondent Commissioner: Co-owership distinguished from partnership.We find that the case at bar is fundamentally similar to the De Leon case. Thus, like the De Leon heirs, the Longa heirs inherited the 'hacienda' in questionpro-indiviso from their deceased parents; they did not contribute or invest additional ' capital to increase or expand the inherited properties; they merely continued dedicating the property to the use to which it had been put by their forebears; they individually reported in their tax returns their corresponding shares in the income and expenses of the 'hacienda', and they continued for many years the status of co-ownership in order, as conceded by respondent, 'to preserve its (the 'hacienda') value and to continue the existing contractual relations with the Central Azucarera de Bais for milling purposes. Longa vs. Aranas, CTA Case No. 653, July 31, 1963). All co-ownerships are not deemed unregistered pratnership.Co-Ownership who own properties which produce income should not automatically be considered partners of an unregistered partnership, or a corporation, within the purview of the income tax law. To hold otherwise, would be to subject the income of all co-ownerships of inherited properties to the tax on corporations, inasmuch as if a property does not produce an income at all, it is not subject to any kind of income tax, whether the income tax on individuals or the income tax on corporation. (De Leon vs. CI R, CTA Case No. 738, September 11, 1961, cited in Araas, 1977 Tax Code Annotated, Vol. 1, 1979 Ed., pp. 77-78).

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-19342, May 25, 1972, 45 SCRA 74, where after an extrajudicial settlement the co-heirs used the inheritance or the incomes derived therefrom as a common fund to produce profits for themselves, it was held that they were taxable as an unregistered partnership. It is likewise different from Reyes vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 24 SCRA 198, where father and son purchased a lot and building, entrusted the administration of the building to an administrator and divided equally the net income, and from Evangelista vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 102 Phil. 140, where the three Evangelista sisters bought four pieces of real property which they leased to various tenants and derived rentals therefrom. Clearly, the petitioners in these two cases had formed an unregistered partnership. In the instant case, what the Commissioner should have investigated was whether the father donated the two lots to the petitioners and whether he paid the donor's tax (See Art. 1448, Civil Code). We are not prejudging this matter. It might have already prescribed. WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Tax Court is reversed and set aside. The assessments are cancelled. No costs. SO ORDERED. Abad Santos, Escolin, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur. Concepcion, Jr., is on leave.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 134559 December 9, 1999 ANTONIA TORRES assisted by her husband, ANGELO TORRES; and EMETERIA BARING, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MANUEL TORRES, respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.: Courts may not extricate parties from the necessary consequences of their acts. That the terms of a contract turn out to be financially disadvantageous to them will not relieve them of their obligations therein. The lack of an inventory of real property will not ipso facto release the contracting partners

from their respective obligations to each other arising from acts executed in accordance with their agreement. The Case The Petition for Review on Certiorari before us assails the March 5, 1998 Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals 2 (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 42378 and its June 25, 1998 Resolution denying reconsideration. The assailed Decision affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City in Civil Case No. R21208, which disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing considerations, the Court, finding for the defendant and against the plaintiffs, orders the dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint. The counterclaims of the defendant are likewise ordered dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs. 3 The Facts Sisters Antonia Torres and Emeteria Baring, herein petitioners, entered into a "joint venture agreement" with Respondent Manuel Torres for the development of a parcel of land into a subdivision. Pursuant to the contract, they executed a Deed of Sale covering the said parcel of land in favor of respondent, who then had it registered in his name. By mortgaging the property, respondent obtained from Equitable Bank a loan of P40,000 which, under the Joint Venture Agreement, was to be used for the development of the subdivision. 4 All three of them also agreed to
share the proceeds from the sale of the subdivided lots.

The project did not push through, and the land was subsequently foreclosed by the bank. According to petitioners, the project failed because of "respondent's lack of funds or means and skills." They add that respondent used the loan not for the development of the subdivision, but in furtherance of his own company, Universal Umbrella Company. On the other hand, respondent alleged that he used the loan to implement the Agreement. With the said amount, he was able to effect the survey and the subdivision of the lots. He secured the Lapu Lapu City Council's approval of the subdivision project which he advertised in a local newspaper. He also caused the construction of roads, curbs and gutters. Likewise, he entered into a contract with an engineering firm for the building of sixty low-cost housing units and actually even set up a model house on one of the subdivision lots. He did all of these for a total expense of P85,000. Respondent claimed that the subdivision project failed, however, because petitioners and their relatives had separately caused the annotations of adverse claims on the title to the land, which eventually scared away prospective buyers. Despite his requests, petitioners refused to cause the clearing of the claims, thereby forcing him to give up on the project. 5 Subsequently, petitioners filed a criminal case for estafa against respondent and his wife, who were however acquitted. Thereafter, they filed the present civil case which, upon respondent's motion, was later dismissed by the trial court in an Order dated September 6, 1982. On appeal, however, the appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings. Thereafter, the RTC issued its assailed Decision, which, as earlier stated, was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this Petition. 6

Ruling of the Court of Appeals In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that petitioners and respondent had formed a partnership for the development of the subdivision. Thus, they must bear the loss suffered by the partnership in the same proportion as their share in the profits stipulated in the contract. Disagreeing with the trial court's pronouncement that losses as well as profits in a joint venture should be distributed equally, 7 the CA invoked Article 1797 of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 1797 The losses and profits shall be distributed in conformity with the agreement. If only the share of each partner in the profits has been agreed upon, the share of each in the losses shall be in the same proportion. The CA elucidated further: In the absence of stipulation, the share of each partner in the profits and losses shall be in proportion to what he may have contributed, but the industrial partner shall not be liable for the losses. As for the profits, the industrial partner shall receive such share as may be just and equitable under the circumstances. If besides his services he has contributed capital, he shall also receive a share in the profits in proportion to his capital. The Issue Petitioners impute to the Court of Appeals the following error: . . . [The] Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the transaction . . . between the petitioners and respondent was that of a joint venture/partnership, ignoring outright the provision of Article 1769, and other related provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines. 8 The Court's Ruling The Petition is bereft of merit. Main Issue: Existence of a Partnership Petitioners deny having formed a partnership with respondent. They contend that the Joint Venture Agreement and the earlier Deed of Sale, both of which were the bases of the appellate court's finding of a partnership, were void. In the same breath, however, they assert that under those very same contracts, respondent is liable for his failure to implement the project. Because the agreement entitled them to receive 60 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the subdivision lots, they pray that respondent pay them damages equivalent to 60 percent of the value of the property. 9 The pertinent portions of the Joint Venture Agreement read as follows: KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This AGREEMENT, is made and entered into at Cebu City, Philippines, this 5th day of March, 1969, by and between MR. MANUEL R. TORRES, . . . the FIRST PARTY, likewise, MRS. ANTONIA B. TORRES, and MISS EMETERIA BARING, . . . the SECOND PARTY: WITNESSETH: That, whereas, the SECOND PARTY, voluntarily offered the FIRST PARTY, this property located at Lapu-Lapu City, Island of Mactan, under Lot No. 1368 covering TCT No. T-0184 with a total area of 17,009 square meters, to be sub-divided by the FIRST PARTY; Whereas, the FIRST PARTY had given the SECOND PARTY, the sum of: TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency upon the execution of this contract for the property entrusted by the SECOND PARTY, for sub-division projects and development purposes; NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above covenants and promises herein contained the respective parties hereto do hereby stipulate and agree as follows: ONE: That the SECOND PARTY signed an absolute Deed of Sale . . . dated March 5, 1969, in the amount of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTEEN & FIFTY CTVS. (P25,513.50) Philippine Currency, for 1,700 square meters at ONE [PESO] & FIFTY CTVS. (P1.50) Philippine Currency, in favor of the FIRST PARTY, but the SECOND PARTY did not actually receive the payment. SECOND: That the SECOND PARTY, had received from the FIRST PARTY, the necessary amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) pesos, Philippine currency, for their personal obligations and this particular amount will serve as an advance payment from the FIRST PARTY for the property mentioned to be sub-divided and to be deducted from the sales. THIRD: That the FIRST PARTY, will not collect from the SECOND PARTY, the interest and the principal amount involving the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, until the sub-division project is terminated and ready for sale to any interested parties, and the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) pesos, Philippine currency, will be deducted accordingly. FOURTH: That all general expense[s] and all cost[s] involved in the subdivision project should be paid by the FIRST PARTY, exclusively and all the expenses will not be deducted from the sales after the development of the sub-division project. FIFTH: That the sales of the sub-divided lots will be divided into SIXTY PERCENTUM 60% for the SECOND PARTY and FORTY PERCENTUM 40% for the FIRST PARTY, and additional profits or whatever income deriving from the sales will be divided equally according to the . . . percentage [agreed upon] by both parties.

SIXTH: That the intended sub-division project of the property involved will start the work and all improvements upon the adjacent lots will be negotiated in both parties['] favor and all sales shall [be] decided by both parties. SEVENTH: That the SECOND PARTIES, should be given an option to get back the property mentioned provided the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, borrowed by the SECOND PARTY, will be paid in full to the FIRST PARTY, including all necessary improvements spent by the FIRST PARTY, and-the FIRST PARTY will be given a grace period to turnover the property mentioned above. That this AGREEMENT shall be binding and obligatory to the parties who executed same freely and voluntarily for the uses and purposes therein stated. 10 A reading of the terms embodied in the Agreement indubitably shows the existence of a partnership pursuant to Article 1767 of the Civil Code, which provides: Art. 1767. By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Under the above-quoted Agreement, petitioners would contribute property to the partnership in the form of land which was to be developed into a subdivision; while respondent would give, in addition to his industry, the amount needed for general expenses and other costs. Furthermore, the income from the said project would be divided according to the stipulated percentage. Clearly, the contract manifested the intention of the parties to form a partnership. 11 It should be stressed that the parties implemented the contract. Thus, petitioners transferred the title to the land to facilitate its use in the name of the respondent. On the other hand, respondent caused the subject land to be mortgaged, the proceeds of which were used for the survey and the subdivision of the land. As noted earlier, he developed the roads, the curbs and the gutters of the subdivision and entered into a contract to construct low-cost housing units on the property. Respondent's actions clearly belie petitioners' contention that he made no contribution to the partnership. Under Article 1767 of the Civil Code, a partner may contribute not only money or property, but also industry. Petitioners Bound by Terms of Contract Under Article 1315 of the Civil Code, contracts bind the parties not only to what has been expressly stipulated, but also to all necessary consequences thereof, as follows: Art. 1315. Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law.

