1

G.R. No. 78133 October 18, 1988

MARIANO P. PASCUAL and RENATO P. DRAGON, petitioners, vs.THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

De la Cuesta, De las Alas and Callanta Law Offices for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents

 

GANCAYCO, J.:

The distinction between co-ownership and an unregistered partnership or joint venture for income tax purposes is the issue in this petition.

On June 22, 1965, petitioners bought two (2) parcels of land from Santiago Bernardino, et al. and on May 28, 1966, they bought another three (3) parcels of land from Juan Roque. The first two parcels of land were sold by petitioners in 1968 toMarenir Development Corporation, while the three parcels of land were sold by petitioners to Erlinda Reyes and Maria Samson on March 19,1970. Petitioners realized a net profit in the sale made in 1968 in the amount of P165,224.70, while they realized a net profit of P60,000.00 in the sale made in 1970. The corresponding capital gains taxes were paid by petitioners in 1973 and 1974 by availing of the tax amnesties granted in the said years.

However, in a letter dated March 31, 1979 of then Acting BIR Commissioner Efren I. Plana, petitioners were assessed and required to pay a total amount of P107,101.70 as alleged deficiency corporate income taxes for the years 1968 and 1970.

Petitioners protested the said assessment in a letter of June 26, 1979 asserting that they had availed of tax amnesties way back in 1974.

In a reply of August 22, 1979, respondent Commissioner informed petitioners that in the years 1968 and 1970, petitioners as co-owners in the real estate transactions formed an unregistered partnership or joint venture taxable as a corporation under Section 20(b) and its income was subject to the taxes prescribed under Section 24, both of the National Internal Revenue Code 1 that the unregistered partnership was subject to corporate income tax as distinguished from profits derived from the partnership by them which is subject to individual income tax; and that the availment of tax amnesty under P.D. No. 23, as amended, by petitioners relieved petitioners of their individual income tax liabilities but did not relieve them from the tax liability of the unregistered partnership. Hence, the petitioners were required to pay the deficiency income tax assessed.

Petitioners filed a petition for review with the respondent Court of Tax Appeals docketed as CTA Case No. 3045. In due course, the respondent court by a majority decision of March 30, 1987, 2 affirmed the decision and action taken by respondent commissioner with costs against petitioners.

It ruled that on the basis of the principle enunciated in Evangelista 3 an unregistered partnership was in fact formed by petitioners which like a corporation was subject to corporate income tax distinct from that imposed on the partners.

In a separate dissenting opinion, Associate Judge Constante Roaquin stated that considering the circumstances of this case, although there might in fact be a co-ownership between the petitioners, there was no adequate basis for the conclusion that they thereby formed an unregistered partnership which made "hem liable for corporate income tax under the Tax Code.

Hence, this petition wherein petitioners invoke as basis thereof the following alleged errors of the respondent court:

A. IN HOLDING AS PRESUMPTIVELY CORRECT THE DETERMINATION OF THE RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER, TO THE EFFECT THAT PETITIONERS FORMED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP SUBJECT TO CORPORATE INCOME TAX, AND THAT THE BURDEN OF OFFERING EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION THERETO RESTS UPON THE PETITIONERS.

B. IN MAKING A FINDING, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ISOLATED SALE TRANSACTIONS, THAT AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP EXISTED THUS IGNORING THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN BY LAW THAT WOULD WARRANT THE PRESUMPTION/CONCLUSION THAT A PARTNERSHIP EXISTS.

C. IN FINDING THAT THE INSTANT CASE IS SIMILAR TO THE EVANGELISTA CASE AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DECIDED ALONGSIDE THE EVANGELISTA CASE.

D. IN RULING THAT THE TAX AMNESTY DID NOT RELIEVE THE PETITIONERS FROM PAYMENT OF OTHER TAXES FOR THE PERIOD COVERED BY SUCH AMNESTY. (pp. 12-13, Rollo.)

The petition is meritorious.

The basis of the subject decision of the respondent court is the ruling of this Court in Evangelista. 4

In the said case, petitioners borrowed a sum of money from their father which together with their own personal funds they used in buying several real properties. They appointed their brother to manage their properties with full power to lease, collect, rent, issue receipts, etc. They had the real properties rented or leased to various tenants for several years and they gained net profits from the rental income. Thus, the Collector of Internal Revenue demanded the payment of income tax on a corporation, among others, from them.

In resolving the issue, this Court held as follows:

The issue in this case is whether petitioners are subject to the tax on

Page | 1

2

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 sections 24 and 84 of said Code, the pertinent parts of which read:

Sec. 24. Rate of the 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 (companies collectives), 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 participation), associations or insurance companies, but does not include duly registered general co-partnerships (companies 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, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.

Pursuant to this 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 a 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 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 transcations 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 petitioners in February, 1943. In other words, one cannot but perceive a character of habituality peculiar to business transactions engaged in for purposes 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 Evangelists, 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 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 Evangelists 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.

Page | 2

3

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. 5

In the present case, there is no evidence that petitioners entered into an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund, and that they intended to divide the profits among themselves. Respondent commissioner and/ or his representative just assumed these conditions to be present on the basis of the fact that petitioners purchased certain parcels of land and became co-owners thereof.

In Evangelists, there was a series of transactions where petitioners purchased twenty-four (24) lots showing that the purpose was not limited to the conservation or preservation of the common fund or even the properties acquired by them. The character of habituality peculiar to business transactions engaged in for the purpose of gain was present.

In the instant case, petitioners bought two (2) parcels of land in 1965. They did not sell the same nor make any improvements thereon. In 1966, they bought another three (3) parcels of land from one seller. It was only 1968 when they sold the two (2) parcels of land after which they did not make any additional or new purchase. The remaining three (3) parcels were sold by them in 1970. The transactions were isolated. The character of habituality peculiar to business transactions for the purpose of gain was not present.

In Evangelista, the properties were leased out to tenants for several years. The business was under the management of one of the partners. Such condition existed for over fifteen (15) years. None of the circumstances are present in the case at bar. The co-ownership started only in 1965 and ended in 1970.

Thus, in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Angelo Bautista in Evangelista he said:

I wish however 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 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 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;

From the above it appears that the fact that those who agree to form a co- ownership share or do not share any profits made by the use of the 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 juridical 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 Flord D. Mechem 2nd Ed., section 83, p. 74.)

A joint purchase of land, by two, does not constitute a co-partnership in respect thereto; nor does an agreement to share the profits and losses on the sale of land create a partnership; the parties are only tenants in common. (Clark vs. Sideway, 142 U.S. 682,12 Ct. 327, 35 L. Ed., 1157.)

Where plaintiff, his brother, and another agreed to become owners of a single tract of realty, 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 plaintiffs commission, no partnership existed as between the three parties, whatever their relation may have been as to third

Page | 3

4

parties. (Magee vs. Magee 123 N.E. 673, 233 Mass. 341.)

In order to constitute a partnership inter sese there must be: (a) An intent to form the same; (b) generally 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 III 470.)

The common ownership of property does not itself create a partnership between the owners, though they may use it for the 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.) 6

The sharing of returns does not in itself establish a partnership whether or not the persons sharing therein have a joint or common right or interest in the property. There must be a clear intent to form a partnership, the existence of a juridical personality different from the individual partners, and the freedom of each party to transfer or assign the whole property.

In the present case, there is clear evidence of co-ownership between the petitioners. There is no adequate basis to support the proposition that they thereby formed an unregistered partnership. The two isolated transactions whereby they purchased properties and sold the same a few years thereafter did not thereby make them partners. They shared in the gross profits as co- owners and paid their capital gains taxes on their net profits and availed of the tax amnesty thereby. Under the circumstances, they cannot be considered to have formed an unregistered partnership which is thereby liable for corporate income tax, as the respondent commissioner proposes.

And even assuming for the sake of argument that such unregistered partnership appears to have been formed, since there is no such existing unregistered partnership with a distinct personality nor with assets that can be held liable for said deficiency corporate income tax, then petitioners can be held individually liable as partners for this unpaid obligation of the partnership p. 7 However, as petitioners have availed of the benefits of tax amnesty as individual taxpayers in these transactions, they are thereby relieved of any further tax liability arising therefrom.

WHEREFROM, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals of March 30, 1987 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another decision is hereby rendered relieving petitioners of the corporate income tax liability in this case, without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-49982 April 27, 1988

ELIGIO ESTANISLAO, JR., petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, REMEDIOS

Page | 4

5

ESTANISLAO, EMILIO and LEOCADIO SANTIAGO, respondents.

Agustin O. Benitez for petitioner.

Benjamin C. Yatco for private respondents.

 

GANCAYCO, J.:

By this petition for certiorari the Court is asked to determine if a partnership exists between members of the same family arising from their joint ownership of certain properties.

Petitioner and private respondents are brothers and sisters who are co-owners of certain lots at the corner of Annapolis and Aurora Blvd., QuezonCity which were then being leased to the Shell Company of the Philippines Limited (SHELL). They agreed to open and operate a gas station thereat to be known as Estanislao Shell Service Station with an initial investment of P 15,000.00 to be taken from the advance rentals due to them from SHELL for the occupancy of the said lots owned in common by them. A joint affidavit was executed by them on April 11, 1966 which was prepared byAtty. Democrito Angeles 1

They agreed to help their brother, petitioner herein, by allowing him to operate and manage the gasoline service station of the family. They negotiated with SHELL. For practical purposes and in order not to run counter to the company's policy of appointing only one dealer, it was agreed that petitioner would apply for the dealership. Respondent Remedios helped in managing the bussiness with petitioner from May 3, 1966 up to February 16, 1967.

On May 26, 1966, the parties herein entered into an Additional Cash Pledge Agreement with SHELL wherein it was reiterated that the P 15,000.00 advance rental shall be deposited with SHELL to cover advances of fuel to petitioner as dealer with a proviso that said agreement "cancels and supersedes the Joint Affidavit dated 11 April 1966 executed by the co-owners." 2

For sometime, the petitioner submitted financial statements regarding the operation of the business to private respondents, but therafter petitioner failed to render subsequent accounting. Hence through Atty. Angeles, a demand was made on petitioner to render an accounting of the profits.

The financial report of December 31, 1968 shows that the business was able to make a profit of P 87,293.79 and that by the year ending 1969, a profit of P 150,000.00 was realized. 3

Thus, on August 25, 1970 private respondents filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against petitioner praying among others that the latter be ordered:

1. to execute a public document embodying all the provisions of the partnership agreement entered into between plaintiffs and defendant as provided in Article 1771 of the New Civil Code;

2. to render a formal accounting of the business operation covering the period from May 6, 1966 up to December 21, 1968 and from January 1, 1969 up to the time the order is issued and that the same be subject to proper audit;

3. to pay the plaintiffs their lawful shares and participation in the net profits of the business in an amount of no less than P l50,000.00 with interest at the rate of 1% per month from date of demand until full payment thereof for the entire duration of the business; and

4. to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P 10,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs of the suit (pp. 13-14 Record on Appeal.)

After trial on the merits, on October 15, 1975, Hon. Lino Anover who was then the temporary presiding judge of Branch IV of the trial court, rendered judgment dismissing the complaint and counterclaim and ordering private respondents to pay petitioner P 3,000.00 attorney's fee and costs. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision. On December 10, 1975, Hon. Ricardo Tensuan who was the newly appointed presiding judge of the same branch, set aside the aforesaid derision and rendered another decision in favor of said respondents.

The dispositive part thereof reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of this Court dated October 14, 1975 is hereby reconsidered and a new judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and as against the defendant:

(1) Ordering the defendant to execute a public instrument embodying all the provisions of the partnership agreement entered into between plaintiffs and defendant as provided for in Article 1771, Civil Code of the Philippines;

(2) Ordering the defendant to render a formal accounting of the business operation from April 1969 up to the time this order is issued, the same to be subject to examination and audit by the plaintiff,

(3) Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiffs their lawful shares and participation in the net profits of the business in the amount of P 150,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate of One (1%) Per Cent per month from date of demand until full payment thereof;

(4) Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P 5,000.00 by way of attorney's fees of plaintiffs' counsel; as well as the costs of suit. (pp. 161-162. Record on Appeal).

Petitioner then interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals enumerating seven (7) errors allegedly committed by the trial court. In due course, a decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals on November 28,1978 affirming in toto the decision of the lower court with costs against petitioner. *

A motion for reconsideration of said decision filed by petitioner was denied on January 30, 1979. Not satisfied therewith, the petitioner now comes to this court by way

Page | 5

6

of this petition for certiorari alleging that the respondent court erred:

1. In interpreting the legal import of the Joint Affidavit (Exh. 'A') vis-a-vis the Additional Cash Pledge Agreement (Exhs. "B-2","6", and "L"); and

2. In declaring that a partnership was established by and among the petitioner and the private respondents as regards the ownership and or operation of the gasoline service station business.

