You are on page 1of 5

FEDERICO JARANTILLA, JR.

, petitioner,
vs.
ANTONIETA JARANTILLA, BUENAVENTURA
REMOTIGUE, SUBSTITUTED BY CYNTHIA
REMOTIGUE, DOROTEO JARANTILLA AND
TOMAS JARANTILLA, respondents.
DECEMBER 1, 2010
NATURE OF CASE: petition for review on certiorari
seeking to modify CAs decision in setting aside
RTCs decision

Andres Jarantilla
Felisa Jaleco
Federico, Sr.
Delfin
Benjamin
Conchita
Rosita
Pacita
Rafael
Antonieta
Leda Jamili
Federico, Jr.
Doroteo
Tomas
Buenaventura
Remotigue
Cynthia Remotigue

Deceased parents
Children/heirs

Wife of Federico, Sr.


grandchild
Brothers of Federico, Jr.

Husband of Conchita
FACTS
1948 the Jarantilla heirs extrajudicially
Adopted daughter of
partitioned amongst themselves the real
properties of their deceased parents,
Conchita and
ecxept the real property adjudicated to
Buenaventura
Pacita
Vivencio Deocampo
Husband of Rosita
also agreed to allot the produce of
said real property (1947-1949) to the education of Rafael and Antonieta
Spouses Rosita and Vivencio eneterd into agreement with spouses Conchita and
Buenaventura to provide mutual assistance to each other by way of financial support to any
commercial and agricultural activity on a joint business arrangement. Parties mutually
agreed to end the partnership in 1973.
29 APR 1927 spouses Rosita and Buenaventura executed a document (Acknowledgement of
Participating Capital) in their businesses:
Manila Athletic Supply (Manila)
Remotigue Trading (Calle Real, Iloilo City)
Remotigue Trading (Cotabato City)
Participating Capital of co-owners as of year 1952:
Antonieta (P 8,000)
Federico, Jr. (P 5,000)
22 APR 1987 Antonieta (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Buenaventura, Cynthia, Federico, Jr.,
Doroteo and Tomas (repondents) and demanded for the accounting of assets and income of the coownership, partition and delivery of her share (8%) and damages
Antonieta alleged:
That she entered into agreement to engage in business with Rafael, Conchita and
Buenaventura, and Rosita and Vivencio.
That the initial contribution of money and property came from their inheritance and
subsequent annual investment of P 7,500 came from the proceeds of her farm.
That from 1946-1969, she helped in the managemnet of the co-owned business
without receiving any salary.
That she co-owns certain properties (the subject real properties) in the name of the
defendants since the only way the defendants could have purchased these properties
were through the partnership as they had no other source of income.
Respondents denied Antonietas allegations and claimed:
That Antonieta was in no position to enter into partnership as she was still in school
at that time
That the proceeds of the lands they partitioned were devoted to her studies

That she was paid with salary in the management of the business
Respondents did not deny the existence and validity of Acknowledgement of
Participating Capital and used this as evidence to support the claim that Antonietas
8% share was limited to the business enumerated therein.
Respondents also denied using the partnership income to purchase the subject real
property and said that the certificates of title should be binding on her.
Federico, Jr. entered into compromise agreement with Antonieta and claimed that he, too,
was entitled to 6% of the partnership share in the subject real properties

25 MAR 1992 RTC approved of Joint Motion to Approve Compromise Agreement


18 DEC 1992 RTC decided in favor of Antonieta;
Herein respondents and petitioner appealed to the CA, and the latter claimed that the RTC did not
render a complete judgment in ordering the partition of the properties and giving him his 6% share
30 JUL 2002 CA set aside RTCs decision
CA established that Antonieta was NOT part of the partnership
8% share was limited to the businesses enumerated in
Participating Capital