It is undisputed that petitioners are educated and are thus presumed to have understood the terms of the contract they voluntarily signed. If it was not in consonance with their expectations, they should have objected to it and insisted on the provisions they wanted. Courts are not authorized to extricate parties from the necessary consequences of their acts, and the fact that the contractual stipulations may turn out to be financially disadvantageous will not relieve parties thereto of their obligations. They cannot now disavow the relationship formed from such agreement due to their supposed misunderstanding of its terms. Alleged Nullity of the Partnership Agreement Petitioners argue that the Joint Venture Agreement is void under Article 1773 of the Civil Code, which provides: Art. 1773. A contract of partnership is void, whenever immovable property is contributed thereto, if an inventory of said property is not made, signed by the parties, and attached to the public instrument. They contend that since the parties did not make, sign or attach to the public instrument an inventory of the real property contributed, the partnership is void. We clarify. First, Article 1773 was intended primarily to protect third persons. Thus, the eminent Arturo M. Tolentino states that under the aforecited provision which is a complement of Article 1771, 12 "The execution of a public instrument would be useless if there is no inventory of the property
contributed, because without its designation and description, they cannot be subject to inscription in the Registry of Property, and their contribution cannot prejudice third persons. This will result in fraud to those who contract with the partnership in the belief [in] the efficacy of the guaranty in which the immovables may consist. Thus, the contract is declared void by the law when no such inventory is made." The case at bar does not involve third parties who may be prejudiced.

Second, petitioners themselves invoke the allegedly void contract as basis for their claim that respondent should pay them 60 percent of the value of the property. 13 They cannot in one breath
deny the contract and in another recognize it, depending on what momentarily suits their purpose. Parties cannot adopt inconsistent positions in regard to a contract and courts will not tolerate, much less approve, such practice.

In short, the alleged nullity of the partnership will not prevent courts from considering the Joint Venture Agreement an ordinary contract from which the parties' rights and obligations to each other may be inferred and enforced. Partnership Agreement Not the Result of an Earlier Illegal Contract Petitioners also contend that the Joint Venture Agreement is void under Article 1422 14 of the Civil
Code, because it is the direct result of an earlier illegal contract, which was for the sale of the land without valid consideration.

This argument is puerile. The Joint Venture Agreement clearly states that the consideration for the sale was the expectation of profits from the subdivision project. Its first stipulation states that

petitioners did not actually receive payment for the parcel of land sold to respondent. Consideration, more properly denominated as cause, can take different forms, such as the prestation or promise of a thing or service by another. 15 In this case, the cause of the contract of sale consisted not in the stated peso value of the land, but in the expectation of profits from the subdivision project, for which the land was intended to be used. As explained by the trial court, "the land was in effect given to the partnership as [petitioner's] participation therein. . . . There was therefore a consideration for the sale, the [petitioners] acting in the expectation that, should the venture come into fruition, they [would] get sixty percent of the net profits." Liability of the Parties Claiming that rerpondent was solely responsible for the failure of the subdivision project, petitioners maintain that he should be made to pay damages equivalent to 60 percent of the value of the property, which was their share in the profits under the Joint Venture Agreement. We are not persuaded. True, the Court of Appeals held that petitioners' acts were not the cause of the failure of the project. 16 But it also ruled that neither was respondent responsible therefor. 17 In
imputing the blame solely to him, petitioners failed to give any reason why we should disregard the factual findings of the appellate court relieving him of fault. Verily, factual issues cannot be resolved in a petition for review under Rule 45, as in this case. Petitioners have not alleged, not to say shown, that their Petition constitutes one of the exceptions to this doctrine. 18 Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the CA's ruling that petitioners are not entitled to damages.

WHEREFORE, the Perition is hereby DENIED and the challenged Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED Melo, Vitug, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1 Penned by Justice Ramon U. Mabutas Jr.; concurred in by Justices Emeterio C. Cui, Division chairman, and Hilarion L. Aquino, member. 2 Second Division. 3 CA Decision, p. 1; rollo, p. 15. 4 CA Decision, p. 2; rollo, p. 16. 5 CA Decision, p. 3; rollo, p. 17. 6 The case was deemed submitted for resolution on September 15, 1999, upon receipt by the Court of the respective Memoranda of the respondent and the petitioners. 7 CA Decision, p. 32; rollo, p. 46.

8 Petition, p. 2; rollo, p. 10. 9 Petitioners' Memorandum, pp. 6-7; rollo, pp. 82-83. 10 CA Decision, pp. 5-6; rollo, pp. 19-20. 11 Jo Chung Cang v. Pacific Commercial Co., 45 Phil. 142, September 6, 1923. 12 Art. 1771. A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary. 13 Petitioners' Memorandum, pp. 6-7; rollo, pp. 82-83. 14 Art. 1422. A contract which is the direct result of a previous illegal contract, is also void and inexistent. 15 Art. 1350. In onerous contracts the cause is understood to be, for each contracting party, the prestation or promise of a thing or service by the other; in remuneratory ones, the service or benefit which is remunerated; and in contracts of pure beneficence, the mere liberality of the benefactor. 16 CA Decision, p. 20; rollo, p. 34. 17 Ibid., p. 28; rollo, p. 42. 18 See Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 703, February 26, 1997.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 143340 August 15, 2001

LILIBETH SUNGA-CHAN and CECILIA SUNGA, petitioners, vs. LAMBERTO T. CHUA, respondent. GONZAGA-REYES, J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated January 31, 2000 in the case entitled "Lamberto T. Chua vs. Lilibeth Sunga Chan and Cecilia Sunga" and of the Resolution dated May 23, 2000 denying the motion for

reconsideration of herein petitioners Lilibeth Sunga and Cecilia Sunga (hereafter collectively referred to as petitioners). The pertinent facts of this case are as follows: On June 22, 1992, Lamberto T. Chua (hereafter respondent) filed a complaint against Lilibeth Sunga Chan (hereafter petitioner Lilibeth) and Cecilia Sunga (hereafter petitioner Cecilia), daughter and wife, respectively of the deceased Jacinto L. Sunga (hereafter Jacinto), for "Winding Up of Partnership Affairs, Accounting, Appraisal and Recovery of Shares and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Attachment" with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte. Respondent alleged that in 1977, he verbally entered into a partnership with Jacinto in the distribution of Shellane Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in Manila. For business convenience, respondent and Jacinto allegedly agreed to register the business name of their partnership, SHELLITE GAS APPLIANCE CENTER (hereafter Shellite), under the name of Jacinto as a sole proprietorship. Respondent allegedly delivered his initial capital contribution of P100,000.00 to Jacinto while the latter in turn produced P100,000.00 as his counterpart contribution, with the intention that the profits would be equally divided between them. The partnership allegedly had Jacinto as manager, assisted by Josephine Sy (hereafter Josephine), a sister of the wife respondent, Erlinda Sy. As compensation, Jacinto would receive a manager's fee or remuneration of 10% of the gross profit and Josephine would receive 10% of the net profits, in addition to her wages and other remuneration from the business. Allegedly, from the time that Shellite opened for business on July 8, 1977, its business operation went quite and was profitable. Respondent claimed that he could attest to success of their business because of the volume of orders and deliveries of filled Shellane cylinder tanks supplied by Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation. While Jacinto furnished respondent with the merchandise inventories, balance sheets and net worth of Shellite from 1977 to 1989, respondent however suspected that the amount indicated in these documents were understated and undervalued by Jacinto and Josephine for their own selfish reasons and for tax avoidance. Upon Jacinto's death in the later part of 1989, his surviving wife, petitioner Cecilia and particularly his daughter, petitioner Lilibeth, took over the operations, control, custody, disposition and management of Shellite without respondent's consent. Despite respondent's repeated demands upon petitioners for accounting, inventory, appraisal, winding up and restitution of his net shares in the partnership, petitioners failed to comply. Petitioner Lilibeth allegedly continued the operations of Shellite, converting to her own use and advantage its properties. On March 31, 1991, respondent claimed that after petitioner Lilibeth ran out the alibis and reasons to evade respondent's demands, she disbursed out of the partnership funds the amount of P200,000.00 and partially paid the same to respondent. Petitioner Lilibeth allegedly informed respondent that the P200,000.00 represented partial payment of the latter's share in the partnership, with a promise that the former would make the complete inventory and winding up of the properties of the business establishment. Despite such commitment, petitioners allegedly failed to comply with their duty to account, and continued to benefit from the assets and income of Shellite to the damage and prejudice of respondent. On December 19, 1992, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Manila, not the Regional Trial Court in Zamboanga del Norte had jurisdiction over the action. Respondent opposed the motion to dismiss.