Petitioner relies heavily on the provisions of the Joint Affidavit of April 11, 1966 (Exhibit A) and the Additional Cash Pledge Agreement of May 20, 1966 (Exhibit 6) which are herein reproduced-

(a) The joint Affidavit of April 11, 1966, Exhibit A reads:

(1) That we are the Lessors of two parcels of land fully describe in Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 45071 and 71244 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, in favor of the LESSEE - SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES LIMITED a corporation duly licensed to do business in the Philippines;

(2) That we have requested the said SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINE LIMITED advanced rentals in the total amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P l5,000.00) Philippine Currency, so that we can use the said amount to augment our capital investment in the operation of that gasoline station constructed ,by the said company on our two lots aforesaid by virtue of an outstanding Lease Agreement we have entered into with the said company;

(3) That the and SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINE LIMITED out of its benevolence and desire to help us in aumenting our capital investment in the operation of the said gasoline station, has agreed to give us the said amount of P 15,000.00, which amount will partake the nature of ADVANCED RENTALS;

(4) That we have freely and voluntarily agreed that upon receipt of the said amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P l6,000.00) from he SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES LIMITED, the said sum as ADVANCED RENTALS to us be applied as monthly rentals for the sai two lots under our Lease Agreement starting on the 25th of May, 1966 until such time that the said of P 15,000.00 be applicable, which time to our estimate and one-half months from May 25, 1966 or until the 10th of October, 1966 more or less;

(5) That we have likewise agreed among ourselves that the SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES LIMITED execute an instrument for us to sign embodying our conformity that the said amount that it will generously grant us as requested be applied as ADVANCED RENTALS; and

(6) FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NOT.,

(b) The Additional Cash Pledge Agreement of May 20,1966, Exhibit 6, is as follows:

WHEREAS, under the lease Agreement dated 13th November, 1963 (identified as doc. Nos. 491 & 1407,

Page Nos. 99 & 66, Book Nos. V & III, Series of 1963 in the Notarial Registers of Notaries Public Rosauro Marquez, and R.D. Liwanag, respectively) executed in favour of SHELL by the herein CO-OWNERS and another Lease Agreement dated 19th March 1964 . . . also executed in favour of SHELL by CO-OWNERS Remedios and MARIA ESTANISLAO for the lease of adjoining portions of two parcels of land at Aurora Blvd./ Annapolis, Quezon City, the CO OWNERS RECEIVE a total monthly rental of PESOS THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO AND 29/100 (P 3,382.29), Philippine Currency;

WHEREAS, CO-OWNER Eligio Estanislao Jr. is the Dealer of the Shell Station constructed on the leased land, and as Dealer under the Cash Pledge Agreement dated llth May 1966, he deposited to SHELL in cash the amount of PESOS TEN THOUSAND (P 10,000), Philippine Currency, to secure his purchase on credit of Shell petroleum products; . . .

WHEREAS, said DEALER, in his desire, to be granted an increased the limit up to P 25,000, has secured the conformity of his CO-OWNERS to waive and assign to SHELL the total monthly rentals due to all of them to accumulate the equivalent amount of P 15,000, commencing 24th May 1966, this P 15,000 shall be treated as additional cash deposit to SHELL under the same terms and conditions of the aforementioned Cash Pledge Agreement dated llth May 1966.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises,and the mutual covenants among the CO-OWNERS herein and SHELL, said parties have agreed and hereby agree as follows:

l. The CO-OWNERS dohere by waive in favor of DEALER the monthly rentals due to all CO-OWNERS, collectively, under the above describe two Lease Agreements, one dated 13th November 1963 and the other dated 19th March 1964 to enable DEALER to increase his existing cash deposit to SHELL, from P 10,000 to P 25,000, for such purpose, the SHELL CO-OWNERS and DEALER hereby irrevocably assign to SHELL the monthly rental of P 3,382.29 payable to them respectively as they fall due, monthly, commencing 24th May 1966, until such time that the monthly rentals accumulated, shall be equal to P l5,000.

2. The above stated monthly rentals accumulated shall be treated as additional cash deposit by DEALER to SHELL, thereby in increasing his credit limit from P 10,000 to P 25,000. This agreement, therefore, cancels and supersedes the Joint affidavit dated 11 April 1966 executed by the CO-OWNERS.

3. Effective upon the signing of this agreement, SHELL agrees to allow DEALER to purchase from SHELL petroleum products, on credit, up to the amount of P 25,000.

4. This increase in the credit shall also be subject to the same terms and conditions of the above-mentioned Cash Pledge Agreement dated llth May 1966. (Exhs. "B-2," "L," and "6"; emphasis supplied)

Page | 6

7

In the aforesaid Joint Affidavit of April 11, 1966 (Exhibit A), it is clearly stipulated by the parties that the P 15,000.00 advance rental due to them from SHELL shall augment their "capital investment" in the operation of the gasoline station, which advance rentals shall be credited as rentals from May 25, 1966 up to four and one-half months or until 10 October 1966, more or less covering said P 15,000.00.

In the subsequent document entitled "Additional Cash Pledge Agreement" above reproduced (Exhibit 6), the private respondents and petitioners assigned to SHELL the monthly rentals due them commencing the 24th of May 1966 until such time that the monthly rentals accumulated equal P 15,000.00 which private respondents agree to be a cash deposit of petitioner in favor of SHELL to increase his credit limit as dealer. As above-stated it provided therein that "This agreement, therefore, cancels and supersedes the Joint Affidavit dated 11 April 1966 executed by the CO-OWNERS."

Petitioner contends that because of the said stipulation cancelling and superseding that previous Joint Affidavit, whatever partnership agreement there was in said previous agreement had thereby been abrogated. We find no merit in this argument. Said cancelling provision was necessary for the Joint Affidavit speaks of P 15,000.00 advance rentals starting May 25, 1966 while the latter agreement also refers to advance rentals of the same amount starting May 24, 1966. There is, therefore, a duplication of reference to the P 15,000.00 hence the need to provide in the subsequent document that it "cancels and supersedes" the previous one. True it is that in the latter document, it is silent as to the statement in the Joint Affidavit that the P 15,000.00 represents the "capital investment" of the parties in the gasoline station business and it speaks of petitioner as the sole dealer, but this is as it should be for in the latter document SHELL was a signatory and it would be against its policy if in the agreement it should be stated that the business is a partnership with private respondents and not a sole proprietorship of petitioner.

Moreover other evidence in the record shows that there was in fact such partnership agreement between the parties. This is attested by the testimonies of private respondent Remedies Estanislao and Atty. Angeles. Petitioner submitted to private respondents periodic accounting of the business. 4 Petitioner gave a written authority to private respondent Remedies Estanislao, his sister, to examine and audit the books of their "common business' aming negosyo). 5 Respondent Remedios assisted in the running of the business. There is no doubt that the parties hereto formed a partnership when they bound themselves to contribute money to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. 6 The sole dealership by the petitioner and the issuance of all government permits and licenses in the name of petitioner was in compliance with the afore-stated policy of SHELL and the understanding of the parties of having only one dealer of the SHELL products.

Further, the findings of facts of the respondent court are conclusive in this proceeding, and its conclusion based on the said facts are in accordancewith the applicable law.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto with costs against petitioner. This decision is immediately executory and no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration shag beentertained.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 7

8

G.R. No. L-17295             July 30, 1962

ANG PUE & COMPANY, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs.SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, defendant-appellee.

Felicisimo E. Escaran for plaintiffs-appellants.Office of the Solicitor General for defendant-appellee.

DIZON, J.:

Action for declaratory relief filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo by Ang Pue & Company, Ang Pue and Tan Siong against the Secretary of Commerce and Industry to secure judgment "declaring that plaintiffs could extend for five years the term of the partnership pursuant to the provisions of plaintiffs' Amendment to the Article of Co-partnership."

The answer filed by the defendant alleged, in substance, that the extension for another five years of the term of the plaintiffs' partnership would be in violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 1180.

It appears that on May 1, 1953, Ang Pue and Tan Siong, both Chinese citizens, organized the partnership Ang Pue & Company for a term of five years from May 1, 1953, extendible by their mutual consent. The purpose of the partnership was "to maintain the business of general merchandising, buying and selling at wholesale and retail, particularly of lumber, hardware and other construction materials for commerce, either native or foreign." The corresponding articles of partnership (Exhibit B) were registered in the Office of the Securities & Exchange Commission on June 16, 1953.

On June 19, 1954 Republic Act No. 1180 was enacted to regulate the retail business. It provided, among other things, that, after its enactment, a partnership not wholly formed by Filipinos could continue to engage in the retail business until the expiration of its term.

On April 15, 1958 — prior to the expiration of the five-year term of the partnership Ang Pue & Company, but after the enactment of the Republic Act 1180, the partners already mentioned amended the original articles of part ownership (Exhibit B) so as to extend the term of life of the partnership to another five years. When the amended articles were presented for registration in the Office of the Securities & Exchange Commission on April 16, 1958, registration was refused upon the ground that the extension was in violation of the aforesaid Act.

From the decision of the lower court dismissing the action, with costs, the plaintiffs interposed this appeal.

The question before us is too clear to require an extended discussion. To organize a corporation or a partnership that could claim a juridical personality of its own and transact business as such, is not a matter of absolute right but a privilege which may be enjoyed only under such terms as the State may deem necessary to impose. That the State, through Congress, and in the manner provided by law, had the right to enact Republic Act No. 1180 and to provide therein that only Filipinos and concerns wholly owned by Filipinos may engage in

the retail business can not be seriously disputed. That this provision was clearly intended to apply to partnership already existing at the time of the enactment of the law is clearly showing by its provision giving them the right to continue engaging in their retail business until the expiration of their term or life.

To argue that because the original articles of partnership provided that the partners could extend the term of the partnership, the provisions of Republic Act 1180 cannot be adversely affect appellants herein, is to erroneously assume that the aforesaid provision constitute a property right of which the partners can not be deprived without due process or without their consent. The agreement contain therein must be deemed subject to the law existing at the time when the partners came to agree regarding the extension. In the present case, as already stated, when the partners amended the articles of partnership, the provisions of Republic Act 1180 were already in force, and there can be not the slightest doubt that the right claimed by appellants to extend the original term of their partnership to another five years would be in violation of the clear intent and purpose of the law aforesaid.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Page | 8

9

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 ½ 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 Tobeñas 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 señala 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.

Page | 9

10

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 Oña 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 question pro-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 Arañas, 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.

Page | 10

11

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 CV41477, 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

Page | 11

12

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. 6 The 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

Page | 12

13

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

Page | 13

14

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

Page | 14

15

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.

Page | 15

16

G.R. No. 127347 November 25, 1999

ALFREDO N. AGUILA, JR., petitioner, vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and FELICIDAD S. VDA. DE ABROGAR, respondents.

 

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1

of the Court of Appeals, dated November 29, 1990, which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 273, Marikina, Metro Manila, dated April 11, 1995. The trial court dismissed the petition for declaration of nullity of a deed of sale filed by private respondent Felicidad S. Vda. de Abrogar against petitioner Alfredo N. Aguila, Jr.

The facts are as follows:

Petitioner is the manager of A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co., a partnership engaged in lending activities. Private respondent and her late husband, Ruben M. Abrogar, were the registered owners of a house and lot, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 195101, in Marikina, Metro Manila. On April 18, 1991, private respondent, with the consent of her late husband, and A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co., represented by petitioner, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, which provided:

(1) That the SECOND PARTY [A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co.] shall buy the above-described property from the FIRST PARTY [Felicidad S. Vda. de Abrogar], and pursuant to this agreement, a Deed of Absolute Sale shall be executed by the FIRST PARTY conveying the property to the SECOND PARTY for and in consideration of the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00), Philippine Currency;

(2) The FIRST PARTY is hereby given by the SECOND PARTY the option to repurchase the said property within a period of ninety (90) days from the execution of this memorandum of agreement effective April 18, 1991, for the amount of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P230,000.00);

(3) In the event that the FIRST PARTY fail to exercise her option to repurchase the said property within a period of ninety (90) days, the FIRST PARTY is obliged to deliver peacefully the possession of the property to the SECOND PARTY within fifteen (15) days after the expiration of the said 90 day grace period;

(4) During the said grace period, the FIRST PARTY obliges herself not to file any lis pendens or whatever claims on the property nor shall be cause the annotation of say claim at the back of the title to the said property;

(5) With the execution of the deed of absolute sale, the FIRST PARTY warrants her ownership of the property and shall defend the rights of the SECOND PARTY against any party whom may have any interests over the property;

(6) All expenses for documentation and other incidental expenses shall be for the account of the FIRST PARTY;

(7) Should the FIRST PARTY fail to deliver peaceful possession of the property to the SECOND PARTY after

the expiration of the 15-day grace period given in paragraph 3 above, the FIRST PARTY shall pay an amount equivalent to Five Percent of the principal amount of TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200.00) or P10,000.00 per month of delay as and for rentals and liquidated damages;

(8) Should the FIRST PARTY fail to exercise her option to repurchase the property within ninety (90) days period above-mentioned, this memorandum of agreement shall be deemed cancelled and the Deed of Absolute Sale, executed by the parties shall be the final contract considered as entered between the parties and the SECOND PARTY shall proceed to transfer ownership of the property above described to its name free from lines and encumbrances. 2

On the same day, April 18, 1991, the parties likewise executed a deed of absolute sale, 3 dated June 11, 1991, wherein private respondent, with the consent of her late husband, sold the subject property to A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co., represented by petitioner, for P200,000,00. In a special power of attorney dated the same day, April 18, 1991, private respondent authorized petitioner to cause the cancellation of TCT No. 195101 and the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of A.C. Aguila and Sons, Co., in the event she failed to redeem the subject property as provided in the Memorandum of Agreement. 4

Private respondent failed to redeem the property within the 90-day period as provided in the Memorandum of Agreement. Hence, pursuant to the special power of attorney mentioned above, petitioner caused the cancellation of TCT No. 195101 and the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of A.C. Aguila and Sons, Co. 5

Private respondent then received a letter dated August 10, 1991 from Atty. Lamberto C. Nanquil, counsel for A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co., demanding that she vacate the premises within 15 days after receipt of the letter and surrender its possession peacefully to A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co. Otherwise, the latter would bring the appropriate action in court. 6

Upon the refusal of private respondent to vacate the subject premises, A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co. filed an ejectment case against her in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 76, Marikina, Metro Manila. In a decision, dated April 3, 1992, the Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co. on the ground that private respondent did not redeem the subject property before the expiration of the 90-day period provided in the Memorandum of Agreement. Private respondent appealed first to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 163, Pasig, Metro Manila, then to the Court of Appeals, and later to this Court, but she lost in all the cases.

