Professional Documents
Culture Documents
H: H:
No. It does not appear that any No. Their original purpose was to
contract of partnership whatever was divide the lots for residential purposes.
made between them for the purposes If later on they found it not feasible to
expressed in article 1665 of the Civil build their residences on the lots
Code, for the sole transaction because of the high cost of
performed by them was the construction, then they had no choice
acquisition jointly by mutual but to resell the same to dissolve the
agreement of the land in question, co-ownership.
since it was undivided, under the The division of the profit was merely
condition that they each should pay incidental to the dissolution of the co-
one-half of the price thereof and that ownership which was in the nature of
the property so acquired should be things a temporary state. It had to be
divided between the two purchasers; terminated sooner or later.
and as, under this title, the plaintiff Article 1769(3) of the Civil Code
and the defendant are the co-owners provides that "the sharing of gross
of the said land, the partition or returns does not of itself establish a
division of such property held in joint partnership, whether or not the
tenancy must of course be allowed, persons sharing them have a joint or
and the present possessor of the land common right or interest in any
has no right to deny the plaintiff's property from which the returns are
claim on grounds or reasons derived". There must be an
unsupported by proof. unmistakable intention to form a
partnership or joint venture.