On January 12, 1993, the trial court finding the complaint sufficient in from and substance denied the motion to dismiss. On January 30, 1993, petitioners filed their Answer with Compulsory Counter-claims, contending that they are not liable for partnership shares, unreceived income/profits, interests, damages and attorney's fees, that respondent does not have a cause of action against them, and that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action, the SEC being the agency that has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case. As counterclaim, petitioner sought attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. On August 2, 1993, petitioner filed a second Motion to Dismiss this time on the ground that the claim for winding up of partnership affairs, accounting and recovery of shares in partnership affairs, accounting and recovery of shares in partnership assets/properties should be dismissed and prosecuted against the estate of deceased Jacinto in a probate or intestate proceeding. On August 16, 1993, the trial denied the second motion to dismiss for lack of merit. On November 26, 1993, petitioners filed their Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 32499 questioning the denial of the motion to dismiss. On November 29, 1993, petitioners filed with the trial court a Motion to Suspend Pre-trial Conference. On December 13, 1993, the trial court granted the motion to suspend pre-trial conference. On November 15, 1994, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of merit. On January 16, 1995, this Court denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner, "as petitioners failed to show that a reversible error was committed by the appellate court."2 On February 20, 1995, entry of judgment was made by the Clerk of Court and the case was remanded to the trial court on April 26, 1995. On September 25, 1995, the trial court terminated the pre-trial conference and set the hearing of the case of January 17, 1996. Respondent presented his evidence while petitioners were considered to have waived their right to present evidence for their failure to attend the scheduled date for reception of evidence despite notice. On October 7, 1997, the trial court rendered its Decision ruling for respondent. The dispositive of the Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, as follows: (1) DIRECTING them to render an accounting in acceptable form under accounting procedures and standards of the properties, assets, income and profits of the Shellite Gas Appliance Center Since the time of death of Jacinto L. Sunga, from whom they continued the business operations including all businesses derived from Shellite Gas Appliance Center, submit an inventory, and appraisal of all these properties, assets, income, profits etc. to the Court and to plaintiff for approval or disapproval;

(2) ORDERING them to return and restitute to the partnership any and all properties, assets, income and profits they misapplied and converted to their own use and advantage the legally pertain to the plaintiff and account for the properties mentioned in pars. A and B on pages 4-5 of this petition as basis; (3) DIRECTING them to restitute and pay to the plaintiff shares and interest of the plaintiff in the partnership of the listed properties, assets and good will (sic) in schedules A, B and C, on pages 4-5 of the petition; (4) ORDERING them to pay the plaintiff earned but unreceived income and profits from the partnership from 1988 to May 30, 1992, when the plaintiff learned of the closure of the store the sum of P35,000.00 per month, with legal rate of interest until fully paid; (5) ORDERING them to wind up the affairs of the partnership and terminate its business activities pursuant to law, after delivering to the plaintiff all the interest, shares, participation and equity in the partnership, or the value thereof in money or money's worth, if the properties are not physically divisible; (6) FINDING them especially Lilibeth Sunga-Chan guilty of breach of trust and in bad faith and hold them liable to the plaintiff the sum of P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages; and, (7) DIRECTING them to reimburse and pay the sum of P25,000.00 as attorney's (sic) and P25,000.00 as litigation expenses. NO special pronouncements as to COSTS. SO ORDERED."3 On October 28, 1997, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal with the trial court, appealing the case to the Court of Appeals. On January 31, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is dismissed. The appealed decision is AFFIRMED in all respects."4 On May 23, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner. Hence, this petition wherein petitioner relies upon following grounds: "1. The Court of Appeals erred in making a legal conclusion that there existed a partnership between respondent Lamberto T. Chua and the late Jacinto L. Sunga upon the latter'' invitation and offer and that upon his death the partnership assets and business were taken over by petitioners. 2. The Court of Appeals erred in making the legal conclusion that laches and/or prescription did not apply in the instant case.

3. The Court of Appeals erred in making the legal conclusion that there was competent and credible evidence to warrant the finding of a partnership, and assuming arguendo that indeed there was a partnership, the finding of highly exaggerated amounts or values in the partnership assets and profits."5 Petitioners question the correctness of the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that a partnership existed between respondent and Jacinto from 1977 until Jacinto's death. In the absence of any written document to show such partnership between respondent and Jacinto, petitioners argues that these courts were proscribes from hearing the testimonies of respondent and his witness, Josephine, to prove the alleged partnership three years after Jacinto's death. To support this argument, petitioners invoke the "Dead Man's Statute' or "Survivorship Rule" under Section 23, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court that provides: "SEC. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person, or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind." Petitioners thus implore this Court to rule that the testimonies of respondent and his alter ego, Josephine, should not have been admitted to prove certain claims against a deceased person (Jacinto), now represented by petitioners. We are not persuaded. A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where immovable property of real rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall necessary.6 Hence, based on the intention of the parties, as gathered from the facts and ascertained from their language and conduct, a verbal contract of partnership may arise.7 The essential profits that must be proven to that a partnership was agreed upon are (1) mutual contribution to a common stock, and (2) a joint interest in the profits.8 Understandably so, in view of the absence of the written contract of partnership between respondent and Jacinto, respondent resorted to the introduction of documentary and testimonial evidence to prove said partnership. The crucial issue to settle then is to whether or not the "Dead Man's Statute" applies to this case so as to render inadmissible respondent's testimony and that of his witness, Josephine. The "Dead Man's Statute" provides that if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction.9 But before this rule can be successfully invoked to bar the introduction of testimonial evidence, it is necessary that: "1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to case or persons in whose behalf a case in prosecuted. 2. The action is against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person or a person of unsound mind; 3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against person of unsound mind;

4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact of which occurred before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind."10 Two reasons forestall the application of the "Dead Man's Statute" to this case. First, petitioners filed a compulsory counterclaim11 against respondents in their answer before the trial court, and with the filing of their counterclaim, petitioners themselves effectively removed this case from the ambit of the "Dead Man's Statute".12 Well entrenched is the rule that when it is the executor or administrator or representatives of the estates that sets up the counterclaim, the plaintiff, herein respondent, may testify to occurrences before the death of the deceased to defeat the counterclaim.13 Moreover, as defendant in the counterclaim, respondent is not disqualified from testifying as to matters of facts occurring before the death of the deceased, said action not having been brought against but by the estate or representatives of the deceased.14 Second, the testimony of Josephine is not covered by the "Dead Man's Statute" for the simple reason that she is not "a party or assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted." Records show that respondent offered the testimony of Josephine to establish the existence of the partnership between respondent and Jacinto. Petitioners' insistence that Josephine is the alter ego of respondent does not make her an assignor because the term "assignor" of a party means "assignor of a cause of action which has arisen, and not the assignor of a right assigned before any cause of action has arisen."15 Plainly then, Josephine is merely a witness of respondent, the latter being the party plaintiff. We are not convinced by petitioners' allegation that Josephine's testimony lacks probative value because she was allegedly coerced coerced by respondent, her brother-in-law, to testify in his favor, Josephine merely declared in court that she was requested by respondent to testify and that if she were not requested to do so she would not have testified. We fail to see how we can conclude from this candid admission that Josephine's testimony is involuntary when she did not in any way categorically say that she was forced to be a witness of respondent. Also, the fact that Josephine is the sister of the wife of respondent does not diminish the value of her testimony since relationship per se, without more, does not affect the credibility of witnesses.16 Petitioners' reliance alone on the "Dead Man's Statute" to defeat respondent's claim cannot prevail over the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that a partnership was established between respondent and Jacinto. Based not only on the testimonial evidence, but the documentary evidence as well, the trial court and the Court of Appeals considered the evidence for respondent as sufficient to prove the formation of partnership, albeit an informal one. Notably, petitioners did not present any evidence in their favor during trial. By the weight of judicial precedents, a factual matter like the finding of the existence of a partnership between respondent and Jacinto cannot be inquired into by this Court on review.17 This Court can no longer be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the parties and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the trial court and the appellate court were correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence of one party or the other.18 It must be also pointed out that petitioners failed to attend the presentation of evidence of respondent. Petitioners cannot now turn to this Court to question the admissibility and authenticity of the documentary evidence of respondent when petitioners failed to object to the admissibility of the evidence at the time that such evidence was offered.19 With regard to petitioners' insistence that laches and/or prescription should have extinguished respondent's claim, we agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the action for accounting filed by respondents three (3) years after Jacinto's death was well within the prescribed

period. The Civil Code provides that an action to enforce an oral contract prescribes in six (6) years20 while the right to demand an accounting for a partner's interest as against the person continuing the business accrues at the date of dissolution, in the absence of any contrary agreement.21 Considering that the death of a partner results in the dissolution of the partnership22, in this case, it was Jacinto's death that respondent as the surviving partner had the right to an account of his interest as against petitioners. It bears stressing that while Jacinto's death dissolved the partnership, the dissolution did not immediately terminate the partnership. The Civil Code23 expressly provides that upon dissolution, the partnership continues and its legal personality is retained until the complete winding up of its business, culminating in its termination.24 In a desperate bid to cast doubt on the validity of the oral partnership between respondent and Jacinto, petitioners maintain that said partnership that had initial capital of P200,000.00 should have been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) since registration is mandated by the Civil Code, True, Article 1772 of the Civil Code requires that partnerships with a capital of P3,000.00 or more must register with the SEC, however, this registration requirement is not mandatory. Article 1768 of the Civil Code25 explicitly provides that the partnership retains its juridical personality even if it fails to register. The failure to register the contract of partnership does not invalidate the same as among the partners, so long as the contract has the essential requisites, because the main purpose of registration is to give notice to third parties, and it can be assumed that the members themselves knew of the contents of their contract.26 In the case at bar, non-compliance with this directory provision of the law will not invalidate the partnership considering that the totality of the evidence proves that respondent and Jacinto indeed forged the partnership in question. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED and the appealed decision is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
1w phi 1.nt

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes:
1 Per Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and concurred in by Associate Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis and Mercedes GozoDadole, Court of Appeals, Fourteenth Division.

2 Rollo, p. 185.

3 Records, pp. 75-76; Decision, pp. 25-26.

4 Rollo, p. 46; Decision, p. 11.

5 Rollo, pp. 13-14; Petition, pp. 6-7.

6 JOSE C. VITUG, COMPENDIUM OF CIVIL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE, REV. ED. (1993), p. 712.

7 RAMON C. AQUINO AND CAROLINA C. GRIO-AQUINO, THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VOL. 3 (1990), p. 295.

8 ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VOLUME 5 (1997), p. 320.

9 Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 247 (1998), p. 258.

10 OSCAR M. HERRERA, REMEDIAL LAW, REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, VOL. V (1999), pp. 308-309.

11 Records, pp. 47-51.

12 See Goni vs. Court of Appeals, 144 SCRA 222 (1986).

13 HERRERA, supra, p. 310.

14 Goni vs. Court of Appeals, supra, p. 233.

15 RICARDO J. FRANCISCO, EVIDENCE, THIRD EDITION (1996), p. 135.

16 People vs. Nang, 289 SCRA 16 (1998), p. 32.

17 Alicbusan vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 336, p. 341.

18 Ibid.

19 See Chua vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 356 (1999).

20 "The following actions must be commenced within six years:

(1) Upon an oral contract; and

(2) Upon a quasi-contract."