Private respondent then filed a petition for declaration of nullity of a deed of sale with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 273, Marikina, Metro Manila on December 4, 1993. She alleged that the signature of her husband on the deed of sale was a forgery because he was already dead when the deed was supposed to have been executed on June 11, 1991.

Page | 16

17

It appears, however, that private respondent had filed a criminal complaint for falsification against petitioner with the Office of the Prosecutor of Quezon City which was dismissed in a resolution, dated February 14, 1994.

On April 11, 1995, Branch 273 of RTC-Marikina rendered its decision:

Plaintiff's claim therefore that the Deed of Absolute Sale is a forgery because they could not personally appear before Notary Public Lamberto C. Nanquil on June 11, 1991 because her husband, Ruben Abrogar, died on May 8, 1991 or one month and 2 days before the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale, while the plaintiff was still in the Quezon City Medical Center recuperating from wounds which she suffered at the same vehicular accident on May 8, 1991, cannot be sustained. The Court is convinced that the three required documents, to wit: the Memorandum of Agreement, the Special Power of Attorney, and the Deed of Absolute Sale were all signed by the parties on the same date on April 18, 1991. It is a common and accepted business practice of those engaged in money lending to prepare an undated absolute deed of sale in loans of money secured by real estate for various reasons, foremost of which is the evasion of taxes and surcharges. The plaintiff never questioned receiving the sum of P200,000.00 representing her loan from the defendant. Common sense dictates that an established lending and realty firm like the Aguila & Sons, Co. would not part with P200,000.00 to the Abrogar spouses, who are virtual strangers to it, without the simultaneous accomplishment and signing of all the required documents, more particularly the Deed of Absolute Sale, to protect its interest.

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the case in caption is hereby ORDERED DISMISSED, with costs against the plaintiff.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed. It held:

The facts and evidence show that the transaction between plaintiff-appellant and defendant-appellee is indubitably an equitable mortgage. Article 1602 of the New Civil Code finds strong application in the case at bar in the light of the following circumstances.

First: The purchase price for the alleged sale with right to repurchase is unusually inadequate. The property is a two hundred forty (240) sq. m. lot. On said lot, the residential house of plaintiff-appellant stands. The property is inside a subdivision/village. The property is situated in Marikina which is already part of Metro Manila. The alleged sale took place in 1991 when the value of the land had considerably increased.

For this property, defendant-appellee pays only a measly P200,000.00 or P833.33 per square meter for both the land and for the house.

Second: The disputed Memorandum of Agreement specifically provides that plaintiff-appellant is obliged to deliver peacefully the possession of the property to the SECOND PARTY within fifteen (15) days after the

expiration of the said ninety (90) day grace period. Otherwise stated, plaintiff-appellant is to retain physical possession of the thing allegedly sold.

In fact, plaintiff-appellant retained possession of the property "sold" as if they were still the absolute owners. There was no provision for maintenance or expenses, much less for payment of rent.

Third: The apparent vendor, plaintiff-appellant herein, continued to pay taxes on the property "sold". It is well-known that payment of taxes accompanied by actual possession of the land covered by the tax declaration, constitute evidence of great weight that a person under whose name the real taxes were declared has a claim of right over the land.

It is well-settled that the presence of even one of the circumstances in Article 1602 of the New Civil Code is sufficient to declare a contract of sale with right to repurchase an equitable mortgage.

Considering that plaintiff-appellant, as vendor, was paid a price which is unusually inadequate, has retained possession of the subject property and has continued paying the realty taxes over the subject property, (circumstances mentioned in par. (1) (2) and (5) of Article 1602 of the New Civil Code), it must be conclusively presumed that the transaction the parties actually entered into is an equitable mortgage, not a sale with right to repurchase. The factors cited are in support to the finding that the Deed of Sale/Memorandum of Agreement with right to repurchase is in actuality an equitable mortgage.

Moreover, it is undisputed that the deed of sale with right of repurchase was executed by reason of the loan extended by defendant-appellee to plaintiff-appellant. The amount of loan being the same with the amount of the purchase price.

xxx xxx xxx

Since the real intention of the party is to secure the payment of debt, now deemed to be repurchase price: the transaction shall then be considered to be an equitable mortgage.

Being a mortgage, the transaction entered into by the parties is in the nature of a pactum commissorium which is clearly prohibited by Article 2088 of the New Civil Code. Article 2088 of the New Civil Code reads:

Art. 2088. The creditor cannot appropriate the things given by way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose of them. Any stipulation to the contrary is null and void.

The aforequoted provision furnishes the two elements for pactum commissorium to exist: (1) that there should be a pledge or mortgage wherein a property is pledged or mortgaged by way of security for the payment of principal obligation; and (2) that there should be a stipulation for an automatic appropriation by the creditor of the thing pledged and mortgaged in the event of non-payment of the principal obligation within the stipulated period.

Page | 17

18

In this case, defendant-appellee in reality extended a P200,000.00 loan to plaintiff-appellant secured by a mortgage on the property of plaintiff-appellant. The loan was payable within ninety (90) days, the period within which plaintiff-appellant can repurchase the property. Plaintiff-appellant will pay P230,000.00 and not P200,000.00, the P30,000.00 excess is the interest for the loan extended. Failure of plaintiff-appellee to pay the P230,000.00 within the ninety (90) days period, the property shall automatically belong to defendant-appellee by virtue of the deed of sale executed.

Clearly, the agreement entered into by the parties is in the nature of pactum commissorium. Therefore, the deed of sale should be declared void as we hereby so declare to be invalid, for being violative of law.

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The questioned Deed of Sale and the cancellation of the TCT No. 195101 issued in favor of plaintiff-appellant and the issuance of TCT No. 267073 issued in favor of defendant-appellee pursuant to the questioned Deed of Sale is hereby declared VOID and is hereby ANNULLED. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 195101 of the Registry of Marikina is hereby ordered REINSTATED. The loan in the amount of P230,000.00 shall be paid within ninety (90) days from the finality of this decision. In case of failure to pay the amount of P230,000.00 from the period therein stated, the property shall be sold at public auction to satisfy the mortgage debt and costs and if there is an excess, the same is to be given to the owner.

Petitioner now contends that: (1) he is not the real party in interest but A.C. Aguila & Co., against which this case should have been brought; (2) the judgment in the ejectment case is a bar to the filing of the complaint for declaration of nullity of a deed of sale in this case; and (3) the contract between A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co. and private respondent is a pacto de retro sale and not an equitable mortgage as held by the appellate court.

The petition is meritorious.

Rule 3, §2 of the Rules of Court of 1964, under which the complaint in this case was filed, provided that "every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest." A real party in interest is one who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, or who is entitled to the avails of the suit. 7 This ruling is now embodied in Rule 3, §2 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Any decision rendered against a person who is not a real party in interest in the case cannot be executed. 8 Hence, a complaint filed against such a person should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. 9

Under Art. 1768 of the Civil Code, a partnership "has a juridical personality separate and distinct from that of each of the partners." The partners cannot be held liable for the obligations of the partnership unless it is shown that the legal fiction of a different juridical personality is being used for fraudulent, unfair, or illegal purposes. 10 In this case, private respondent has not shown that A.C.

Aguila & Sons, Co., as a separate juridical entity, is being used for fraudulent, unfair, or illegal purposes. Moreover, the title to the subject property is in the name of A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co. and the Memorandum of Agreement was executed between private respondent, with the consent of her late husband, and A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co., represented by petitioner. Hence, it is the partnership, not its officers or agents, which should be impleaded in any litigation involving property registered in its name. A violation of this rule will result in the dismissal of the complaint. 11 We cannot understand why both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals sidestepped this issue when it was squarely raised before them by petitioner.

Our conclusion that petitioner is not the real party in interest against whom this action should be prosecuted makes it unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised by him in this appeal.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and the complaint against petitioner is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 18

19

G.R. No. L-19342 May 25, 1972

LORENZO T. OÑA and HEIRS OF JULIA BUÑALES, namely: RODOLFO B. OÑA, MARIANO B. OÑA, LUZ B. OÑA, VIRGINIA B. OÑA and LORENZO B. OÑA, JR., petitioners, vs.THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 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 Buñales died on March 23, 1944, leaving as heirs her surviving spouse, Lorenzo T. Oña 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. Oña 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 Oña, were still minors when the project of partition was approved, Lorenzo T. Oña, 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. Oña, 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. Oña 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:

Xxx

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. Oña 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. Oña 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:

Xxx

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.

Page | 19

20

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 Buñales 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. Oña, 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. Oña 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. Oña 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. Oña.

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. Oña, 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. Oña 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.

Page | 20

21

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 co-owners 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 co-partnership. 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 co-heirs 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.

Page | 21

22

L-24020-21, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 198, wherein the Court ruled against a theory of co-ownership 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.

Page | 22

23

G.R. No. L-47045 November 22, 1988

NOBIO SARDANE, petitioner, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS and ROMEO J. ACOJEDO, respondents.

REGALADO, J.:

The extensive discussion and exhaustive disquisition in the decision 1 of the respondent Court 2 should have written finis to this case without further recourse to Us. The assignment of errors and arguments raised in the respondent Court by herein private respondent, as the petitioner therein, having been correctly and justifiedly sustained by said court without any reversible error in its conclusions, the present petition must fail.

The assailed decision details the facts and proceedings which spawned the present controversy as follows:

Petitioner brought an action in the City Court of Dipolog for collection of a sum of P5,217.25 based on promissory notes executed by the herein private respondent Nobio Sardane in favor of the herein petitioner. Petitioner bases his right to collect on Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, and G executed on different dates and signed by private respondent Nobio Sardane. Exhibit B is a printed promissory note involving Pl,117.25 and dated May 13, 1972. Exhibit C is likewise a printed promissory note and denotes on its face that the sum loaned was Pl,400.00. Exhibit D is also a printed promissory note dated May 31, 1977 involving an amount of P100.00. Exhibit E is what is commonly known to the layman as 'vale' which reads: 'Good for: two hundred pesos (Sgd) Nobio Sardane'. Exhibit F is stated in the following tenor: 'Received from Mr. Romeo Acojedo the sum Pesos: Two Thousand Two Hundred (P2,200.00) ONLY, to be paid on or before December 25, 1975. (Sgd) Nobio Sardane.' Exhibit G and H are both vales' involving the same amount of one hundred pesos, and dated August 25, 1972 and September 12, 1972 respectively.

It has been established in the trial court that on many occasions, the petitioner demanded the payment of the total amount of P5,217.25. The failure of the private respondent to pay the said amount prompted the petitioner to seek the services of lawyer who made a letter (Exhibit 1) formally demanding the return of the sum loaned. Because of the failure of the private respondent to heed the demands extrajudicially made by the petitioner, the latter was constrained to bring an action for collection of sum of money.

During the scheduled day for trial, private respondent failed to appear and to file an answer. On motion by the petitioner, the City Court of Dipolog issued an order dated May 18, 1976 declaring the private respondent in default and allowed the petitioner to present his evidence ex-parte. Based on petitioner's evidence, the City Court of Dipolog rendered judgment by default in favor of the petitioner.

Private respondent filed a motion to lift the order of default which was granted by the City Court in an order dated May 24, 1976, taking into consideration that the

answer was filed within two hours after the hearing of the evidence presented ex-parte by the petitioner.

After the trial on the merits, the City Court of Dipolog rendered its decision on September 14, 1976, the dispositive portion of which reads:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows:

(a) Ordering the defendant to pay unto the plaintiff the sum of Five Thousand Two Hundred Seventeen Pesos and Twenty-five centavos (P5,217.25) plus legal interest to commence from April 23, 1976 when this case was filed in court; and

(b) Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P200.00 as attorney's fee and to pay the cost of this proceeding. 3

Therein defendant Sardane appealed to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte which reversed the decision of the lower court by dismissing the complaint and ordered the plaintiff-appellee Acojedo to pay said defendant-appellant P500.00 each for actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney's fees, as well as the costs of suit. Plaintiff-appellee then sought the review of said decision by petition to the respondent Court.

