BEARNEZA VS DEQUILLA

FACTS: Defendant Dequilla and Perpetua Bearneza formed a partnership for the
purpose of exploiting a fishpond. Perpetua made good of her promise,
contributing payment for the expenses of the business and for nine years both
parties have been dividing the profits among themselves till the death of
Perpetua.

Perpetua left a will appointing plaintiff Domingo Bearneza as her heir to

succeed to all her rights and interest in the fishpond. Accordingly, Domingo
demanded the delivery of half of the fishpond pertaining to Perpetua, and when
Dequilla refused, an action to recover the same against defendant was brought,
including damages.

Dequilla countered that no partnership existed in view of Perpetua’s failure

to defray the business expenses and that should there be a finding to the
contrary, the same has already prescribed.

The lower court ruled for plaintiff, awarding half of the fishpond without
damages. Hence, this recourse.

ISSUE: WON plaintiff as heir is entitled to recover one-half of the fishpond

HELD: No, according to Art. 1830 (5) of the NCC, dissolution of a partnership is
caused by the death of any partner.

In the case at bar, a particular partnership having been established before

the lower court between Dequilla and Perpetua, the same was dissolved upon
Perpetua’s death, and its subsequent legal status was of a partnership in
liquidation, and the only rights inherited by Domingo as heir, was those resulting
from said liquidation in favor of the deceased partner and nothing more. The
reason is that, before this liquidation is made, it is impossible to determine what
right or interests, if any the deceased had.