21 Art. 1842, Civil Code:

"The right to an account of his interest shall accrue to any partner, or his legal representative as against the winding up partners or the surviving partners or the person or partnership continuing the business, at the date of dissolution, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary."

22 Article 1830, Civil Code.

23 Art. 1828. The dissolution of a partnership is the change in the relation of the partnership is the change in the relation of the partners caused by any partner ceasing to be associated in the carrying on as distinguished from the winding up of the business.

Art. 1829. On dissolution the partnership is not terminated, but continues until the winding up of partnership affairs is completed.

24 Sy vs. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 328 (1999), p. 347.

25 "The partnership has a juridical personality separate and distinct from that of each of the partners, even in case of failure to comply with the requirements of article 1772, first paragraph."

26 TOLENTINO, supra, p. 325.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-4935 May 28, 1954

J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by it Managing PARTNER, GREGORIA ARANETA, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. QUIRINO BOLAOS, defendant-appellant. Araneta and Araneta for appellee. Jose A. Buendia for appellant. REYES, J.: This is an action originally brought in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, to recover possesion of registered land situated in barrio Tatalon, Quezon City. Plaintiff's complaint was amended three times with respect to the extent and description of the land sought to be recovered. The original complaint described the land as a portion of a lot registered in plaintiff's name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37686 of the land record of Rizal Province and as containing an area of 13 hectares more or less. But the complaint was amended by reducing the area of 6 hectares, more or less, after the defendant had indicated the plaintiff's surveyors the portion of land claimed and occupied by him. The second amendment became necessary and was allowed following the testimony of plaintiff's surveyors that a portion of the area was embraced in another certificate of title, which was plaintiff's Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37677. And still later, in the course of trial, after defendant's surveyor and witness, Quirino Feria, had testified that the area occupied and claimed by defendant was about 13 hectares, as shown in his Exhibit 1, plaintiff again, with the leave of court, amended its complaint to make its allegations conform to the evidence. Defendant, in his answer, sets up prescription and title in himself thru "open, continuous, exclusive and public and notorious possession (of land in dispute) under claim of ownership, adverse to the entire world by defendant and his predecessor in interest" from "time in-memorial". The answer further alleges that registration of the land in dispute was obtained by plaintiff or its predecessors in interest thru "fraud or error and without knowledge (of) or interest either personal or thru publication to defendant and/or predecessors in interest." The answer therefore prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs and plaintiff required to reconvey the land to defendant or pay its value. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment for plaintiff, declaring defendant to be without any right to the land in question and ordering him to restore possession thereof to plaintiff and to pay the latter a monthly rent of P132.62 from January, 1940, until he vacates the land, and also to pay the costs. Appealing directly to this court because of the value of the property involved, defendant makes the following assignment or errors: I. The trial court erred in not dismissing the case on the ground that the case was not brought by the real property in interest.

II. The trial court erred in admitting the third amended complaint. III. The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to strike. IV. The trial court erred in including in its decision land not involved in the litigation. V. The trial court erred in holding that the land in dispute is covered by transfer certificates of Title Nos. 37686 and 37677. Vl. The trial court erred in not finding that the defendant is the true and lawful owner of the land. VII. The trial court erred in finding that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of P132.62 monthly from January, 1940, until he vacates the premises. VIII. The trial court erred in not ordering the plaintiff to reconvey the land in litigation to the defendant. As to the first assigned error, there is nothing to the contention that the present action is not brought by the real party in interest, that is, by J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc. What the Rules of Court require is that an action be broughtin the name of, but not necessarily by, the real party in interest. (Section 2, Rule 2.) In fact the practice is for an attorney-at-law to bring the action, that is to file the complaint, in the name of the plaintiff. That practice appears to have been followed in this case, since the complaint is signed by the law firm of Araneta and Araneta, "counsel for plaintiff" and commences with the statement "comes now plaintiff, through its undersigned counsel." It is true that the complaint also states that the plaintiff is "represented herein by its Managing Partner Gregorio Araneta, Inc.", another corporation, but there is nothing against one corporation being represented by another person, natural or juridical, in a suit in court. The contention that Gregorio Araneta, Inc. can not act as managing partner for plaintiff on the theory that it is illegal for two corporations to enter into a partnership is without merit, for the true rule is that "though a corporation has no power to enter into a partnership, it may nevertheless enter into a joint venture with another where the nature of that venture is in line with the business authorized by its charter." (Wyoming-Indiana Oil Gas Co. vs. Weston, 80 A. L. R., 1043, citing 2 Fletcher Cyc. of Corp., 1082.) There is nothing in the record to indicate that the venture in which plaintiff is represented by Gregorio Araneta, Inc. as "its managing partner" is not in line with the corporate business of either of them. Errors II, III, and IV, referring to the admission of the third amended complaint, may be answered by mere reference to section 4 of Rule 17, Rules of Court, which sanctions such amendment. It reads: Sec. 4. Amendment to conform to evidence. When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects, as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at my time, even of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall be so freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence would prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense upon the merits. The court may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such evidence.

Under this provision amendment is not even necessary for the purpose of rendering judgment on issues proved though not alleged. Thus, commenting on the provision, Chief Justice Moran says in this Rules of Court: Under this section, American courts have, under the New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ruled that where the facts shown entitled plaintiff to relief other than that asked for, no amendment to the complaint is necessary, especially where defendant has himself raised the point on which recovery is based, and that the appellate court treat the pleadings as amended to conform to the evidence, although the pleadings were not actually amended. (I Moran, Rules of Court, 1952 ed., 389-390.) Our conclusion therefore is that specification of error II, III, and IV are without merit.. Let us now pass on the errors V and VI. Admitting, though his attorney, at the early stage of the trial, that the land in dispute "is that described or represented in Exhibit A and in Exhibit B enclosed in red pencil with the name Quirino Bolaos," defendant later changed his lawyer and also his theory and tried to prove that the land in dispute was not covered by plaintiff's certificate of title. The evidence, however, is against defendant, for it clearly establishes that plaintiff is the registered owner of lot No. 4-B-3-C, situate in barrio Tatalon, Quezon City, with an area of 5,297,429.3 square meters, more or less, covered by transfer certificate of title No. 37686 of the land records of Rizal province, and of lot No. 4-B-4, situated in the same barrio, having an area of 74,789 square meters, more or less, covered by transfer certificate of title No. 37677 of the land records of the same province, both lots having been originally registered on July 8, 1914 under original certificate of title No. 735. The identity of the lots was established by the testimony of Antonio Manahan and Magno Faustino, witnesses for plaintiff, and the identity of the portion thereof claimed by defendant was established by the testimony of his own witness, Quirico Feria. The combined testimony of these three witnesses clearly shows that the portion claimed by defendant is made up of a part of lot 4-B-3-C and major on portion of lot 4-B-4, and is well within the area covered by the two transfer certificates of title already mentioned. This fact also appears admitted in defendant's answer to the third amended complaint. As the land in dispute is covered by plaintiff's Torrens certificate of title and was registered in 1914, the decree of registration can no longer be impugned on the ground of fraud, error or lack of notice to defendant, as more than one year has already elapsed from the issuance and entry of the decree. Neither court the decree be collaterally attacked by any person claiming title to, or interest in, the land prior to the registration proceedings. (Sorogon vs. Makalintal,1 45 Off. Gaz., 3819.) Nor could title to that land in derogation of that of plaintiff, the registered owner, be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. (Section 46, Act No. 496.) Adverse, notorious and continuous possession under claim of ownership for the period fixed by law is ineffective against a Torrens title. (Valiente vs. Judge of CFI of Tarlac,2 etc., 45 Off. Gaz., Supp. 9, p. 43.) And it is likewise settled that the right to secure possession under a decree of registration does not prescribed. (Francisco vs. Cruz, 43 Off. Gaz., 5105, 5109-5110.) A recent decision of this Court on this point is that rendered in the case of Jose Alcantara et al., vs. Mariano et al., 92 Phil., 796. This disposes of the alleged errors V and VI. As to error VII, it is claimed that `there was no evidence to sustain the finding that defendant should be sentenced to pay plaintiff P132.62 monthly from January, 1940, until he vacates the premises.' But it appears from the record that that reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, as stipulated at the hearing was P10 a month for each hectare and that the area occupied by defendant was 13.2619 hectares. The total rent to be paid for the area occupied should therefore be P132.62 a month. It is appears from the testimony of J. A. Araneta and witness Emigdio Tanjuatco that as early as 1939 an action of ejectment had already been filed against defendant. And it cannot be supposed that defendant has been paying rents, for he has been asserting all along

that the premises in question 'have always been since time immemorial in open, continuous, exclusive and public and notorious possession and under claim of ownership adverse to the entire world by defendant and his predecessors in interest.' This assignment of error is thus clearly without merit. Error No. VIII is but a consequence of the other errors alleged and needs for further consideration. During the pendency of this case in this Court appellant, thru other counsel, has filed a motion to dismiss alleging that there is pending before the Court of First Instance of Rizal another action between the same parties and for the same cause and seeking to sustain that allegation with a copy of the complaint filed in said action. But an examination of that complaint reveals that appellant's allegation is not correct, for the pretended identity of parties and cause of action in the two suits does not appear. That other case is one for recovery of ownership, while the present one is for recovery of possession. And while appellant claims that he is also involved in that order action because it is a class suit, the complaint does not show that such is really the case. On the contrary, it appears that the action seeks relief for each individual plaintiff and not relief for and on behalf of others. The motion for dismissal is clearly without merit. Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff. Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1

80 Phil., 259.

2 80 Phil., 415.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation 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 nonresidents, 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. was not 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, L13554, 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 partners-spouses 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 have no personality of their own. 1 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.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-24193 June 28, 1968

MAURICIO AGAD, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SEVERINO MABATO and MABATO and AGAD COMPANY, defendants-appellees. Angeles, Maskarino and Associates for plaintiff-appellant. Victorio S. Advincula for defendants-appellees. CONCEPCION, C.J.: In this appeal, taken by plaintiff Mauricio Agad, from an order of dismissal of the Court of First Instance of Davao, we are called upon to determine the applicability of Article 1773 of our Civil Code to the contract of partnership on which the complaint herein is based.