The assignment of errors in said petition for review can be capsulized into two decisive issues, firstly, whether the oral testimony for the therein private respondent Sardane that a partnership existed between him and therein petitioner Acojedo are admissible to vary the meaning of the abovementioned promissory notes; and, secondly, whether because of the failure of therein petitioner to cross-examine therein private respondent on his sur-rebuttal testimony, there was a waiver of the presumption accorded in favor of said petitioner by Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court.

On the first issue, the then Court of First Instance held that "the pleadings of the parties herein put in issue the imperfection or ambiguity of the documents in question", hence "the appellant can avail of the parol evidence rule to prove his side of the case, that is, the said amount taken by him from appellee is or was not his personal debt to appellee, but expenses of the partnership between him and appellee."

Consequently, said trial court concluded that the promissory notes involved were merely receipts for the contributions to said partnership and, therefore, upheld the claim that there was ambiguity in the promissory notes, hence parol evidence was allowable to vary or contradict the terms of the represented loan contract.

The parol evidence rule in Rule 130 provides:

Sec. 7. Evidence of written agreements.—When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all such terms, and, therefore, there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the agreement other

Page | 23

24

than the contents of the writing except in the following cases:

(a) Where a mistake or imperfection of the writing or its failure to express the the true intent and agreement of the parties, or the validity of the agreement is put in issue by the pleadings;

(b) When there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing.

As correctly pointed out by the respondent Court the exceptions to the rule do not apply in this case as there is no ambiguity in the writings in question, thus:

In the case at bar, Exhibits B, C, and D are printed promissory notes containing a promise to pay a sum certain in money, payable on demand and the promise to bear the costs of litigation in the event of the private respondent's failure to pay the amount loaned when demanded extrajudicially. Likewise, the vales denote that the private respondent is obliged to return the sum loaned to him by the petitioner. On their face, nothing appears to be vague or ambigous, for the terms of the promissory notes clearly show that it was incumbent upon the private respondent to pay the amount involved in the promissory notes if and when the petitioner demands the same. It was clearly the intent of the parties to enter into a contract of loan for how could an educated man like the private respondent be deceived to sign a promissory note yet intending to make such a writing to be mere receipts of the petitioner's supposed contribution to the alleged partnership existing between the parties?

It has been established in the trial court that, the private respondent has been engaged in business for quite a long period of time--as owner of the Sardane Trucking Service, entering into contracts with the government for the construction of wharfs and seawall; and a member of the City Council of Dapitan (TSN, July 20, 1976, pp. 57-58).<äre||anº•1àw> It indeed puzzles us how the private respondent could have been misled into signing a document containing terms which he did not mean them to be. ...xxx

The private respondent admitted during the cross-examination made by petitioner's counsel that he was the one who was responsible for the printing of Exhibits B, C, and D (TSN, July 28, 1976, p. 64). How could he purportedly rely on such a flimsy pretext that the promissory notes were receipts of the petitioner's contribution? 4

The Court of Appeals held, and We agree, that even if evidence aliunde other than the promissory notes may be admitted to alter the meaning conveyed thereby, still the evidence is insufficient to prove that a partnership existed between the private parties hereto.

As manager of the basnig Sarcado naturally some degree of control over the operations and maintenance thereof had to be exercised by herein petitioner. The fact that he had received 50% of the net profits does not conclusively establish that he was a partner of the private respondent herein. Article 1769(4) of the Civil Code is explicit that while the receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a

business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment as wages of an employee. Furthermore, herein petitioner had no voice in the management of the affairs of the basnig. Under similar facts, this Court in the early case of Fortis vs. Gutierrez Hermanos, 5 in denying the claim of the plaintiff therein that he was a partner in the business of the defendant, declared:

This contention cannot be sustained. It was a mere contract of employment. The plaintiff had no voice nor vote in the management of the affairs of the company. The fact that the compensation received by him was to be determined with reference to the profits made by the defendant in their business did not in any sense make him a partner therein. ...

The same rule was reiterated in Bastida vs. Menzi & Co., Inc., et al. 6 which involved the same factual and legal milieu.

There are other considerations noted by respondent Court which negate herein petitioner's pretension that he was a partner and not a mere employee indebted to the present private respondent. Thus, in an action for damages filed by herein private respondent against the North Zamboanga Timber Co., Inc. arising from the operations of the business, herein petitioner did not ask to be joined as a party plaintiff. Also, although he contends that herein private respondent is the treasurer of the alleged partnership, yet it is the latter who is demanding an accounting. The advertence of the Court of First Instance to the fact that the casco bears the name of herein petitioner disregards the finding of the respondent Court that it was just a concession since it was he who obtained the engine used in the Sardaco from the Department of Local Government and Community Development. Further, the use by the parties of the pronoun "our" in referring to "our basnig, our catch", "our deposit", or "our boseros" was merely indicative of the camaraderie and not evidentiary of a partnership, between them.

The foregoing factual findings, which belie the further claim that the aforesaid promissory notes do not express the true intent and agreement of the parties, are binding on Us since there is no showing that they fall within the exceptions to the rule limiting the scope of appellate review herein to questions of law.

On the second issue, the pertinent rule on actionable documents in Rule 8, for ready reference, reads:

Sec. 8. How to contest genuineness of such documents.—When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but this provision does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for the inspection of the original instrument is refused.

Page | 24

25

The record shows that herein petitioner did not deny under oath in his answer the authenticity and due execution of the promissory notes which had been duly pleaded and attached to the complaint, thereby admitting their genuineness and due execution. Even in the trial court, he did not at all question the fact that he signed said promissory notes and that the same were genuine. Instead, he presented parol evidence to vary the import of the promissory notes by alleging that they were mere receipts of his contribution to the alleged partnership.

His arguments on this score reflect a misapprehension of the rule on parol evidence as distinguished from the rule on actionable documents. As the respondent Court correctly explained to herein petitioner, what he presented in the trial Court was testimonial evidence that the promissory notes were receipts of his supposed contributions to the alleged partnership which testimony, in the light of Section 7, Rule 130, could not be admitted to vary or alter the explicit meaning conveyed by said promissory notes. On the other hand, the presumed genuineness and due execution of said promissory notes were not affected, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8, Rule 8, since such aspects were not at all questioned but, on the contrary, were admitted by herein petitioner.

Petitioner's invocation of the doctrines in Yu Chuck, et al. vs. Kong Li Po, 7 which was reiterated in Central Surety & Insurance Co. vs. C. N. Hodges, et al. 8 does not sustain his thesis that the herein private respondent had "waived the mantle of protection given him by Rule 8, Sec. 8". It is true that such implied admission of genuineness and due execution may be waived by a party but only if he acts in a manner indicative of either an express or tacit waiver thereof. Petitioner, however, either overlooked or ignored the fact that, as held in Yu Chuck, and the same is true in other cases of Identical factual settings, such a finding of waiver is proper where a case has been tried in complete disregard of the rule and the plaintiff having pleaded a document by copy, presents oral evidence to prove the due execution of the document and no objections are made to the defendant's evidence in refutation. This situation does not obtain in the present case hence said doctrine is obviously inapplicable.

Neither did the failure of herein private respondent to cross-examine herein petitioner on the latter's sur-rebuttal testimony constitute a waiver of the aforesaid implied admission. As found by the respondent Court, said sur-rebuttal testimony consisted solely of the denial of the testimony of herein private respondent and no new or additional matter was introduced in that sur-rebuttal testimony to exonerate herein petitioner from his obligations under the aforesaid promissory notes.

On the foregoing premises and considerations, the respondent Court correctly reversed and set aside the appealed decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte and affirmed in full the decision of the City Court of Dipolog City in Civil Case No. A-1838, dated September 14, 1976.

Belatedly, in his motion for reconsideration of said decision of the respondent Court, herein petitioner, as the

private respondent therein, raised a third unresolved issue that the petition for review therein should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since the lower Court's decision did not affirm in full the judgment of the City Court of Dipolog, and which he claimed was a sine qua non for such a petition under the law then in force. He raises the same point in his present appeal and We will waive the procedural technicalities in order to put this issue at rest.

Parenthetically, in that same motion for reconsideration he had sought affirmative relief from the respondent Court praying that it sustain the decision of the trial Court, thereby invoking and submitting to its jurisdiction which he would now assail. Furthermore, the objection that he raises is actually not one of jurisdiction but of procedure. 9

At any rate, it will be noted that petitioner anchors his said objection on the provisions of Section 29, Republic Act 296 as amended by Republic Act 5433 effective September 9, 1968. Subsequently, the procedure for appeal to the Court of Appeals from decisions of the then courts of first instance in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over cases originating from the municipal courts was provided for by Republic Act 6031, amending Section 45 of the Judiciary Act effective August 4, 1969. The requirement for affirmance in full of the inferior court's decision was not adopted or reproduced in Republic Act 6031. Also, since Republic Act 6031 failed to provide for the procedure or mode of appeal in the cases therein contemplated, the Court of Appeals en banc provided thereof in its Resolution of August 12, 1971, by requiring a petition for review but which also did not require for its availability that the judgment of the court of first instance had affirmed in full that of the lower court. Said mode of appeal and the procedural requirements thereof governed the appeal taken in this case from the aforesaid Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeals in 1977. 10 Herein petitioner's plaint on this issue is, therefore, devoid of merit.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with costs against herein petitioner.

Page | 25

26

G.R. No. 31057           September 7, 1929

ADRIANO ARBES, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs.VICENTE POLISTICO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Marcelino Lontok and Manuel dela Rosa for appellants.Sumulong & Lavides for appellees.

VILLAMOR, J.:

This is an action to bring about liquidation of the funds and property of the association called "Turnuhan Polistico & Co." The plaintiffs were members or shareholders, and the defendants were designated as president-treasurer, directors and secretary of said association.

It is well to remember that this case is now brought before the consideration of this court for the second time. The first one was when the same plaintiffs appeared from the order of the court below sustaining the defendant's demurrer, and requiring the former to amend their complaint within a period, so as to include all the members of "Turnuhan Polistico & Co.," either as plaintiffs or as a defendants. This court held then that in an action against the officers of a voluntary association to wind up its affairs and enforce an accounting for money and property in their possessions, it is not necessary that all members of the association be made parties to the action. (Borlasa vs. Polistico, 47 Phil., 345.) The case having been remanded to the court of origin, both parties amend, respectively, their complaint and their answer, and by agreement of the parties, the court appointed Amadeo R. Quintos, of the Insular Auditor's Office, commissioner to examine all the books, documents, and accounts of "Turnuhan Polistico & Co.," and to receive whatever evidence the parties might desire to present.

The commissioner rendered his report, which is attached to the record, with the following resume:

Xxx

The defendants objected to the commissioner's report, but the trial court, having examined the reasons for the objection, found the same sufficiently explained in the report and the evidence, and accepting it, rendered judgment, holding that the association "Turnuhan Polistico & Co." is unlawful, and sentencing the defendants jointly and severally to return the amount of P24,607.80, as well as the documents showing the uncollected credits of the association, to the plaintiffs in this case, and to the rest of the members of the said association represented by said plaintiffs, with costs against the defendants.

The defendants assigned several errors as grounds for their appeal, but we believe they can all be reduced to two points, to wit: (1) That not all persons having an interest in this association are included as plaintiffs or defendants; (2) that the objection to the commissioner's report should have been admitted by the court below.

As to the first point, the decision on the case of Borlasa vs. Polistico, supra, must be followed.

With regard to the second point, despite the praiseworthy efforts of the attorney of the defendants, we are of

opinion that, the trial court having examined all the evidence touching the grounds for the objection and having found that they had been explained away in the commissioner's report, the conclusion reached by the court below, accepting and adopting the findings of fact contained in said report, and especially those referring to the disposition of the association's money, should not be disturbed.

In Tan Dianseng Tan Siu Pic vs. Echauz Tan Siuco (5 Phil., 516), it was held that the findings of facts made by a referee appointed under the provisions of section 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure stand upon the same basis, when approved by the Court, as findings made by the judge himself. And in Kriedt vs. E. C. McCullogh & Co.(37 Phil., 474), the court held: "Under section 140 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is made the duty of the court to render judgment in accordance with the report of the referee unless the court shall unless for cause shown set aside the report or recommit it to the referee. This provision places upon the litigant parties of the duty of discovering and exhibiting to the court any error that may be contained therein." The appellants stated the grounds for their objection. The trial examined the evidence and the commissioner's report, and accepted the findings of fact made in the report. We find no convincing arguments on the appellant's brief to justify a reversal of the trial court's conclusion admitting the commissioner's findings.

There is no question that "Turnuhan Polistico & Co." is an unlawful partnership (U.S. vs. Baguio, 39 Phil., 962), but the appellants allege that because it is so, some charitable institution to whom the partnership funds may be ordered to be turned over, should be included, as a party defendant. The appellants refer to article 1666 of the Civil Code, which provides:

A partnership must have a lawful object, and must be established for the common benefit of the partners.