the

Acknowledgement

of

20 AUG 2002 respondents filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration but CA denied
16 SEPT 2002 Antonieta filed with the SC her own petition for review on certiorari but was
dismissed on Nov. 20, 2002 for failure to file appeal within the reglementary period of 15 days
Hence, this petition
ISSUES
1. W/n the partnership subject of the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital exists
2. W/n Federico, Jr. is entitled to 6% share of ownership of real properties acquired by other
defendants using common funds of the partnerhsip
RULING
1. YES. A partnership exists.
All the parties have agreed to contribute capital to a common fund to be able to later on share its
profits. They have admitted this fact, agreed to its veracity and even submitted one documentary
evidence to prove such partnership, the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital.
2. NO. Petitioner is NOT entitled to the 6% of real properties acquired by the respondents.
Petitioners rights are limited to his share to the assets of the business enumerated in the
Acknowledgement of Participating Capital (Manila Athletic Supply, Remotigue Trading, Iloilo and
Cotabato)
He failed to show that respondents used the partnership money to purchase said real properties.
To permit petitioners claim on these properties is to allow a collateral, indirect attack on
respondents admitted titles. Nothing can overpower the conclusiveness of certificates of title.
Therefore, he has NO FACTUAL BASIS to prove his claim.

CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI AND/OR


NIRMLA V. RAMNANI AND MOTI G. RAMNANI,
petitioners,
vs.
CA, SPOUSES ISHWAR JETHMAL RAMNANI,
SONYA JETHMAL RAMNANI AND OVERSEAS
HOLDING, CO. LTD., respondents.
MAY 7, 1991
SPOUSES ISHWAR JETHMAL RAMNANI AND
SONYA JETHMAL RAMNANI, petitioners,
vs.
CA, ORTIGAS & CO., LTD. PARTNERSHIP, AND
OVERSEAS HOLDING CO., LTD., respondents.
MAY 7, 1991

Ishwar
Choithram
Navalrai
Sonya
Ortigas & Company,
Ltd.
Partnership
(Ortigas)
Nirmla Ramnani
Moti Ramnani

brothers

Wife of Ishwar
Seller of two parcels of
land purchased by
Choithram
Daughter-in-law of
Choithram
Son of Choithram,
husband of Nirmla

NATURE OF CASE: bitter quarrel of two brothers over two parcels of land and its improvements now worth a
fortune. Conflicting factual findings of the RTC and CA
FACTS
24 JAN 1966 Spouses Ishwar and Sonya, because they were based in New York executed a
general power of atty appointing Navalrai and Choithram as attys-in-fact, empowering them to
manage abd conduct tehir business concerns in the Philippines
01 FEB 1966 and 16 MAY 1966 Choithram entered into two agreements for the purchase of two
parcels of land from Ortigas (10,048 sq.m.)
He paid the down payment and installments on the lot with his personal checks
He constructed a building and was occupied and rented by Jethmal Inustries and a wardrobe
shop called Eppies Creation. Three other buildings were constructed throug a loan of
P100,000 obtained from Merchants Banks as well as income derived from the 1 st building.
Said buildings were later on leased
However, two of these buildings were burned.
1970 Ishwar asked Choithram to account for the income and expenses incurred by the properties
from 1967-1970
Choithram failed and refused to render the accounting
04 FEB 1971 Ishwar revoked th GPA
Choithram and Ortigas were notified of the revocation
Such notice was then registered with the SEC
19 FEB 1973 Choithram transferred all rights and interests of spouses Ishwar and Sonya in favor
of his daughter-in-law, Nirmla Ramnani
Upon complete payment of the lots, Ortigas executed corresponding deeds of sale in favor of
Nirmla
06 OCT 1982 spouses Ishwar filed a complaint with CFI against Choithram and spouses Nirmla
and Moti, and Ortigas for reconveyance of said properties or payment of its value and damages
03 DEC 1985 CFI dismissed the complaint and counterclaim
MR was filed by spouses Ishwar but was denied
Thus, appeal to the CA