Alleging that he and defendant Severino Mabato are pursuant to a public instrument dated August 29, 1952, copy of which is attached to the complaint as Annex "A" partners in a fishpond business, to the capital of which Agad contributed P1,000, with the right to receive 50% of the profits; that from 1952 up to and including 1956, Mabato who handled the partnership funds, had yearly rendered accounts of the operations of the partnership; and that, despite repeated demands, Mabato had failed and refused to render accounts for the years 1957 to 1963, Agad prayed in his complaint against Mabato and Mabato & Agad Company, filed on June 9, 1964, that judgment be rendered sentencing Mabato to pay him (Agad) the sum of P14,000, as his share in the profits of the partnership for the period from 1957 to 1963, in addition to P1,000 as attorney's fees, and ordering the dissolution of the partnership, as well as the winding up of its affairs by a receiver to be appointed therefor. In his answer, Mabato admitted the formal allegations of the complaint and denied the existence of said partnership, upon the ground that the contract therefor had not been perfected, despite the execution of Annex "A", because Agad had allegedly failed to give his P1,000 contribution to the partnership capital. Mabato prayed, therefore, that the complaint be dismissed; that Annex "A" be declared void ab initio; and that Agad be sentenced to pay actual, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. Subsequently, Mabato filed a motion to dismiss, upon the ground that the complaint states no cause of action and that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, because it involves principally the determination of rights over public lands. After due hearing, the court issued the order appealed from, granting the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. This conclusion was predicated upon the theory that the contract of partnership, Annex "A", is null and void, pursuant to Art. 1773 of our Civil Code, because an inventory of the fishpond referred in said instrument had not been attached thereto. A reconsideration of this order having been denied, Agad brought the matter to us for review by record on appeal. Articles 1771 and 1773 of said Code provide: Art. 1771. A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary. Art. 1773. A contract of partnership is void, whenever immovable property is contributed thereto, if inventory of said property is not made, signed by the parties; and attached to the public instrument. The issue before us hinges on whether or not "immovable property or real rights" have been contributed to the partnership under consideration. Mabato alleged and the lower court held that the answer should be in the affirmative, because "it is really inconceivable how a partnership engaged in the fishpond business could exist without said fishpond property (being) contributed to the partnership." It should be noted, however, that, as stated in Annex "A" the partnership was established "to operate a fishpond", not to "engage in a fishpond business". Moreover, none of the partners contributed either a fishpond or a real right to any fishpond. Their contributions were limited to the sum of P1,000 each. Indeed, Paragraph 4 of Annex "A" provides: That the capital of the said partnership is Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos Philippine Currency, of which One Thousand (P1,000.00) pesos has been contributed by Severino Mabato and One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos has been contributed by Mauricio Agad. xxx xxx xxx

The operation of the fishpond mentioned in Annex "A" was the purpose of the partnership. Neither said fishpond nor a real right thereto was contributed to the partnership or became part of the capital thereof, even if a fishpond or a real right thereto could become part of its assets. WHEREFORE, we find that said Article 1773 of the Civil Code is not in point and that, the order appealed from should be, as it is hereby set aside and the case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, with the costs of this instance against defendant-appellee, Severino Mabato. It is so ordered. Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-19342 May 25, 1972 LORENZO T. OA and HEIRS OF JULIA BUALES, namely: RODOLFO B. OA, MARIANO B. OA, LUZ B. OA, VIRGINIA B. OA and LORENZO B. OA, JR., petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. Orlando Velasco for petitioners. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete, and Special Attorney Purificacion Ureta for respondent.

BARREDO, J.:p Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 617, similarly entitled as above, holding that petitioners have constituted an unregistered partnership and are, therefore, subject to the payment of the deficiency corporate income taxes assessed against them by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the years 1955 and 1956 in the total sum of P21,891.00, plus 5% surcharge and 1% monthly interest from December 15, 1958, subject to the provisions of Section 51 (e) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 2343 and the costs of the suit, 1 as well as the resolution of said court denying petitioners'
motion for reconsideration of said decision.

The facts are stated in the decision of the Tax Court as follows: Julia Buales died on March 23, 1944, leaving as heirs her surviving spouse, Lorenzo T. Oa and her five children. In 1948, Civil Case No. 4519 was instituted in

the Court of First Instance of Manila for the settlement of her estate. Later, Lorenzo T. Oa the surviving spouse was appointed administrator of the estate of said deceased (Exhibit 3, pp. 34-41, BIR rec.). On April 14, 1949, the administrator submitted the project of partition, which was approved by the Court on May 16, 1949 (See Exhibit K). Because three of the heirs, namely Luz, Virginia and Lorenzo, Jr., all surnamed Oa, were still minors when the project of partition was approved, Lorenzo T. Oa, their father and administrator of the estate, filed a petition in Civil Case No. 9637 of the Court of First Instance of Manila for appointment as guardian of said minors. On November 14, 1949, the Court appointed him guardian of the persons and property of the aforenamed minors (See p. 3, BIR rec.). The project of partition (Exhibit K; see also pp. 77-70, BIR rec.) shows that the heirs have undivided one-half (1/2) interest in ten parcels of land with a total assessed value of P87,860.00, six houses with a total assessed value of P17,590.00 and an undetermined amount to be collected from the War Damage Commission. Later, they received from said Commission the amount of P50,000.00, more or less. This amount was not divided among them but was used in the rehabilitation of properties owned by them in common (t.s.n., p. 46). Of the ten parcels of land aforementioned, two were acquired after the death of the decedent with money borrowed from the Philippine Trust Company in the amount of P72,173.00 (t.s.n., p. 24; Exhibit 3, pp. 31-34 BIR rec.). The project of partition also shows that the estate shares equally with Lorenzo T. Oa, the administrator thereof, in the obligation of P94,973.00, consisting of loans contracted by the latter with the approval of the Court (see p. 3 of Exhibit K; or see p. 74, BIR rec.). Although the project of partition was approved by the Court on May 16, 1949, no attempt was made to divide the properties therein listed. Instead, the properties remained under the management of Lorenzo T. Oa who used said properties in business by leasing or selling them and investing the income derived therefrom and the proceeds from the sales thereof in real properties and securities. As a result, petitioners' properties and investments gradually increased from P105,450.00 in 1949 to P480,005.20 in 1956 as can be gleaned from the following year-end balances:
Year

Investment Account

Land Account P87,860.00 128,566.72 120,349.28 87,065.28 84,925.68 99,001.20 120,249.78 P17,590.00 96,076.26 110,605.11 152,674.39 161,463.83 167,962.04 169,262.52

Building Account

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955

P24,657.65 51,301.31 67,927.52 61,258.27 63,623.37 100,786.00

1956

175,028.68

135,714.68

169,262.52

(See Exhibits 3 & K t.s.n., pp. 22, 25-26, 40, 50, 102-104) From said investments and properties petitioners derived such incomes as profits from installment sales of subdivided lots, profits from sales of stocks, dividends, rentals and interests (see p. 3 of Exhibit 3; p. 32, BIR rec.; t.s.n., pp. 37-38). The said incomes are recorded in the books of account kept by Lorenzo T. Oa where the corresponding shares of the petitioners in the net income for the year are also known. Every year, petitioners returned for income tax purposes their shares in the net income derived from said properties and securities and/or from transactions involving them (Exhibit 3,supra; t.s.n., pp. 25-26). However, petitioners did not actually receive their shares in the yearly income. (t.s.n., pp. 25-26, 40, 98, 100). The income was always left in the hands of Lorenzo T. Oa who, as heretofore pointed out, invested them in real properties and securities. (See Exhibit 3, t.s.n., pp. 50, 102-104). On the basis of the foregoing facts, respondent (Commissioner of Internal Revenue) decided that petitioners formed an unregistered partnership and therefore, subject to the corporate income tax, pursuant to Section 24, in relation to Section 84(b), of the Tax Code. Accordingly, he assessed against the petitioners the amounts of P8,092.00 and P13,899.00 as corporate income taxes for 1955 and 1956, respectively. (See Exhibit 5, amended by Exhibit 17, pp. 50 and 86, BIR rec.). Petitioners protested against the assessment and asked for reconsideration of the ruling of respondent that they have formed an unregistered partnership. Finding no merit in petitioners' request, respondent denied it (See Exhibit 17, p. 86, BIR rec.). (See pp. 1-4, Memorandum for Respondent, June 12, 1961). The original assessment was as follows: 1955 Net income as per investigation ................ P40,209.89 Income tax due thereon ............................... 8,042.00 25% surcharge .............................................. 2,010.50 Compromise for non-filing .......................... 50.00 Total ............................................................... P10,102.50 1956 Net income as per investigation ................ P69,245.23 Income tax due thereon ............................... 13,849.00 25% surcharge .............................................. 3,462.25 Compromise for non-filing .......................... 50.00 Total ............................................................... P17,361.25 (See Exhibit 13, page 50, BIR records)