When the dissolution of an unlawful partnership is decreed, the profits shall be given to charitable institutions of the domicile of the partnership, or, in default of such, to those of the province.

Appellant's contention on this point is untenable. According to said article, no charitable institution is a necessary party in the present case of determination of the rights of the parties. The action which may arise from said article, in the case of unlawful partnership, is that for the recovery of the amounts paid by the member from those in charge of the administration of said partnership, and it is not necessary for the said parties to base their action to the existence of the partnership, but on the fact that of having contributed some money to the partnership capital. And hence, the charitable institution of the domicile of the partnership, and in the default thereof, those of the province are not necessary parties in this case. The article cited above permits no action for the purpose of obtaining the earnings made by the unlawful partnership, during its existence as result of the business in which it was engaged, because for the purpose, as Manresa remarks, the partner will have to base his action upon the partnership contract, which is to

Page | 26

27

annul and without legal existence by reason of its unlawful object; and it is self evident that what does not exist cannot be a cause of action. Hence, paragraph 2 of the same article provides that when the dissolution of the unlawful partnership is decreed, the profits cannot inure to the benefit of the partners, but must be given to some charitable institution.

We deem in pertinent to quote Manresa's commentaries on article 1666 at length, as a clear explanation of the scope and spirit of the provision of the Civil Code which we are concerned. Commenting on said article Manresa, among other things says:

When the subscriptions of the members have been paid to the management of the partnership, and employed by the latter in transactions consistent with the purposes of the partnership may the former demand the return of the reimbursement thereof from the manager or administrator withholding them?

Apropos of this, it is asserted: If the partnership has no valid existence, if it is considered juridically non-existent, the contract entered into can have no legal effect; and in that case, how can it give rise to an action in favor of the partners to judicially demand from the manager or the administrator of the partnership capital, each one's contribution?

The authors discuss this point at great length, but Ricci decides the matter quite clearly, dispelling all doubts thereon. He holds that the partner who limits himself to demanding only the amount contributed by him need not resort to the partnership contract on which to base his action. And he adds in explanation that the partner makes his contribution, which passes to the managing partner for the purpose of carrying on the business or industry which is the object of the partnership; or in other words, to breathe the breath of life into a partnership contract with an objection forbidden by law. And as said contrast does not exist in the eyes of the law, the purpose from which the contribution was made has not come into existence, and the administrator of the partnership holding said contribution retains what belongs to others, without any consideration; for which reason he is not bound to return it and he who has paid in his share is entitled to recover it.

But this is not the case with regard to profits earned in the course of the partnership, because they do not constitute or represent the partner's contribution but are the result of the industry, business or speculation which is the object of the partnership, and therefor, in order to demand the proportional part of the said profits, the partner would have to base his action on the contract which is null and void, since this partition or distribution of the profits is one of the juridical effects thereof. Wherefore considering this contract as non-existent, by reason of its illicit object, it cannot give rise to the necessary action, which must be the basis of the judicial complaint. Furthermore, it would be immoral and unjust for the law to permit a profit from an industry prohibited by it.

Hence the distinction made in the second paragraph of this article of this Code, providing that the profits

obtained by unlawful means shall not enrich the partners, but shall upon the dissolution of the partnership, be given to the charitable institutions of the domicile of the partnership, or, in default of such, to those of the province.

This is a new rule, unprecedented by our law, introduced to supply an obvious deficiency of the former law, which did not describe the purpose to which those profits denied the partners were to be applied, nor state what to be done with them.

The profits are so applied, and not the contributions, because this would be an excessive and unjust sanction for, as we have seen, there is no reason, in such a case, for depriving the partner of the portion of the capital that he contributed, the circumstances of the two cases being entirely different.

Our Code does not state whether, upon the dissolution of the unlawful partnership, the amounts contributed are to be returned by the partners, because it only deals with the disposition of the profits; but the fact that said contributions are not included in the disposal prescribed profits, shows that in consequences of said exclusion, the general law must be followed, and hence the partners should reimburse the amount of their respective contributions. Any other solution is immoral, and the law will not consent to the latter remaining in the possession of the manager or administrator who has refused to return them, by denying to the partners the action to demand them. (Manresa, Commentaries on the Spanish Civil Code, vol. XI, pp. 262-264)

The judgment appealed from, being in accordance with law, should be, as it is hereby, affirmed with costs against the appellants; provided, however, the defendants shall pay the legal interest on the sum of P24,607.80 from the date of the decision of the court, and provided, further, that the defendants shall deposit this sum of money and other documents evidencing uncollected credits in the office of the clerk of the trial court, in order that said court may distribute them among the members of said association, upon being duly identified in the manner that it may deem proper. So ordered.

Page | 27

28

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.

Page | 28

29

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 ½ 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 ½ 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

Page | 29

30

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)

Page | 30

31

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.1âwphi1.nêt

Page | 31

32

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. R-21208, 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.

Page | 32

33

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 sub-division 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

Page | 33

34

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

Page | 34

35

Page | 35

36

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 non-residents, 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)

Page | 36

37

          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 (compañias 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, L-13554, 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 (compañia 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 compañias 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.; Arañas, Anno. & Juris. on the N.I.R.C., As Amended, Vol. 1, pp. 88-89).lawphi1.nêt

Page | 37

38

          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.

Page | 38

39

G.R. No. 75875 December 15, 1989

WOLRGANG AURBACH, JOHN GRIFFIN, DAVID P. WHITTINGHAM and CHARLES CHAMSAY, petitioners, vs.SANITARY WARES MANUFACTURING CORPORATOIN, ERNESTO V. LAGDAMEO, ERNESTO R. LAGDAMEO, JR., ENRIQUE R. LAGDAMEO, GEORGE F. LEE, RAUL A. BONCAN, BALDWIN YOUNG and AVELINO V. CRUZ, respondents.

xxx

 GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

These consolidated petitions seek the review of the amended decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 05604 and 05617 which set aside the earlier decision dated June 5, 1986, of the then Intermediate Appellate Court and directed that in all subsequent elections for directors of Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation (Saniwares), American Standard Inc. (ASI) cannot nominate more than three (3) directors; that the Filipino stockholders shall not interfere in ASI's choice of its three (3) nominees; that, on the other hand, the Filipino stockholders can nominate only six (6) candidates and in the event they cannot agree on the six (6) nominees, they shall vote only among themselves to determine who the six (6) nominees will be, with cumulative voting to be allowed but without interference from ASI.

The antecedent facts can be summarized as follows:

In 1961, Saniwares, a domestic corporation was incorporated for the primary purpose of manufacturing and marketing sanitary wares. One of the incorporators, Mr. Baldwin Young went abroad to look for foreign partners, European or American who could help in its expansion plans. On August 15, 1962, ASI, a foreign corporation domiciled in Delaware, United States entered into an Agreement with Saniwares and some Filipino investors whereby ASI and the Filipino investors agreed to participate in the ownership of an enterprise which would engage primarily in the business of manufacturing in the Philippines and selling here and abroad vitreous china and sanitary wares. The parties agreed that the business operations in the Philippines shall be carried on by an incorporated enterprise and that the name of the corporation shall initially be "Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation."

The Agreement has the following provisions relevant to the issues in these cases on the nomination and election of the directors of the corporation:

3. Articles of Incorporation

(a) The Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation shall be substantially in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A and, insofar as permitted under Philippine law, shall specifically provide for

(1) Cumulative voting for directors:

xxx xxx xxx

5. Management

(a) The management of the Corporation shall be vested in a Board of Directors, which shall consist of nine individuals. As long as American-Standard shall own at least 30% of the outstanding stock of the Corporation, three of the nine directors shall be designated by American-Standard, and the other six shall be designated by the other stockholders of the Corporation. (pp. 51 & 53, Rollo of 75875)

At the request of ASI, the agreement contained provisions designed to protect it as a minority group, including the grant of veto powers over a number of corporate acts and the right to designate certain officers, such as a member of the Executive Committee whose vote was required for important corporate transactions.

Later, the 30% capital stock of ASI was increased to 40%. The corporation was also registered with the Board of Investments for availment of incentives with the condition that at least 60% of the capital stock of the corporation shall be owned by Philippine nationals.

The joint enterprise thus entered into by the Filipino investors and the American corporation prospered. Unfortunately, with the business successes, there came a deterioration of the initially harmonious relations between the two groups. According to the Filipino group, a basic disagreement was due to their desire to expand the export operations of the company to which ASI objected as it apparently had other subsidiaries of joint joint venture groups in the countries where Philippine exports were contemplated. On March 8, 1983, the annual stockholders' meeting was held. The meeting was presided by Baldwin Young. The minutes were taken by the Secretary, Avelino Cruz. After disposing of the preliminary items in the agenda, the stockholders then proceeded to the election of the members of the board of directors. The ASI group nominated three persons namely; Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin and David P. Whittingham. The Philippine investors nominated six, namely; Ernesto Lagdameo, Sr., Raul A. Boncan, Ernesto R. Lagdameo, Jr., George F. Lee, and Baldwin Young. Mr. Eduardo R, Ceniza then nominated Mr. Luciano E. Salazar, who in turn nominated Mr. Charles Chamsay. The chairman, Baldwin Young ruled the last two nominations out of order on the basis of section 5 (a) of the Agreement, the consistent practice of the parties during the past annual stockholders' meetings to nominate only nine persons as nominees for the nine-member board of directors, and the legal advice of Saniwares' legal counsel. The following events then, transpired:

... There were protests against the action of the Chairman and heated arguments ensued. An appeal was made by the ASI representative to the body of stockholders present that a vote be taken on the ruling of the Chairman. The Chairman, Baldwin Young, declared the appeal out of order and no vote on the ruling was taken. The Chairman then instructed the Corporate Secretary to cast all the votes present and represented by proxy equally for the 6 nominees of the Philippine Investors and the 3 nominees of ASI, thus effectively excluding the 2 additional persons nominated, namely, Luciano E. Salazar and Charles Chamsay. The ASI representative, Mr. Jaqua protested the decision of the Chairman and announced

Page | 39

40

that all votes accruing to ASI shares, a total of 1,329,695 (p. 27, Rollo, AC-G.R. SP No. 05617) were being cumulatively voted for the three ASI nominees and Charles Chamsay, and instructed the Secretary to so vote. Luciano E. Salazar and other proxy holders announced that all the votes owned by and or represented by them 467,197 shares (p. 27, Rollo, AC-G.R. SP No. 05617) were being voted cumulatively in favor of Luciano E. Salazar. The Chairman, Baldwin Young, nevertheless instructed the Secretary to cast all votes equally in favor of the three ASI nominees, namely, Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin and David Whittingham and the six originally nominated by Rogelio Vinluan, namely, Ernesto Lagdameo, Sr., Raul Boncan, Ernesto Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo, George F. Lee, and Baldwin Young. The Secretary then certified for the election of the following Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David Whittingham Ernesto Lagdameo, Sr., Ernesto Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo, George F. Lee, Raul A. Boncan, Baldwin Young. The representative of ASI then moved to recess the meeting which was duly seconded. There was also a motion to adjourn (p. 28, Rollo, AC-G.R. SP No. 05617). This motion to adjourn was accepted by the Chairman, Baldwin Young, who announced that the motion was carried and declared the meeting adjourned. Protests against the adjournment were registered and having been ignored, Mr. Jaqua the ASI representative, stated that the meeting was not adjourned but only recessed and that the meeting would be reconvened in the next room. The Chairman then threatened to have the stockholders who did not agree to the decision of the Chairman on the casting of votes bodily thrown out. The ASI Group, Luciano E. Salazar and other stockholders, allegedly representing 53 or 54% of the shares of Saniwares, decided to continue the meeting at the elevator lobby of the American Standard Building. The continued meeting was presided by Luciano E. Salazar, while Andres Gatmaitan acted as Secretary. On the basis of the cumulative votes cast earlier in the meeting, the ASI Group nominated its four nominees; Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David Whittingham and Charles Chamsay. Luciano E. Salazar voted for himself, thus the said five directors were certified as elected directors by the Acting Secretary, Andres Gatmaitan, with the explanation that there was a tie among the other six (6) nominees for the four (4) remaining positions of directors and that the body decided not to break the tie. (pp. 37-39, Rollo of 75975-76)

These incidents triggered off the filing of separate petitions by the parties with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The first petition filed was for preliminary injunction by Saniwares, Emesto V. Lagdameo, Baldwin Young, Raul A. Bonean Ernesto R. Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo and George F. Lee against Luciano Salazar and Charles Chamsay. The case was denominated as SEC Case No. 2417. The second petition was for quo warranto and application for receivership by Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David Whittingham, Luciano E. Salazar and Charles Chamsay against the group of Young and Lagdameo (petitioners in SEC Case No. 2417) and Avelino F. Cruz. The case was docketed as SEC Case No. 2718. Both sets of parties

except for Avelino Cruz claimed to be the legitimate directors of the corporation.

