Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RAMIREZ
Facts:
In 1984, Villareal, Carmelito Jose and Jesus Jose formed a
partnership with a capital of P750,000for the operation of a
restaurant and catering business. Respondent Ramirez joined as a
partner in the business with the capital contribution of P250,000. In
1987, Jesus Jose withdrew from the partnership and within the same
time, Villareal and Carmelito Jose, petitioners closed the business
without prior knowledge of respondents In March 1987, respondents
wrote a letter to petitioners stating that they were no longer
interested in continuing the partnership and that they were accepting
the latters offer to return their capital contribution. This was left
unheeded by the petitioners, and by reason of which respondents
filed a complaint in the RTC.RTC ruled that the parties had
voluntarily entered into a partnership, which could be dissolved at
any time, and this dissolution was showed by the fact that petitioners
stopped operating the restaurant. On appeal, CA upheld RTCs
decision that the partnership was dissolved and it added that
respondents had no right to demand the return of their capital
contribution. However since petitioners did not give the proper
accounting for the liquidation of the partnership, the CA took it upon
itself to compute their liabilities and the amount that is proper to the
respondent. The computation of which was:(capital of the partnership
outstanding obligation) / remaining partners =amount due to private
respondent
Issue: W/N petitioners are liable to respondents for the latters share
in the partnership?
Ruling:
Facts:
Benjamin Yu used to be the Assistant General Manager of Jade
Mountain, a partnership engaged in marble quarrying and export
business. The majority of the founding partners sold their interests in
said partnership to Willy Co and Emmanuel Zapanta without Yus
knowledge. Said new partnership continued operating under the
same name and continued the businesss operations. However, it
transferred its main office from Makati to Mandaluyong. Said new
partnership did not anymore availed of the services of Yu. Thus, he
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, recovery of unpaid wages and
damages.
Ruling :
The legal effect of the changes in the membership of the partnership
was the dissolution of the old partnership which had hired Yu in 1984
and the emergence of a new firm composed of Willy Co and
Emmanuel Zapanta in 1987. The new partnership simply took over
the business enterprise owned by the preceeding partnership, and
continued using the old name of Jade Mountain Products Company
Limited, without winding up the business affairs of the old
partnership, paying off its debts, liquidating and distributing its net
assets, and then re-assembling the said assets or most of them and
opening a new business enterprise. Not only the retiring partners but
also the new partnership itself which continued the business of the
old, dissolved, one, are liable for the debts of the preceding
partnership.
FACTS:
Tan Sin An and Goquiolay entered into a general commercial
partnership under the partnership name Tan Sin An and Antonio
Goquiolay for the purpose of dealing in real estate. The agreement
lodged upon Tan Sin An the sole management of the partnership
affairs. The lifetime of the partnership was fixed at ten years and the
Articles of Co-partnership stipulated that in the event of death of any
of the partners before the expiration of the term, the partnership will
not be dissolved but will be continued by the heirs or assigns of the
deceased partner. But the partnership could be dissolved upon
mutual agreement in writing of the partners. Goquiolay executed a
GPA in favor of Tan Sin An. The plaintiff partnership purchased 3
parcels of land which was mortgaged to La Urbana as payment of
P25,000. Another 46 parcels of land were purchased by Tan Sin An
in his individual capacity which he assumed payment of a mortgage
debt for P35K. A downpayment and the amortization were advanced
by Yutivo and Co. The two obligations were consolidated in an
instrument executed by the partnership and Tan Sin An, whereby the
entire 49 lots were mortgaged in favor of Banco HipotecarioTan Sin
An died leaving his widow, Kong Chai Pin and four minor children.
The widow subsequently became the administratrix of the estate.
Repeated demands were made by Banco Hipotecario on the
partnership and on Tan Sin An. Defendant Sing Yee, upon request of
defendant Yutivo Sons , paid the remaining balance of the mortgage
debt, the mortgage was cancelled Yutivo Sons and Sing Yee filed
their claim in the intestate proceedings of Tan Sin An for advances,
interest and taxes paid in amortizing and discharging their obligations
to La Urbana and Banco Hipotecario. Kong Chai Pin filed a
petition with the probate court for authority to sell all the 49 parcels of
land. She then sold it to Sycip and Lee in consideration of P37K and
of the vendees assuming payment of the claims filed by Yutivo Sons
and Sing Yee. Later, Sycip and Lee executed in favor of Insular
Development a deed of transfer covering the 49 parcels of land.