Upon further consideration of the case, the 25% surcharge was eliminated in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Collector v. Batangas Transportation Co., G.R. No. L-9692, Jan. 6, 1958, so that the questioned assessment refers solely to the income tax proper for the years 1955 and 1956 and the "Compromise for nonfiling," the latter item obviously referring to the compromise in lieu of the criminal liability for failure of petitioners to file the corporate income tax returns for said years. (See Exh. 17, page 86, BIR records). (Pp. 1-3, Annex C to Petition) Petitioners have assigned the following as alleged errors of the Tax Court: I. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS FORMED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP; II. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES INHERITED AND (THE) PROFITS DERIVED FROM TRANSACTIONS THEREFROM (sic); III. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS WERE LIABLE FOR CORPORATE INCOME TAXES FOR 1955 AND 1956 AS AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP; IV. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PETITIONERS CONSTITUTED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP TO THE EXTENT ONLY THAT THEY INVESTED THE PROFITS FROM THE PROPERTIES OWNED IN COMMON AND THE LOANS RECEIVED USING THE INHERITED PROPERTIES AS COLLATERALS; V. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DEDUCTING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS PAID BY THE PETITIONERS AS INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX ON THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES OF THE PROFITS ACCRUING FROM THE PROPERTIES OWNED IN COMMON, FROM THE DEFICIENCY TAX OF THE UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP. In other words, petitioners pose for our resolution the following questions: (1) Under the facts found by the Court of Tax Appeals, should petitioners be considered as co-owners of the properties inherited by them from the deceased Julia Buales and the profits derived from transactions involving the same, or, must they be deemed to have formed an unregistered partnership subject to tax under Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code? (2) Assuming they have formed an unregistered partnership, should this not be only in the sense that they invested as a

common fund the profits earned by the properties owned by them in common and the loans granted to them upon the security of the said properties, with the result that as far as their respective shares in the inheritance are concerned, the total income thereof should be considered as that of co-owners and not of the unregistered partnership? And (3) assuming again that they are taxable as an unregistered partnership, should not the various amounts already paid by them for the same years 1955 and 1956 as individual income taxes on their respective shares of the profits accruing from the properties they owned in common be deducted from the deficiency corporate taxes, herein involved, assessed against such unregistered partnership by the respondent Commissioner? Pondering on these questions, the first thing that has struck the Court is that whereas petitioners' predecessor in interest died way back on March 23, 1944 and the project of partition of her estate was judicially approved as early as May 16, 1949, and presumably petitioners have been holding their respective shares in their inheritance since those dates admittedly under the administration or management of the head of the family, the widower and father Lorenzo T. Oa, the assessment in question refers to the later years 1955 and 1956. We believe this point to be important because, apparently, at the start, or in the years 1944 to 1954, the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue did treat petitioners as co-owners, not liable to corporate tax, and it was only from 1955 that he considered them as having formed an unregistered partnership. At least, there is nothing in the record indicating that an earlier assessment had already been made. Such being the case, and We see no reason how it could be otherwise, it is easily understandable why petitioners' position that they are co-owners and not unregistered co-partners, for the purposes of the impugned assessment, cannot be upheld. Truth to tell, petitioners should find comfort in the fact that they were not similarly assessed earlier by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The Tax Court found that instead of actually distributing the estate of the deceased among themselves pursuant to the project of partition approved in 1949, "the properties remained under the management of Lorenzo T. Oa who used said properties in business by leasing or selling them and investing the income derived therefrom and the proceed from the sales thereof in real properties and securities," as a result of which said properties and investments steadily increased yearly from P87,860.00 in "land account" and P17,590.00 in "building account" in 1949 to P175,028.68 in "investment account," P135.714.68 in "land account" and P169,262.52 in "building account" in 1956. And all these became possible because, admittedly, petitioners never actually received any share of the income or profits from Lorenzo T. Oa and instead, they allowed him to continue using said shares as part of the common fund for their ventures, even as they paid the corresponding income taxes on the basis of their respective shares of the profits of their common business as reported by the said Lorenzo T. Oa. It is thus incontrovertible that petitioners did not, contrary to their contention, merely limit themselves to holding the properties inherited by them. Indeed, it is admitted that during the material years herein involved, some of the said properties were sold at considerable profit, and that with said profit, petitioners engaged, thru Lorenzo T. Oa, in the purchase and sale of corporate securities. It is likewise admitted that all the profits from these ventures were divided among petitioners proportionately in accordance with their respective shares in the inheritance. In these circumstances, it is Our considered view that from the moment petitioners allowed not only the incomes from their respective shares of the inheritance but even the inherited properties themselves to be used by Lorenzo T. Oa as a common fund in undertaking several transactions or in business, with the intention of deriving profit to be shared by them proportionally, such act was tantamonut to actually contributing such incomes to a common fund and, in effect, they thereby formed an unregistered partnership within the purview of the above-mentioned provisions of the Tax Code. It is but logical that in cases of inheritance, there should be a period when the heirs can be considered as co-owners rather than unregistered co-partners within the contemplation of our corporate tax laws aforementioned. Before the partition and distribution of the estate of the

deceased, all the income thereof does belong commonly to all the heirs, obviously, without them becoming thereby unregistered co-partners, but it does not necessarily follow that such status as coowners continues until the inheritance is actually and physically distributed among the heirs, for it is easily conceivable that after knowing their respective shares in the partition, they might decide to continue holding said shares under the common management of the administrator or executor or of anyone chosen by them and engage in business on that basis. Withal, if this were to be allowed, it would be the easiest thing for heirs in any inheritance to circumvent and render meaningless Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code. It is true that in Evangelista vs. Collector, 102 Phil. 140, it was stated, among the reasons for holding the appellants therein to be unregistered co-partners for tax purposes, that their common fund "was not something they found already in existence" and that "it was not a property inherited by them pro indiviso," but it is certainly far fetched to argue therefrom, as petitioners are doing here, that ergo, in all instances where an inheritance is not actually divided, there can be no unregistered copartnership. As already indicated, for tax purposes, the co-ownership of inherited properties is automatically converted into an unregistered partnership the moment the said common properties and/or the incomes derived therefrom are used as a common fund with intent to produce profits for the heirs in proportion to their respective shares in the inheritance as determined in a project partition either duly executed in an extrajudicial settlement or approved by the court in the corresponding testate or intestate proceeding. The reason for this is simple. From the moment of such partition, the heirs are entitled already to their respective definite shares of the estate and the incomes thereof, for each of them to manage and dispose of as exclusively his own without the intervention of the other heirs, and, accordingly he becomes liable individually for all taxes in connection therewith. If after such partition, he allows his share to be held in common with his coheirs under a single management to be used with the intent of making profit thereby in proportion to his share, there can be no doubt that, even if no document or instrument were executed for the purpose, for tax purposes, at least, an unregistered partnership is formed. This is exactly what happened to petitioners in this case. In this connection, petitioners' reliance on Article 1769, paragraph (3), of the Civil Code, providing that: "The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived," and, for that matter, on any other provision of said code on partnerships is unavailing. In Evangelista, supra, this Court clearly differentiated the concept of partnerships under the Civil Code from that of unregistered partnerships which are considered as "corporations" under Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Justice Roberto Concepcion, now Chief Justice, elucidated on this point thus: To begin with, the tax in question is one imposed upon "corporations", which, strictly speaking, are distinct and different from "partnerships". When our Internal Revenue Code includes "partnerships" among the entities subject to the tax on "corporations", said Code must allude, therefore, to organizations which are not necessarily "partnerships", in the technical sense of the term. Thus, for instance, section 24 of said Code exempts from the aforementioned tax "duly registered general partnerships," which constitute precisely one of the most typical forms of partnerships in this jurisdiction. Likewise, as defined in section 84(b) of said Code, "the term corporation includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized." This qualifying expression clearly indicates that a joint venture need not be undertaken in any of the standard forms, or in confirmity with the usual requirements of the law on partnerships, in order that one could be deemed constituted for purposes of the tax on corporation. Again, pursuant to said section 84(b),the term "corporation" includes, among others, "joint accounts,(cuentas en participacion)" and "associations", none of which has a legal personality of its own, independent of that

of its members. Accordingly, the lawmaker could not have regarded that personality as a condition essential to the existence of the partnerships therein referred to. In fact, as above stated, "duly registered general co-partnerships" which are possessed of the aforementioned personality have been expressly excluded by law (sections 24 and 84[b]) from the connotation of the term "corporation." .... xxx xxx xxx Similarly, the American Law ... provides its own concept of a partnership. Under the term "partnership" it includes not only a partnership as known in common law but, as well, a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization which carries on any business, financial operation, or venture, and which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust, estate, or a corporation. ... . (7A Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 789; emphasis ours.) The term "partnership" includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on. ... . (8 Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 562 Note 63; emphasis ours.) For purposes of the tax on corporations, our National Internal Revenue Code includes these partnerships with the exception only of duly registered general copartnerships within the purview of the term "corporation." It is, therefore, clear to our mind that petitioners herein constitute a partnership, insofar as said Code is concerned, and are subject to the income tax for corporations. We reiterated this view, thru Mr. Justice Fernando, in Reyes vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G. R. Nos. L-24020-21, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 198, wherein the Court ruled against a theory of coownership pursued by appellants therein. As regards the second question raised by petitioners about the segregation, for the purposes of the corporate taxes in question, of their inherited properties from those acquired by them subsequently, We consider as justified the following ratiocination of the Tax Court in denying their motion for reconsideration: In connection with the second ground, it is alleged that, if there was an unregistered partnership, the holding should be limited to the business engaged in apart from the properties inherited by petitioners. In other words, the taxable income of the partnership should be limited to the income derived from the acquisition and sale of real properties and corporate securities and should not include the income derived from the inherited properties. It is admitted that the inherited properties and the income derived therefrom were used in the business of buying and selling other real properties and corporate securities. Accordingly, the partnership income must include not only the income derived from the purchase and sale of other properties but also the income of the inherited properties. Besides, as already observed earlier, the income derived from inherited properties may be considered as individual income of the respective heirs only so long as the inheritance or estate is