The two petitions were consolidated and tried jointly by a hearing officer who rendered a decision upholding the election of the Lagdameo Group and dismissing the quo warranto petition of Salazar and Chamsay. The ASI Group and Salazar appealed the decision to the SEC en banc which affirmed the hearing officer's decision.

The SEC decision led to the filing of two separate appeals with the Intermediate Appellate Court by Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David Whittingham and Charles Chamsay (docketed as AC-G.R. SP No. 05604) and by Luciano E. Salazar (docketed as AC-G.R. SP No. 05617). The petitions were consolidated and the appellate court in its decision ordered the remand of the case to the Securities and Exchange Commission with the directive that a new stockholders' meeting of Saniwares be ordered convoked as soon as possible, under the supervision of the Commission.

Upon a motion for reconsideration filed by the appellees Lagdameo Group) the appellate court (Court of Appeals) rendered the questioned amended decision. Petitioners Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David P. Whittingham and Charles Chamsay in G.R. No. 75875 assign the following errors:

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN EFFECT, UPHELD THE ALLEGED ELECTION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SANIWARES WHEN IN FACT THERE WAS NO ELECTION AT ALL.

II. THE COURT OF APPEALS PROHIBITS THE STOCKHOLDERS FROM EXERCISING THEIR FULL VOTING RIGHTS REPRESENTED BY THE NUMBER OF SHARES IN SANIWARES, THUS DEPRIVING PETITIONERS AND THE CORPORATION THEY REPRESENT OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

III. THE COURT OF APPEALS IMPOSES CONDITIONS AND READS PROVISIONS INTO THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES WHICH WERE NOT THERE, WHICH ACTION IT CANNOT LEGALLY DO. (p. 17, Rollo-75875)

Petitioner Luciano E. Salazar in G.R. Nos. 75975-76 assails the amended decision on the following grounds:

11.1. ThatAmendedDecisionwouldsanctiontheCA'sdisregard of binding contractual agreements entered into by stockholders and the replacement of the conditions of such agreements with terms never contemplated by the stockholders but merely dictated by the CA .

11.2. The Amended decision would likewise sanction the deprivation of the property rights of stockholders without due process of law in order that a favored group of stockholders may be illegally benefitted and guaranteed a continuing monopoly of the control of a corporation. (pp. 14-15, Rollo-75975-76)

On the other hand, the petitioners in G.R. No. 75951 contend that:

I

Page | 40

41

THE AMENDED DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT COURT, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS OF SANIWARES ARE DIVIDED INTO TWO BLOCKS, FAILS TO FULLY ENFORCE THE BASIC INTENT OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE LAW.

II

THE AMENDED DECISION DOES NOT CATEGORICALLY RULE THAT PRIVATE PETITIONERS HEREIN WERE THE DULY ELECTED DIRECTORS DURING THE 8 MARCH 1983 ANNUAL STOCKHOLDERS MEETING OF SANTWARES. (P. 24, Rollo-75951)

The issues raised in the petitions are interrelated, hence, they are discussed jointly.

The main issue hinges on who were the duly elected directors of Saniwares for the year 1983 during its annual stockholders' meeting held on March 8, 1983. To answer this question the following factors should be determined: (1) the nature of the business established by the parties whether it was a joint venture or a corporation and (2) whether or not the ASI Group may vote their additional 10% equity during elections of Saniwares' board of directors.

The rule is that whether the parties to a particular contract have thereby established among themselves a joint venture or some other relation depends upon their actual intention which is determined in accordance with the rules governing the interpretation and construction of contracts. (Terminal Shares, Inc. v. Chicago, B. and Q.R. Co. (DC MO) 65 F Supp 678; Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Mfg. Co. 20 Cal. 2nd 751, 128 P 2nd 668)

The ASI Group and petitioner Salazar (G.R. Nos. 75975-76) contend that the actual intention of the parties should be viewed strictly on the "Agreement" dated August 15,1962 wherein it is clearly stated that the parties' intention was to form a corporation and not a joint venture.

They specifically mention number 16 under Miscellaneous Provisions which states:

xxx xxx xxx

c) nothing herein contained shall be construed to constitute any of the parties hereto partners or joint venturers in respect of any transaction hereunder. (At P. 66, Rollo-GR No. 75875)

They object to the admission of other evidence which tends to show that the parties' agreement was to establish a joint venture presented by the Lagdameo and Young Group on the ground that it contravenes the parol evidence rule under section 7, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. According to them, the Lagdameo and Young Group never pleaded in their pleading that the "Agreement" failed to express the true intent of the parties.

The parol evidence Rule under Rule 130 provides:

Evidence of written agreements-When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all such terms, and therefore,

there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the agreement other than the contents of the writing, except in the following cases:

(a) Where a mistake or imperfection of the writing, or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties or the validity of the agreement is put in issue by the pleadings.

(b) When there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing.

Contrary to ASI Group's stand, the Lagdameo and Young Group pleaded in their Reply and Answer to Counterclaim in SEC Case No. 2417 that the Agreement failed to express the true intent of the parties, to wit:

xxx xxx xxx

4. While certain provisions of the Agreement would make it appear that the parties thereto disclaim being partners or joint venturers such disclaimer is directed at third parties and is not inconsistent with, and does not preclude, the existence of two distinct groups of stockholders in Saniwares one of which (the Philippine Investors) shall constitute the majority, and the other ASI shall constitute the minority stockholder. In any event, the evident intention of the Philippine Investors and ASI in entering into the Agreement is to enter into ajoint venture enterprise, and if some words in the Agreement appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former (Art. 1370, New Civil Code). The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly (Art. 1374, New Civil Code). Moreover, in order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered. (Art. 1371, New Civil Code). (Part I, Original Records, SEC Case No. 2417)

It has been ruled:

In an action at law, where there is evidence tending to prove that the parties joined their efforts in furtherance of an enterprise for their joint profit, the question whether they intended by their agreement to create a joint adventure, or to assume some other relation is a question of fact for the jury. (Binder v. Kessler v 200 App. Div. 40,192 N Y S 653; Pyroa v. Brownfield (Tex. Civ. A.) 238 SW 725; Hoge v. George, 27 Wyo, 423, 200 P 96 33 C.J. p. 871)

In the instant cases, our examination of important provisions of the Agreement as well as the testimonial evidence presented by the Lagdameo and Young Group shows that the parties agreed to establish a joint venture and not a corporation. The history of the organization of Saniwares and the unusual arrangements which govern its policy making body are all consistent with a joint venture and not with an ordinary corporation. As stated by the SEC:

According to the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Baldwin Young, he negotiated the Agreement with ASI in behalf of the Philippine nationals. He testified that ASI agreed to accept the role of minority vis-a-vis the Philippine

Page | 41

42

National group of investors, on the condition that the Agreement should contain provisions to protect ASI as the minority.

An examination of the Agreement shows that certain provisions were included to protect the interests of ASI as the minority. For example, the vote of 7 out of 9 directors is required in certain enumerated corporate acts [Sec. 3 (b) (ii) (a) of the Agreement]. ASI is contractually entitled to designate a member of the Executive Committee and the vote of this member is required for certain transactions [Sec. 3 (b) (i)].

The Agreement also requires a 75% super-majority vote for the amendment of the articles and by-laws of Saniwares [Sec. 3 (a) (iv) and (b) (iii)]. ASI is also given the right to designate the president and plant manager [Sec. 5 (6)]. The Agreement further provides that the sales policy of Saniwares shall be that which is normally followed by ASI [Sec. 13 (a)] and that Saniwares should not export "Standard" products otherwise than through ASI's Export Marketing Services [Sec. 13 (6)]. Under the Agreement, ASI agreed to provide technology and know-how to Saniwares and the latter paid royalties for the same. (At p. 2).

xxx xxx xxx

It is pertinent to note that the provisions of the Agreement requiring a 7 out of 9 votes of the board of directors for certain actions, in effect gave ASI (which designates 3 directors under the Agreement) an effective veto power. Furthermore, the grant to ASI of the right to designate certain officers of the corporation; the super-majority voting requirements for amendments of the articles and by-laws; and most significantly to the issues of tms case, the provision that ASI shall designate 3 out of the 9 directors and the other stockholders shall designate the other 6, clearly indicate that there are two distinct groups in Saniwares, namely ASI, which owns 40% of the capital stock and the Philippine National stockholders who own the balance of 60%, and that 2) ASI is given certain protections as the minority stockholder.

Premises considered, we believe that under the Agreement there are two groups of stockholders who established a corporation with provisions for a special contractual relationship between the parties, i.e., ASI and the other stockholders. (pp. 4-5)

Section 5 (a) of the agreement uses the word "designated" and not "nominated" or "elected" in the selection of the nine directors on a six to three ratio. Each group is assured of a fixed number of directors in the board.

Moreover, ASI in its communications referred to the enterprise as joint venture. Baldwin Young also testified that Section 16(c) of the Agreement that "Nothing herein contained shall be construed to constitute any of the parties hereto partners or joint venturers in respect of any transaction hereunder" was merely to obviate the possibility of the enterprise being treated as partnership for tax purposes and liabilities to third parties.

Quite often, Filipino entrepreneurs in their desire to develop the industrial and manufacturing capacities of a local firm are constrained to seek the technology and marketing assistance of huge multinational corporations of the developed world. Arrangements are formalized where a foreign group becomes a minority owner of a firm in exchange for its manufacturing expertise, use of its brand names, and other such assistance. However, there is always a danger from such arrangements. The foreign group may, from the start, intend to establish its own sole or monopolistic operations and merely uses the joint venture arrangement to gain a foothold or test the Philippine waters, so to speak. Or the covetousness may come later. As the Philippine firm enlarges its operations and becomes profitable, the foreign group undermines the local majority ownership and actively tries to completely or predominantly take over the entire company. This undermining of joint ventures is not consistent with fair dealing to say the least. To the extent that such subversive actions can be lawfully prevented, the courts should extend protection especially in industries where constitutional and legal requirements reserve controlling ownership to Filipino citizens.

The Lagdameo Group stated in their appellees' brief in the Court of Appeal

In fact, the Philippine Corporation Code itself recognizes the right of stockholders to enter into agreements regarding the exercise of their voting rights.

Sec. 100. Agreements by stockholders.-

xxx xxx xxx

2. An agreement between two or more stockholders, if in writing and signed by the parties thereto, may provide that in exercising any voting rights, the shares held by them shall be voted as therein provided, or as they may agree, or as determined in accordance with a procedure agreed upon by them.

Appellants contend that the above provision is included in the Corporation Code's chapter on close corporations and Saniwares cannot be a close corporation because it has 95 stockholders. Firstly, although Saniwares had 95 stockholders at the time of the disputed stockholders meeting, these 95 stockholders are not separate from each other but are divisible into groups representing a single Identifiable interest. For example, ASI, its nominees and lawyers count for 13 of the 95 stockholders. The YoungYutivo family count for another 13 stockholders, the Chamsay family for 8 stockholders, the Santos family for 9 stockholders, the Dy family for 7 stockholders, etc. If the members of one family and/or business or interest group are considered as one (which, it is respectfully submitted, they should be for purposes of determining how closely held Saniwares is there were as of 8 March 1983, practically only 17 stockholders of Saniwares. (Please refer to discussion in pp. 5 to 6 of appellees' Rejoinder Memorandum dated 11 December 1984 and Annex "A" thereof).

Secondly, even assuming that Saniwares is technically not a close corporation because it has more than 20 stockholders, the undeniable fact is that it is a close-held

Page | 42

43

corporation. Surely, appellants cannot honestly claim that Saniwares is a public issue or a widely held corporation.

In the United States, many courts have taken a realistic approach to joint venture corporations and have not rigidly applied principles of corporation law designed primarily for public issue corporations. These courts have indicated that express arrangements between corporate joint ventures should be construed with less emphasis on the ordinary rules of law usually applied to corporate entities and with more consideration given to the nature of the agreement between the joint venturers (Please see Wabash Ry v. American Refrigerator Transit Co., 7 F 2d 335; Chicago, M & St. P. Ry v. Des Moines Union Ry; 254 Ass'n. 247 US. 490'; Seaboard Airline Ry v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry; 240 N.C. 495,.82 S.E. 2d 771; Deboy v. Harris, 207 Md., 212,113 A 2d 903; Hathway v. Porter Royalty Pool, Inc., 296 Mich. 90, 90, 295 N.W. 571; Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138 U.S. 262; "The Legal Status of Joint Venture Corporations", 11 Vand Law Rev. p. 680,1958). These American cases dealt with legal questions as to the extent to which the requirements arising from the corporate form of joint venture corporations should control, and the courts ruled that substantial justice lay with those litigants who relied on the joint venture agreement rather than the litigants who relied on the orthodox principles of corporation law.