14 MAR 1988 CA reversed and set aside the CFIs decision and ordered Choithram, et al. to pay
Ishwar et al:
actual and compensatory damages to the extent of the fair market value of the
properties in question
all rental incomes paid or ought to be paid for the use and occupancy of the
properties in question and all improvements thereon
moral damages (200,000)
exemplary damages (100,000)
attys fees
cost of suit
17 OCT 1988 Choithram et al. filed MR with CA but only granted MR of Ortigas, not of Choithram,
Nirmla and Moti
Choithram et al. thereafter filed a petition for review of CAs decision, alleging:
That the CA gravely abused its decision in making a factual finding not supported by and
contrary to the evidence presented at trial court
That the CA acted in excess of jurisdiction in awarding damages based on the value of the
real properties in question where the caise of action of private respondents is recovery of
sum of money
That the CA erred in exculpating Ortigas of liability
Center of controversy is the testimony of Ishwar that during the latter part of 1965, he sent the
amount of 150,000 USD to Choithram in two bank drafts of 65,000USD and 85,000USD for the
purpose of investing the same in real estate in the Philippines. Trial court considered this as
unworthy of faith and credit, BUT the CA found that CFI misapprehended the facts in complete
disregard of the evidence, both documentary and testimonial
Another crucial issue is the claim of Choithram that because he was then a British citizen, as a
temporary arrangement, he arranged the purchase of the properties in the name of Ishwar who was
an American citizen and who was then qualified to purchase property in the Philippines under the
then Parity Agreement. CFI believed this BUT was debunked by CA
Upon revocation of GPA to Choithram, the latter wrote a letter to Ishwar which explains:
That Choithram asked for the issuance of another power of atty in their favor so they can
continue to represent Ishwar as Ortigas sued them for unpaid installments
That Choithram reassured Ishwar to have confidence in him as he was not after the money
That he could have ante-dated the sales agreement of the lots before the issuance of the
powers of atty if he wanted to, but he did not
That he did not receive a single penny for expenses from Navalrai to buy the Ortigas lots
That Choithram never claimed ownership of the property in question, affirmed the fact that
he bought the same as mere agent and in behalf of Ishwar.
CA made following findings:
No records was shown that Ishwar agreed to the temporary arrangement regarding the
citizenship issue of Choithram. Verbal allegation of a temp. arrangement is simply
improbable and inconsistent
The letter of Choithram to ishwar recognizes the existence of principal and atty-in-fact
relationship between the two brothers
Choithram is also estopped in pais or by deed from claiming an interest over the properties
in question adverse to that of Ishwar. Section 3(a) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court states
that whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and act upon such belief, he
cannot in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission be permitted to falsify
it.'

Choithrams temporary arrangement circumvented the disqualification provision of aliens


acquiring real properties in the country thus, Choithram must not be permitted to present
his temporary arrangement scheme as a defense in court
Material inconsistencies in Choithrams defense:
Testified that he purchased the lots in his own behalf but later on testified that he
was only the atty-in-fact of Ishwar
Testified that nobody rented the building but later on admitted that he was in fact
renting the said building at 12,000 per annum
Testified that he had no knowledge of the revocation of the GPA but later on admitted
to his own handwriting in the letter that he sent to Ishwar
ISSUES
1. w/n Ishwar entrusted and sent P150,000 to Choithram
2. w/n Choithram has fraudulently and purposely prevented the Ishwar to lay claim on
said lots
RULING

1. YES.
It is not unusual among brothers and close family members to entrust money and
valuables to each other without any formalities or receipt due to the special relationship of
trust between them. The amount will be used to invest in the realty business.
2. YES.
Upon the request from Ishwar to render an accounting, Choithram transferred the rights
and interests of Ishwar to daughter-in-law Nirmla. Choithram admitted that the transfer
was fictitious and that he intended only to place the property in her name until Choithram
acquires Philippine citizenship. Thus, he intentionally, placed the property beyond the
reach of Ishwar.