not distributed or, at least, partitioned, but the moment their respective known shares are used as part of the common assets of the heirs to be used in making profits, it is but proper that the income of such shares should be considered as the part of the taxable income of an unregistered partnership. This, We hold, is the clear intent of the law. Likewise, the third question of petitioners appears to have been adequately resolved by the Tax Court in the aforementioned resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the decision of said court. Pertinently, the court ruled this wise: In support of the third ground, counsel for petitioners alleges: Even if we were to yield to the decision of this Honorable Court that the herein petitioners have formed an unregistered partnership and, therefore, have to be taxed as such, it might be recalled that the petitioners in their individual income tax returns reported their shares of the profits of the unregistered partnership. We think it only fair and equitable that the various amounts paid by the individual petitioners as income tax on their respective shares of the unregistered partnership should be deducted from the deficiency income tax found by this Honorable Court against the unregistered partnership. (page 7, Memorandum for the Petitioner in Support of Their Motion for Reconsideration, Oct. 28, 1961.) In other words, it is the position of petitioners that the taxable income of the partnership must be reduced by the amounts of income tax paid by each petitioner on his share of partnership profits. This is not correct; rather, it should be the other way around. The partnership profits distributable to the partners (petitioners herein) should be reduced by the amounts of income tax assessed against the partnership. Consequently, each of the petitioners in his individual capacity overpaid his income tax for the years in question, but the income tax due from the partnership has been correctly assessed. Since the individual income tax liabilities of petitioners are not in issue in this proceeding, it is not proper for the Court to pass upon the same. Petitioners insist that it was error for the Tax Court to so rule that whatever excess they might have paid as individual income tax cannot be credited as part payment of the taxes herein in question. It is argued that to sanction the view of the Tax Court is to oblige petitioners to pay double income tax on the same income, and, worse, considering the time that has lapsed since they paid their individual income taxes, they may already be barred by prescription from recovering their overpayments in a separate action. We do not agree. As We see it, the case of petitioners as regards the point under discussion is simply that of a taxpayer who has paid the wrong tax, assuming that the failure to pay the corporate taxes in question was not deliberate. Of course, such taxpayer has the right to be reimbursed what he has erroneously paid, but the law is very clear that the claim and action for such reimbursement are subject to the bar of prescription. And since the period for the recovery of the excess income taxes in the case of herein petitioners has already lapsed, it would not seem right to virtually disregard prescription merely upon the ground that the reason for the delay is precisely because the taxpayers failed to make the proper return and payment of the corporate taxes legally due from them. In principle, it is but proper not to allow any relaxation of the tax laws in favor of persons who are not exactly above suspicion in their conduct vis-a-vis their tax obligation to the State. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals appealed from is Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-19342 May 25, 1972 LORENZO T. OA and HEIRS OF JULIA BUALES, namely: RODOLFO B. OA, MARIANO B. OA, LUZ B. OA, VIRGINIA B. OA and LORENZO B. OA, JR., petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. Orlando Velasco for petitioners. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete, and Special Attorney Purificacion Ureta for respondent.

BARREDO, J.:p Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 617, similarly entitled as above, holding that petitioners have constituted an unregistered partnership and are, therefore, subject to the payment of the deficiency corporate income taxes assessed against them by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the years 1955 and 1956 in the total sum of P21,891.00, plus 5% surcharge and 1% monthly interest from December 15, 1958, subject to the provisions of Section 51 (e) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 2343 and the costs of the suit, 1 as well as the resolution of said court denying petitioners'
motion for reconsideration of said decision.

The facts are stated in the decision of the Tax Court as follows: Julia Buales died on March 23, 1944, leaving as heirs her surviving spouse, Lorenzo T. Oa and her five children. In 1948, Civil Case No. 4519 was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the settlement of her estate. Later, Lorenzo T. Oa the surviving spouse was appointed administrator of the estate of said deceased (Exhibit 3, pp. 34-41, BIR rec.). On April 14, 1949, the administrator submitted the project of partition, which was approved by the Court on May 16, 1949 (See Exhibit K). Because three of the heirs, namely Luz, Virginia and Lorenzo, Jr., all surnamed Oa, were still minors when the project of partition was approved, Lorenzo T. Oa, their father and administrator of the estate, filed a petition in Civil Case No. 9637 of the Court of First Instance of Manila for appointment as guardian of said minors. On November 14, 1949, the Court appointed him guardian of the persons and property of the aforenamed minors (See p. 3, BIR rec.). The project of partition (Exhibit K; see also pp. 77-70, BIR rec.) shows that the heirs have undivided one-half (1/2) interest in ten parcels of land with a total assessed value of P87,860.00, six houses with a total assessed value of P17,590.00 and an undetermined amount to be collected from the War Damage Commission. Later, they received from said Commission the amount of P50,000.00, more or less. This amount was not divided among them but was used in the rehabilitation of properties

owned by them in common (t.s.n., p. 46). Of the ten parcels of land aforementioned, two were acquired after the death of the decedent with money borrowed from the Philippine Trust Company in the amount of P72,173.00 (t.s.n., p. 24; Exhibit 3, pp. 31-34 BIR rec.). The project of partition also shows that the estate shares equally with Lorenzo T. Oa, the administrator thereof, in the obligation of P94,973.00, consisting of loans contracted by the latter with the approval of the Court (see p. 3 of Exhibit K; or see p. 74, BIR rec.). Although the project of partition was approved by the Court on May 16, 1949, no attempt was made to divide the properties therein listed. Instead, the properties remained under the management of Lorenzo T. Oa who used said properties in business by leasing or selling them and investing the income derived therefrom and the proceeds from the sales thereof in real properties and securities. As a result, petitioners' properties and investments gradually increased from P105,450.00 in 1949 to P480,005.20 in 1956 as can be gleaned from the following year-end balances:
Year

Investment Account

Land Account P87,860.00 128,566.72 120,349.28 87,065.28 84,925.68 99,001.20 120,249.78 135,714.68 P17,590.00 96,076.26 110,605.11 152,674.39 161,463.83 167,962.04 169,262.52 169,262.52

Building Account

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956

P24,657.65 51,301.31 67,927.52 61,258.27 63,623.37 100,786.00 175,028.68

(See Exhibits 3 & K t.s.n., pp. 22, 25-26, 40, 50, 102-104) From said investments and properties petitioners derived such incomes as profits from installment sales of subdivided lots, profits from sales of stocks, dividends, rentals and interests (see p. 3 of Exhibit 3; p. 32, BIR rec.; t.s.n., pp. 37-38). The said incomes are recorded in the books of account kept by Lorenzo T. Oa where the corresponding shares of the petitioners in the net income for the year are also known. Every year, petitioners returned for income tax purposes their shares in the net income derived from said properties and securities and/or from transactions involving them (Exhibit 3,supra; t.s.n., pp. 25-26). However, petitioners did not actually receive their shares in the yearly income. (t.s.n., pp. 25-26, 40, 98, 100). The income was always left in the hands of Lorenzo T. Oa who, as heretofore pointed out, invested them in real properties and securities. (See Exhibit 3, t.s.n., pp. 50, 102-104).

On the basis of the foregoing facts, respondent (Commissioner of Internal Revenue) decided that petitioners formed an unregistered partnership and therefore, subject to the corporate income tax, pursuant to Section 24, in relation to Section 84(b), of the Tax Code. Accordingly, he assessed against the petitioners the amounts of P8,092.00 and P13,899.00 as corporate income taxes for 1955 and 1956, respectively. (See Exhibit 5, amended by Exhibit 17, pp. 50 and 86, BIR rec.). Petitioners protested against the assessment and asked for reconsideration of the ruling of respondent that they have formed an unregistered partnership. Finding no merit in petitioners' request, respondent denied it (See Exhibit 17, p. 86, BIR rec.). (See pp. 1-4, Memorandum for Respondent, June 12, 1961). The original assessment was as follows: 1955 Net income as per investigation ................ P40,209.89 Income tax due thereon ............................... 8,042.00 25% surcharge .............................................. 2,010.50 Compromise for non-filing .......................... 50.00 Total ............................................................... P10,102.50 1956 Net income as per investigation ................ P69,245.23 Income tax due thereon ............................... 13,849.00 25% surcharge .............................................. 3,462.25 Compromise for non-filing .......................... 50.00 Total ............................................................... P17,361.25 (See Exhibit 13, page 50, BIR records) Upon further consideration of the case, the 25% surcharge was eliminated in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Collector v. Batangas Transportation Co., G.R. No. L-9692, Jan. 6, 1958, so that the questioned assessment refers solely to the income tax proper for the years 1955 and 1956 and the "Compromise for nonfiling," the latter item obviously referring to the compromise in lieu of the criminal liability for failure of petitioners to file the corporate income tax returns for said years. (See Exh. 17, page 86, BIR records). (Pp. 1-3, Annex C to Petition) Petitioners have assigned the following as alleged errors of the Tax Court: I. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS FORMED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP; II.

THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES INHERITED AND (THE) PROFITS DERIVED FROM TRANSACTIONS THEREFROM (sic); III. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS WERE LIABLE FOR CORPORATE INCOME TAXES FOR 1955 AND 1956 AS AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP; IV. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PETITIONERS CONSTITUTED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP TO THE EXTENT ONLY THAT THEY INVESTED THE PROFITS FROM THE PROPERTIES OWNED IN COMMON AND THE LOANS RECEIVED USING THE INHERITED PROPERTIES AS COLLATERALS; V. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DEDUCTING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS PAID BY THE PETITIONERS AS INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX ON THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES OF THE PROFITS ACCRUING FROM THE PROPERTIES OWNED IN COMMON, FROM THE DEFICIENCY TAX OF THE UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP. In other words, petitioners pose for our resolution the following questions: (1) Under the facts found by the Court of Tax Appeals, should petitioners be considered as co-owners of the properties inherited by them from the deceased Julia Buales and the profits derived from transactions involving the same, or, must they be deemed to have formed an unregistered partnership subject to tax under Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code? (2) Assuming they have formed an unregistered partnership, should this not be only in the sense that they invested as a common fund the profits earned by the properties owned by them in common and the loans granted to them upon the security of the said properties, with the result that as far as their respective shares in the inheritance are concerned, the total income thereof should be considered as that of co-owners and not of the unregistered partnership? And (3) assuming again that they are taxable as an unregistered partnership, should not the various amounts already paid by them for the same years 1955 and 1956 as individual income taxes on their respective shares of the profits accruing from the properties they owned in common be deducted from the deficiency corporate taxes, herein involved, assessed against such unregistered partnership by the respondent Commissioner? Pondering on these questions, the first thing that has struck the Court is that whereas petitioners' predecessor in interest died way back on March 23, 1944 and the project of partition of her estate was judicially approved as early as May 16, 1949, and presumably petitioners have been holding their respective shares in their inheritance since those dates admittedly under the administration or management of the head of the family, the widower and father Lorenzo T. Oa, the assessment in question refers to the later years 1955 and 1956. We believe this point to be important because, apparently, at the start, or in the years 1944 to 1954, the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue did treat petitioners as co-owners, not liable to corporate tax, and it was only from 1955 that he considered them as having formed an unregistered partnership. At least, there is nothing in