As correctly held by the SEC Hearing Officer:

It is said that participants in a joint venture, in organizing the joint venture deviate from the traditional pattern of corporation management. A noted authority has pointed out that just as in close corporations, shareholders' agreements in joint venture corporations often contain provisions which do one or more of the following: (1) require greater than majority vote for shareholder and director action; (2) give certain shareholders or groups of shareholders power to select a specified number of directors; (3) give to the shareholders control over the selection and retention of employees; and (4) set up a procedure for the settlement of disputes by arbitration (See I O' Neal, Close Corporations, 1971 ed., Section 1.06a, pp. 15-16) (Decision of SEC Hearing Officer, P. 16)

Thirdly paragraph 2 of Sec. 100 of the Corporation Code does not necessarily imply that agreements regarding the exercise of voting rights are allowed only in close corporations. As Campos and Lopez-Campos explain:

Paragraph 2 refers to pooling and voting agreements in particular. Does this provision necessarily imply that these agreements can be valid only in close corporations as defined by the Code? Suppose that a corporation has twenty five stockholders, and therefore cannot qualify as a close corporation under section 96, can some of them enter into an agreement to vote as a unit in the election of directors? It is submitted that there is no reason for denying stockholders of corporations other than close ones the right to enter into not voting or pooling agreements to protect their interests, as long as they do not intend to commit any wrong, or fraud on the other stockholders not parties to the agreement. Of course, voting or pooling agreements are perhaps more useful and more often resorted to in close corporations. But they

may also be found necessary even in widely held corporations. Moreover, since the Code limits the legal meaning of close corporations to those which comply with the requisites laid down by section 96, it is entirely possible that a corporation which is in fact a close corporation will not come within the definition. In such case, its stockholders should not be precluded from entering into contracts like voting agreements if these are otherwise valid. (Campos & Lopez-Campos, op cit, p. 405)

In short, even assuming that sec. 5(a) of the Agreement relating to the designation or nomination of directors restricts the right of the Agreement's signatories to vote for directors, such contractual provision, as correctly held by the SEC, is valid and binding upon the signatories thereto, which include appellants. (Rollo No. 75951, pp. 90-94)

In regard to the question as to whether or not the ASI group may vote their additional equity during elections of Saniwares' board of directors, the Court of Appeals correctly stated:

As in other joint venture companies, the extent of ASI's participation in the management of the corporation is spelled out in the Agreement. Section 5(a) hereof says that three of the nine directors shall be designated by ASI and the remaining six by the other stockholders, i.e., the Filipino stockholders. This allocation of board seats is obviously in consonance with the minority position of ASI.

Having entered into a well-defined contractual relationship, it is imperative that the parties should honor and adhere to their respective rights and obligations thereunder. Appellants seem to contend that any allocation of board seats, even in joint venture corporations, are null and void to the extent that such may interfere with the stockholder's rights to cumulative voting as provided in Section 24 of the Corporation Code. This Court should not be prepared to hold that any agreement which curtails in any way cumulative voting should be struck down, even if such agreement has been freely entered into by experienced businessmen and do not prejudice those who are not parties thereto. It may well be that it would be more cogent to hold, as the Securities and Exchange Commission has held in the decision appealed from, that cumulative voting rights may be voluntarily waived by stockholders who enter into special relationships with each other to pursue and implement specific purposes, as in joint venture relationships between foreign and local stockholders, so long as such agreements do not adversely affect third parties.

In any event, it is believed that we are not here called upon to make a general rule on this question. Rather, all that needs to be done is to give life and effect to the particular contractual rights and obligations which the parties have assumed for themselves.

On the one hand, the clearly established minority position of ASI and the contractual allocation of board seats Cannot be disregarded. On the other hand, the rights of the stockholders to cumulative voting should also be protected.

Page | 43

44

In our decision sought to be reconsidered, we opted to uphold the second over the first. Upon further reflection, we feel that the proper and just solution to give due consideration to both factors suggests itself quite clearly. This Court should recognize and uphold the division of the stockholders into two groups, and at the same time uphold the right of the stockholders within each group to cumulative voting in the process of determining who the group's nominees would be. In practical terms, as suggested by appellant Luciano E. Salazar himself, this means that if the Filipino stockholders cannot agree who their six nominees will be, a vote would have to be taken among the Filipino stockholders only. During this voting, each Filipino stockholder can cumulate his votes. ASI, however, should not be allowed to interfere in the voting within the Filipino group. Otherwise, ASI would be able to designate more than the three directors it is allowed to designate under the Agreement, and may even be able to get a majority of the board seats, a result which is clearly contrary to the contractual intent of the parties.

Such a ruling will give effect to both the allocation of the board seats and the stockholder's right to cumulative voting. Moreover, this ruling will also give due consideration to the issue raised by the appellees on possible violation or circumvention of the Anti-Dummy Law (Com. Act No. 108, as amended) and the nationalization requirements of the Constitution and the laws if ASI is allowed to nominate more than three directors. (Rollo-75875, pp. 38-39)

The ASI Group and petitioner Salazar, now reiterate their theory that the ASI Group has the right to vote their additional equity pursuant to Section 24 of the Corporation Code which gives the stockholders of a corporation the right to cumulate their votes in electing directors. Petitioner Salazar adds that this right if granted to the ASI Group would not necessarily mean a violation of the Anti-Dummy Act (Commonwealth Act 108, as amended). He cites section 2-a thereof which provides:

And provided finally that the election of aliens as members of the board of directors or governing body of corporations or associations engaging in partially nationalized activities shall be allowed in proportion to their allowable participation or share in the capital of such entities. (amendments introduced by Presidential Decree 715, section 1, promulgated May 28, 1975)

The ASI Group's argument is correct within the context of Section 24 of the Corporation Code. The point of query, however, is whether or not that provision is applicable to a joint venture with clearly defined agreements:

The legal concept of ajoint venture is of common law origin. It has no precise legal definition but it has been generally understood to mean an organization formed for some temporary purpose. (Gates v. Megargel, 266 Fed. 811 [1920]) It is in fact hardly distinguishable from the partnership, since their elements are similar community of interest in the business, sharing of profits and losses, and a mutual right of control. Blackner v. Mc Dermott, 176 F. 2d. 498, [1949]; Carboneau v. Peterson, 95 P. 2d., 1043 [1939]; Buckley v. Chadwick, 45 Cal. 2d. 183, 288 P. 2d. 12 289 P. 2d. 242 [1955]). The main distinction cited

by most opinions in common law jurisdictions is that the partnership contemplates a general business with some degree of continuity, while the joint venture is formed for the execution of a single transaction, and is thus of a temporary nature. (Tufts v. Mann 116 Cal. App. 170, 2 P. 2d. 500 [1931]; Harmon v. Martin, 395 111. 595, 71 NE 2d. 74 [1947]; Gates v. Megargel 266 Fed. 811 [1920]). This observation is not entirely accurate in this jurisdiction, since under the Civil Code, a partnership may be particular or universal, and a particular partnership may have for its object a specific undertaking. (Art. 1783, Civil Code). It would seem therefore that under Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of partnership and should thus be governed by the law of partnerships. The Supreme Court has however recognized a distinction between these two business forms, and has held that although a corporation cannot enter into a partnership contract, it may however engage in a joint venture with others. (At p. 12, Tuazon v. Bolanos, 95 Phil. 906 [1954]) (Campos and Lopez-Campos Comments, Notes and Selected Cases, Corporation Code 1981)

Moreover, the usual rules as regards the construction and operations of contracts generally apply to a contract of joint venture. (O' Hara v. Harman 14 App. Dev. (167) 43 NYS 556).

Bearing these principles in mind, the correct view would be that the resolution of the question of whether or not the ASI Group may vote their additional equity lies in the agreement of the parties.

Necessarily, the appellate court was correct in upholding the agreement of the parties as regards the allocation of director seats under Section 5 (a) of the "Agreement," and the right of each group of stockholders to cumulative voting in the process of determining who the group's nominees would be under Section 3 (a) (1) of the "Agreement." As pointed out by SEC, Section 5 (a) of the Agreement relates to the manner of nominating the members of the board of directors while Section 3 (a) (1) relates to the manner of voting for these nominees.

This is the proper interpretation of the Agreement of the parties as regards the election of members of the board of directors.

To allow the ASI Group to vote their additional equity to help elect even a Filipino director who would be beholden to them would obliterate their minority status as agreed upon by the parties. As aptly stated by the appellate court:

... ASI, however, should not be allowed to interfere in the voting within the Filipino group. Otherwise, ASI would be able to designate more than the three directors it is allowed to designate under the Agreement, and may even be able to get a majority of the board seats, a result which is clearly contrary to the contractual intent of the parties.

Such a ruling will give effect to both the allocation of the board seats and the stockholder's right to cumulative voting. Moreover, this ruling will also give due consideration to the issue raised by the appellees on possible violation or circumvention of the Anti-Dummy

Page | 44

45

Law (Com. Act No. 108, as amended) and the nationalization requirements of the Constitution and the laws if ASI is allowed to nominate more than three directors. (At p. 39, Rollo, 75875)

Equally important as the consideration of the contractual intent of the parties is the consideration as regards the possible domination by the foreign investors of the enterprise in violation of the nationalization requirements enshrined in the Constitution and circumvention of the Anti-Dummy Act. In this regard, petitioner Salazar's position is that the Anti-Dummy Act allows the ASI group to elect board directors in proportion to their share in the capital of the entity. It is to be noted, however, that the same law also limits the election of aliens as members of the board of directors in proportion to their allowance participation of said entity. In the instant case, the foreign Group ASI was limited to designate three directors. This is the allowable participation of the ASI Group. Hence, in future dealings, this limitation of six to three board seats should always be maintained as long as the joint venture agreement exists considering that in limiting 3 board seats in the 9-man board of directors there are provisions already agreed upon and embodied in the parties' Agreement to protect the interests arising from the minority status of the foreign investors.

With these findings, we the decisions of the SEC Hearing Officer and SEC which were impliedly affirmed by the appellate court declaring Messrs. Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David P Whittingham, Emesto V. Lagdameo, Baldwin young, Raul A. Boncan, Emesto V. Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo, and George F. Lee as the duly elected directors of Saniwares at the March 8,1983 annual stockholders' meeting.

On the other hand, the Lagdameo and Young Group (petitioners in G.R. No. 75951) object to a cumulative voting during the election of the board of directors of the enterprise as ruled by the appellate court and submits that the six (6) directors allotted the Filipino stockholders should be selected by consensus pursuant to section 5 (a) of the Agreement which uses the word "designate" meaning "nominate, delegate or appoint."

They also stress the possibility that the ASI Group might take control of the enterprise if the Filipino stockholders are allowed to select their nominees separately and not as a common slot determined by the majority of their group.

Section 5 (a) of the Agreement which uses the word designates in the allocation of board directors should not be interpreted in isolation. This should be construed in relation to section 3 (a) (1) of the Agreement. As we stated earlier, section 3(a) (1) relates to the manner of voting for these nominees which is cumulative voting while section 5(a) relates to the manner of nominating the members of the board of directors. The petitioners in G.R. No. 75951 agreed to this procedure, hence, they cannot now impugn its legality.

The insinuation that the ASI Group may be able to control the enterprise under the cumulative voting procedure cannot, however, be ignored. The validity of the cumulative voting procedure is dependent on the

directors thus elected being genuine members of the Filipino group, not voters whose interest is to increase the ASI share in the management of Saniwares. The joint venture character of the enterprise must always be taken into account, so long as the company exists under its original agreement. Cumulative voting may not be used as a device to enable ASI to achieve stealthily or indirectly what they cannot accomplish openly. There are substantial safeguards in the Agreement which are intended to preserve the majority status of the Filipino investors as well as to maintain the minority status of the foreign investors group as earlier discussed. They should be maintained.

WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 75975-76 and G.R. No. 75875 are DISMISSED and the petition in G.R. No. 75951 is partly GRANTED. The amended decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED in that Messrs. Wolfgang Aurbach John Griffin, David Whittingham Emesto V. Lagdameo, Baldwin Young, Raul A. Boncan, Ernesto R. Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo, and George F. Lee are declared as the duly elected directors of Saniwares at the March 8,1983 annual stockholders' meeting. In all other respects, the questioned decision is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 75975-76 and G.R. No. 75875.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 45

46

G.R. No. 126881             October 3, 2000

HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and BENGUET LUMBER COMPANY, represented by its President TAN ENG LAY, respondents.

DE LEON, JR., J.:

In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners pray for the reversal of the Decision1 dated March 13, 1996 of the former Fifth Division2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47937, the dispositive portion of which states:

THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the appealed decision is hereby set aside, and the complaint dismissed.

The facts are:

Following the death of Tan Eng Kee on September 13, 1984, Matilde Abubo, the common-law spouse of the decedent, joined by their children Teresita, Nena, Clarita, Carlos, Corazon and Elpidio, collectively known as herein petitioners HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, filed suit against the decedent's brother TAN ENG LAY on February 19, 1990. The complaint,3 docketed as Civil Case No. 1983-R in the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City was for accounting, liquidation and winding up of the alleged partnership formed after World War II between Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay. On March 18, 1991, the petitioners filed an amended complaint4 impleading private respondent herein BENGUET LUMBER COMPANY, as represented by Tan Eng Lay. The amended complaint was admitted by the trial court in its Order dated May 3, 1991.5

The amended complaint principally alleged that after the second World War, Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay, pooling their resources and industry together, entered into a partnership engaged in the business of selling lumber and hardware and construction supplies. They named their enterprise "Benguet Lumber" which they jointly managed until Tan Eng Kee's death. Petitioners herein averred that the business prospered due to the hard work and thrift of the alleged partners. However, they claimed that in 1981, Tan Eng Lay and his children caused the conversion of the partnership "Benguet Lumber" into a corporation called "Benguet Lumber Company." The incorporation was purportedly a ruse to deprive Tan Eng Kee and his heirs of their rightful participation in the profits of the business. Petitioners prayed for accounting of the partnership assets, and the dissolution, winding up and liquidation thereof, and the equal division of the net assets of Benguet Lumber.