When Goquiolay learned about the sale to Sycip and Lee, he filed a
petition in the intestate proceedings to set aside the order of the
probate court approving the sale in so far as his interest over the
parcels of land sold was concerned. Probate court annulled the sale
executed by the administratrix w/ respect to the 60% interest of
Goquiolay over the properties Administratrix appealed.The decision
of probate court was set aside for failure to include the indispensable
parties. New pleadings were filed. The second amended complaint
prays for the annulment of the sale in favor of Sycip and Lee and
their subsequent conveyance to Insular Development. The complaint
was dismissed by the lower court hence this appeal.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not a widow or substitute become also a
general partner or only a limited partner. Whether or not the lower
court err in holding that the widow succeeded her husband Tan Sin
An in the sole management of the partnership upon Tans death
Whether or not the consent of the other partners was necessary to
perfect the sale of the partnership properties to Sycip and Lee?
HELD:
Kong Chai Pin became a mere general partner. By seeking authority
to manage partnership property, Tan Sin Ans widow showed that she
desired to be considered a general partner. By authorizing the widow
to manage partnership property (which a limited partner could not be
authorized to do), Goqulay recognized her as such partner, and is
now in estoppel to deny her position as a general partner, with
authority to administer and alienate partnership property. The articles
did not provide that the heirs of the deceased would be merely
limited partners; on the contrary, they expressly stipulated that in
case of death of either partner, the co partnership will have to be
HELD:
Yes, even though it was not reduced to writing, for a
partnership can be instituted in any form. The fact that it was
registered as a sole proprietorship is of no moment for such
registration was only for the companys trade name.
Anay was not even an employee because when they ventured
into the agreement, they explicitly agreed to profit sharing this
is even though Anay was receiving commissions because this is
only incidental to her efforts as a head marketer.
The Supreme Court also noted that a partner who is excluded
wrongfully from a partnership is an innocent partner. Hence,
the guilty partner must give him his due upon the dissolution of
the partnership as well as damages or share in the profits
realized from the appropriation of the partnership business
and goodwill. An innocent partner thus possesses pecuniary
interest in every existing contract that was incomplete and in
the trade name of the co-partnership and assets at the time he
was wrongfully expelled.
An unjustified dissolution by a partner can subject him to
action for damages because by the mutual agency that arises in
Issue:
1. W/N Muasque and Galan are partners?
2. W/N payment made by Tropical to Galan was
good payment?
3. W/N Galan should shoulder exclusively the
amounts payable to the intervenors (granting he
misappropriated the amount from the two
checks)?
Held:
yes-yes-no!
1. YES. Tropical had every right to presume the
existence of the partnership:
a. Contract states that agreement was entered
into by Galan and Muasque
b. The first check issue in the name of
Muasque was indorsed to Galan
The relationship was made to appear as a
partnership.
2. YES. Muasque and Galan were partners when
the debts to the intervenors were incurred,
hence, they are also liable to third persons who
extended credit to their partnership.
There is a general presumption that each
individual partner is an authorized agent for the
firm and that he has authority to bind the firm in
carrying on the partnership transactions. The
presumption is sufficient to permit third persons
to hold the firm liable on transactions entered
into by one of the members of the firm acting
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals has erred in holding that
FACTS:
HELD:
No. The SC upheld the ruling of the CA regarding the nature of
the partnership. The SC further stated that a partnership that
does not fix its term is a partnership at will. The birth and life
of a partnership at will is predicated on the mutual desire and
consent of the partners. The right to choose with whom a
person wishes to associate himself is the very foundation and
essence of that partnership. Its continued existence is, in turn,
dependent on the constancy of that mutual resolve, along with
each partner's capability to give it, and the absence of a cause
for dissolution provided by the law itself. Verily, any one of the
partners may, at his sole pleasure, dictate a dissolution of the
partnership at will. He must, however, act in good faith, not
that the attendance of bad faith can prevent the dissolution of
the partnership but that it can result in a liability for damages.