the record indicating that an earlier assessment had already been made. Such being the case, and We see no reason how it could be otherwise, it is easily understandable why petitioners' position that they are co-owners and not unregistered co-partners, for the purposes of the impugned assessment, cannot be upheld. Truth to tell, petitioners should find comfort in the fact that they were not similarly assessed earlier by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The Tax Court found that instead of actually distributing the estate of the deceased among themselves pursuant to the project of partition approved in 1949, "the properties remained under the management of Lorenzo T. Oa who used said properties in business by leasing or selling them and investing the income derived therefrom and the proceed from the sales thereof in real properties and securities," as a result of which said properties and investments steadily increased yearly from P87,860.00 in "land account" and P17,590.00 in "building account" in 1949 to P175,028.68 in "investment account," P135.714.68 in "land account" and P169,262.52 in "building account" in 1956. And all these became possible because, admittedly, petitioners never actually received any share of the income or profits from Lorenzo T. Oa and instead, they allowed him to continue using said shares as part of the common fund for their ventures, even as they paid the corresponding income taxes on the basis of their respective shares of the profits of their common business as reported by the said Lorenzo T. Oa. It is thus incontrovertible that petitioners did not, contrary to their contention, merely limit themselves to holding the properties inherited by them. Indeed, it is admitted that during the material years herein involved, some of the said properties were sold at considerable profit, and that with said profit, petitioners engaged, thru Lorenzo T. Oa, in the purchase and sale of corporate securities. It is likewise admitted that all the profits from these ventures were divided among petitioners proportionately in accordance with their respective shares in the inheritance. In these circumstances, it is Our considered view that from the moment petitioners allowed not only the incomes from their respective shares of the inheritance but even the inherited properties themselves to be used by Lorenzo T. Oa as a common fund in undertaking several transactions or in business, with the intention of deriving profit to be shared by them proportionally, such act was tantamonut to actually contributing such incomes to a common fund and, in effect, they thereby formed an unregistered partnership within the purview of the above-mentioned provisions of the Tax Code. It is but logical that in cases of inheritance, there should be a period when the heirs can be considered as co-owners rather than unregistered co-partners within the contemplation of our corporate tax laws aforementioned. Before the partition and distribution of the estate of the deceased, all the income thereof does belong commonly to all the heirs, obviously, without them becoming thereby unregistered co-partners, but it does not necessarily follow that such status as coowners continues until the inheritance is actually and physically distributed among the heirs, for it is easily conceivable that after knowing their respective shares in the partition, they might decide to continue holding said shares under the common management of the administrator or executor or of anyone chosen by them and engage in business on that basis. Withal, if this were to be allowed, it would be the easiest thing for heirs in any inheritance to circumvent and render meaningless Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code. It is true that in Evangelista vs. Collector, 102 Phil. 140, it was stated, among the reasons for holding the appellants therein to be unregistered co-partners for tax purposes, that their common fund "was not something they found already in existence" and that "it was not a property inherited by them pro indiviso," but it is certainly far fetched to argue therefrom, as petitioners are doing here, that ergo, in all instances where an inheritance is not actually divided, there can be no unregistered copartnership. As already indicated, for tax purposes, the co-ownership of inherited properties is automatically converted into an unregistered partnership the moment the said common properties and/or the incomes derived therefrom are used as a common fund with intent to produce profits for the heirs in proportion to their respective shares in the inheritance as determined in a project

partition either duly executed in an extrajudicial settlement or approved by the court in the corresponding testate or intestate proceeding. The reason for this is simple. From the moment of such partition, the heirs are entitled already to their respective definite shares of the estate and the incomes thereof, for each of them to manage and dispose of as exclusively his own without the intervention of the other heirs, and, accordingly he becomes liable individually for all taxes in connection therewith. If after such partition, he allows his share to be held in common with his coheirs under a single management to be used with the intent of making profit thereby in proportion to his share, there can be no doubt that, even if no document or instrument were executed for the purpose, for tax purposes, at least, an unregistered partnership is formed. This is exactly what happened to petitioners in this case. In this connection, petitioners' reliance on Article 1769, paragraph (3), of the Civil Code, providing that: "The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived," and, for that matter, on any other provision of said code on partnerships is unavailing. In Evangelista, supra, this Court clearly differentiated the concept of partnerships under the Civil Code from that of unregistered partnerships which are considered as "corporations" under Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Justice Roberto Concepcion, now Chief Justice, elucidated on this point thus: To begin with, the tax in question is one imposed upon "corporations", which, strictly speaking, are distinct and different from "partnerships". When our Internal Revenue Code includes "partnerships" among the entities subject to the tax on "corporations", said Code must allude, therefore, to organizations which are not necessarily "partnerships", in the technical sense of the term. Thus, for instance, section 24 of said Code exempts from the aforementioned tax "duly registered general partnerships," which constitute precisely one of the most typical forms of partnerships in this jurisdiction. Likewise, as defined in section 84(b) of said Code, "the term corporation includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized." This qualifying expression clearly indicates that a joint venture need not be undertaken in any of the standard forms, or in confirmity with the usual requirements of the law on partnerships, in order that one could be deemed constituted for purposes of the tax on corporation. Again, pursuant to said section 84(b),the term "corporation" includes, among others, "joint accounts,(cuentas en participacion)" and "associations", none of which has a legal personality of its own, independent of that of its members. Accordingly, the lawmaker could not have regarded that personality as a condition essential to the existence of the partnerships therein referred to. In fact, as above stated, "duly registered general co-partnerships" which are possessed of the aforementioned personality have been expressly excluded by law (sections 24 and 84[b]) from the connotation of the term "corporation." .... xxx xxx xxx Similarly, the American Law ... provides its own concept of a partnership. Under the term "partnership" it includes not only a partnership as known in common law but, as well, a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization which carries on any business, financial operation, or venture, and which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust, estate, or a corporation. ... . (7A Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 789; emphasis ours.)

The term "partnership" includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on. ... . (8 Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 562 Note 63; emphasis ours.) For purposes of the tax on corporations, our National Internal Revenue Code includes these partnerships with the exception only of duly registered general copartnerships within the purview of the term "corporation." It is, therefore, clear to our mind that petitioners herein constitute a partnership, insofar as said Code is concerned, and are subject to the income tax for corporations. We reiterated this view, thru Mr. Justice Fernando, in Reyes vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G. R. Nos. L-24020-21, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 198, wherein the Court ruled against a theory of coownership pursued by appellants therein. As regards the second question raised by petitioners about the segregation, for the purposes of the corporate taxes in question, of their inherited properties from those acquired by them subsequently, We consider as justified the following ratiocination of the Tax Court in denying their motion for reconsideration: In connection with the second ground, it is alleged that, if there was an unregistered partnership, the holding should be limited to the business engaged in apart from the properties inherited by petitioners. In other words, the taxable income of the partnership should be limited to the income derived from the acquisition and sale of real properties and corporate securities and should not include the income derived from the inherited properties. It is admitted that the inherited properties and the income derived therefrom were used in the business of buying and selling other real properties and corporate securities. Accordingly, the partnership income must include not only the income derived from the purchase and sale of other properties but also the income of the inherited properties. Besides, as already observed earlier, the income derived from inherited properties may be considered as individual income of the respective heirs only so long as the inheritance or estate is not distributed or, at least, partitioned, but the moment their respective known shares are used as part of the common assets of the heirs to be used in making profits, it is but proper that the income of such shares should be considered as the part of the taxable income of an unregistered partnership. This, We hold, is the clear intent of the law. Likewise, the third question of petitioners appears to have been adequately resolved by the Tax Court in the aforementioned resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the decision of said court. Pertinently, the court ruled this wise: In support of the third ground, counsel for petitioners alleges: Even if we were to yield to the decision of this Honorable Court that the herein petitioners have formed an unregistered partnership and, therefore, have to be taxed as such, it might be recalled that the petitioners in their individual income tax returns reported their shares of the profits of the unregistered partnership. We think it only fair and equitable that the various amounts paid by the individual petitioners as income tax on their respective shares of the unregistered

partnership should be deducted from the deficiency income tax found by this Honorable Court against the unregistered partnership. (page 7, Memorandum for the Petitioner in Support of Their Motion for Reconsideration, Oct. 28, 1961.) In other words, it is the position of petitioners that the taxable income of the partnership must be reduced by the amounts of income tax paid by each petitioner on his share of partnership profits. This is not correct; rather, it should be the other way around. The partnership profits distributable to the partners (petitioners herein) should be reduced by the amounts of income tax assessed against the partnership. Consequently, each of the petitioners in his individual capacity overpaid his income tax for the years in question, but the income tax due from the partnership has been correctly assessed. Since the individual income tax liabilities of petitioners are not in issue in this proceeding, it is not proper for the Court to pass upon the same. Petitioners insist that it was error for the Tax Court to so rule that whatever excess they might have paid as individual income tax cannot be credited as part payment of the taxes herein in question. It is argued that to sanction the view of the Tax Court is to oblige petitioners to pay double income tax on the same income, and, worse, considering the time that has lapsed since they paid their individual income taxes, they may already be barred by prescription from recovering their overpayments in a separate action. We do not agree. As We see it, the case of petitioners as regards the point under discussion is simply that of a taxpayer who has paid the wrong tax, assuming that the failure to pay the corporate taxes in question was not deliberate. Of course, such taxpayer has the right to be reimbursed what he has erroneously paid, but the law is very clear that the claim and action for such reimbursement are subject to the bar of prescription. And since the period for the recovery of the excess income taxes in the case of herein petitioners has already lapsed, it would not seem right to virtually disregard prescription merely upon the ground that the reason for the delay is precisely because the taxpayers failed to make the proper return and payment of the corporate taxes legally due from them. In principle, it is but proper not to allow any relaxation of the tax laws in favor of persons who are not exactly above suspicion in their conduct vis-a-vis their tax obligation to the State. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals appealed from is affirm with costs against petitioners. Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Makasiar and Antonio, JJ., concur. Reyes, J.B.L. and Teehankee, JJ., concur in the result. Castro, J., took no part. Concepcion, C.J., is on leave.

Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Makasiar and Antonio, JJ., concur. Reyes, J.B.L. and Teehankee, JJ., concur in the result. Castro, J., took no part.

Concepcion, C.J., is on leave.