After trial, Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 7 rendered judgment6 on April 12, 1995, to wit:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:

a) Declaring that Benguet Lumber is a joint venture which is akin to a particular partnership;

b) Declaring that the deceased Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay are joint adventurers and/or partners in a business venture and/or particular partnership called Benguet

Lumber and as such should share in the profits and/or losses of the business venture or particular partnership;

c) Declaring that the assets of Benguet Lumber are the same assets turned over to Benguet Lumber Co. Inc. and as such the heirs or legal representatives of the deceased Tan Eng Kee have a legal right to share in said assets;

d) Declaring that all the rights and obligations of Tan Eng Kee as joint adventurer and/or as partner in a particular partnership have descended to the plaintiffs who are his legal heirs.

e) Ordering the defendant Tan Eng Lay and/or the President and/or General Manager of Benguet Lumber Company Inc. to render an accounting of all the assets of Benguet Lumber Company, Inc. so the plaintiffs know their proper share in the business;

f) Ordering the appointment of a receiver to preserve and/or administer the assets of Benguet Lumber Company, Inc. until such time that said corporation is finally liquidated are directed to submit the name of any person they want to be appointed as receiver failing in which this Court will appoint the Branch Clerk of Court or another one who is qualified to act as such.

g) Denying the award of damages to the plaintiffs for lack of proof except the expenses in filing the instant case.

h) Dismissing the counter-claim of the defendant for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Private respondent sought relief before the Court of Appeals which, on March 13, 1996, rendered the assailed decision reversing the judgment of the trial court. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration7 was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution8 dated October 11, 1996.

Hence, the present petition.

As a side-bar to the proceedings, petitioners filed Criminal Case No. 78856 against Tan Eng Lay and Wilborn Tan for the use of allegedly falsified documents in a judicial proceeding. Petitioners complained that Exhibits "4" to "4-U" offered by the defendants before the trial court, consisting of payrolls indicating that Tan Eng Kee was a mere employee of Benguet Lumber, were fake, based on the discrepancy in the signatures of Tan Eng Kee. They also filed Criminal Cases Nos. 78857-78870 against Gloria, Julia, Juliano, Willie, Wilfredo, Jean, Mary and Willy, all surnamed Tan, for alleged falsification of commercial documents by a private individual. On March 20, 1999, the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 1, wherein the charges were filed, rendered judgment9

dismissing the cases for insufficiency of evidence.

In their assignment of errors, petitioners claim that:

I

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE LATE TAN ENG KEE AND HIS BROTHER TAN ENG LAY BECAUSE: (A) THERE WAS NO FIRM ACCOUNT; (B) THERE WAS NO FIRM LETTERHEADS SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE; (C) THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF PARTNERSHIP; (D) THERE WAS

Page | 46

47

NO AGREEMENT AS TO PROFITS AND LOSSES; AND (E) THERE WAS NO TIME FIXED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP (PAGE 13, DECISION).

II

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RELYING SOLELY ON THE SELF-SERVING TESTIMONY OF RESPONDENT TAN ENG LAY THAT BENGUET LUMBER WAS A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP AND THAT TAN ENG KEE WAS ONLY AN EMPLOYEE THEREOF.

III

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE FOLLOWING FACTS WHICH WERE DULY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF BOTH PARTIES DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTNERSHIP JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ARTICLES OF PARTNERSHIP DULY RECORDED BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION:

a. THAT THE FAMILIES OF TAN ENG KEE AND TAN ENG LAY WERE ALL LIVING AT THE BENGUET LUMBER COMPOUND;

b. THAT BOTH TAN ENG LAY AND TAN ENG KEE WERE COMMANDING THE EMPLOYEES OF BENGUET LUMBER;

c. THAT BOTH TAN ENG KEE AND TAN ENG LAY WERE SUPERVISING THE EMPLOYEES THEREIN;

d. THAT TAN ENG KEE AND TAN ENG LAY WERE THE ONES DETERMINING THE PRICES OF STOCKS TO BE SOLD TO THE PUBLIC; AND

e. THAT TAN ENG LAY AND TAN ENG KEE WERE THE ONES MAKING ORDERS TO THE SUPPLIERS (PAGE 18, DECISION).

IV

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PARTNERSHIP JUST BECAUSE THE CHILDREN OF THE LATE TAN ENG KEE: ELPIDIO TAN AND VERONICA CHOI, TOGETHER WITH THEIR WITNESS BEATRIZ TANDOC, ADMITTED THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WHEN THE ESTABLISHMENT KNOWN IN BAGUIO CITY AS BENGUET LUMBER WAS STARTED AS A PARTNERSHIP (PAGE 16-17, DECISION).

V

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE LATE TAN ENG KEE AND HIS BROTHER TAN ENG LAY BECAUSE THE PRESENT CAPITAL OR ASSETS OF BENGUET LUMBER IS DEFINITELY MORE THAN P3,000.00 AND AS SUCH THE EXECUTION OF A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT CREATING A PARTNERSHIP SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AND NO SUCH PUBLIC INSTRUMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLEES (PAGE 17, DECISION).

As a premise, we reiterate the oft-repeated rule that findings of facts of the Court of Appeals will not be disturbed on appeal if such are supported by the evidence.10 Our jurisdiction, it must be emphasized, does not include review of factual issues. Thus:

Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.11 [emphasis supplied]

Admitted exceptions have been recognized, though, and when present, may compel us to analyze the evidentiary basis on which the lower court rendered judgment. Review of factual issues is therefore warranted:

(1) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;

(2) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;

(3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;

(4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;

(5) when the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;

(6) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts;

(7) when the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion;

(8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;

(9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and

(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.12

In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals ruled, to wit:

We note that the Court a quo over extended the issue because while the plaintiffs mentioned only the existence of a partnership, the Court in turn went beyond that by justifying the existence of a joint venture.

When mention is made of a joint venture, it would presuppose parity of standing between the parties, equal proprietary interest and the exercise by the parties equally of the conduct of the business, thus:

xxx             xxx             xxx

We have the admission that the father of the plaintiffs was not a partner of the Benguet Lumber before the war. The appellees however argued that (Rollo, p. 104; Brief, p. 6) this is because during the war, the entire stocks of the pre-war Benguet Lumber were confiscated if not burned by the Japanese. After the war, because of the

Page | 47

48

absence of capital to start a lumber and hardware business, Lay and Kee pooled the proceeds of their individual businesses earned from buying and selling military supplies, so that the common fund would be enough to form a partnership, both in the lumber and hardware business. That Lay and Kee actually established the Benguet Lumber in Baguio City, was even testified to by witnesses. Because of the pooling of resources, the post-war Benguet Lumber was eventually established. That the father of the plaintiffs and Lay were partners, is obvious from the fact that: (1) they conducted the affairs of the business during Kee's lifetime, jointly, (2) they were the ones giving orders to the employees, (3) they were the ones preparing orders from the suppliers, (4) their families stayed together at the Benguet Lumber compound, and (5) all their children were employed in the business in different capacities.

xxx             xxx             xxx

It is obvious that there was no partnership whatsoever. Except for a firm name, there was no firm account, no firm letterheads submitted as evidence, no certificate of partnership, no agreement as to profits and losses, and no time fixed for the duration of the partnership. There was even no attempt to submit an accounting corresponding to the period after the war until Kee's death in 1984. It had no business book, no written account nor any memorandum for that matter and no license mentioning the existence of a partnership [citation omitted].

Also, the exhibits support the establishment of only a proprietorship. The certification dated March 4, 1971, Exhibit "2", mentioned co-defendant Lay as the only registered owner of the Benguet Lumber and Hardware. His application for registration, effective 1954, in fact mentioned that his business started in 1945 until 1985 (thereafter, the incorporation). The deceased, Kee, on the other hand, was merely an employee of the Benguet Lumber Company, on the basis of his SSS coverage effective 1958, Exhibit "3". In the Payrolls, Exhibits "4" to "4-U", inclusive, for the years 1982 to 1983, Kee was similarly listed only as an employee; precisely, he was on the payroll listing. In the Termination Notice, Exhibit "5", Lay was mentioned also as the proprietor.

xxx             xxx             xxx

We would like to refer to Arts. 771 and 772, NCC, that a partner [sic] may be constituted in any form, but when an immovable is constituted, the execution of a public instrument becomes necessary. This is equally true if the capitalization exceeds P3,000.00, in which case a public instrument is also necessary, and which is to be recorded with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In this case at bar, we can easily assume that the business establishment, which from the language of the appellees, prospered (pars. 5 & 9, Complaint), definitely exceeded P3,000.00, in addition to the accumulation of real properties and to the fact that it is now a compound. The execution of a public instrument, on the other hand, was never established by the appellees.

And then in 1981, the business was incorporated and the incorporators were only Lay and the members of his

family. There is no proof either that the capital assets of the partnership, assuming them to be in existence, were maliciously assigned or transferred by Lay, supposedly to the corporation and since then have been treated as a part of the latter's capital assets, contrary to the allegations in pars. 6, 7 and 8 of the complaint.

These are not evidences supporting the existence of a partnership:

1) That Kee was living in a bunk house just across the lumber store, and then in a room in the bunk house in Trinidad, but within the compound of the lumber establishment, as testified to by Tandoc; 2) that both Lay and Kee were seated on a table and were "commanding people" as testified to by the son, Elpidio Tan; 3) that both were supervising the laborers, as testified to by Victoria Choi; and 4) that Dionisio Peralta was supposedly being told by Kee that the proceeds of the 80 pieces of the G.I. sheets were added to the business.

Partnership presupposes the following elements [citation omitted]: 1) a contract, either oral or written. However, if it involves real property or where the capital is P3,000.00 or more, the execution of a contract is necessary; 2) the capacity of the parties to execute the contract; 3) money property or industry contribution; 4) community of funds and interest, mentioning equality of the partners or one having a proportionate share in the benefits; and 5) intention to divide the profits, being the true test of the partnership. The intention to join in the business venture for the purpose of obtaining profits thereafter to be divided, must be established. We cannot see these elements from the testimonial evidence of the appellees.

As can be seen, the appellate court disputed and differed from the trial court which had adjudged that TAN ENG KEE and TAN ENG LAY had allegedly entered into a joint venture. In this connection, we have held that whether a partnership exists is a factual matter; consequently, since the appeal is brought to us under Rule 45, we cannot entertain inquiries relative to the correctness of the assessment of the evidence by the court a quo.13

Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals and the trial court had reached conflicting conclusions, perforce we must examine the record to determine if the reversal was justified.

The primordial issue here is whether Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay were partners in Benguet Lumber. A contract of partnership is defined by law as one where:

. . . 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.

Two or more persons may also form a partnership for the exercise of a profession.14

Thus, in order to constitute a partnership, it must be established that (1) two or more persons bound themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, and (2) they intend to divide the profits among themselves.15 The agreement need not be formally reduced into writing, since statute allows the oral constitution of a partnership, save in two instances:

Page | 48

49

(1) when immovable property or real rights are contributed,16 and (2) when the partnership has a capital of three thousand pesos or more.17 In both cases, a public instrument is required.18 An inventory to be signed by the parties and attached to the public instrument is also indispensable to the validity of the partnership whenever immovable property is contributed to the partnership.19

The trial court determined that Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay had entered into a joint venture, which it said is akin to a particular partnership.20 A particular partnership is distinguished from a joint adventure, to wit:

(a) A joint adventure (an American concept similar to our joint accounts) is a sort of informal partnership, with no firm name and no legal personality. In a joint account, the participating merchants can transact business under their own name, and can be individually liable therefor.

(b) Usually, but not necessarily a joint adventure is limited to a SINGLE TRANSACTION, although the business of pursuing to a successful termination may continue for a number of years; a partnership generally relates to a continuing business of various transactions of a certain kind.21

A joint venture "presupposes generally a parity of standing between the joint co-ventures or partners, in which each party has an equal proprietary interest in the capital or property contributed, and where each party exercises equal rights in the conduct of the business."22

Nonetheless, in Aurbach, et. al. v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation, et. al.,23 we expressed the view that a joint venture may be likened to a particular partnership, thus:

The legal concept of a joint venture is of common law origin. It has no precise legal definition, but it has been generally understood to mean an organization formed for some temporary purpose. (Gates v. Megargel, 266 Fed. 811 [1920]) It is hardly distinguishable from the partnership, since their elements are similar — community of interest in the business, sharing of profits and losses, and a mutual right of control. (Blackner v. McDermott, 176 F. 2d. 498, [1949]; Carboneau v. Peterson, 95 P.2d., 1043 [1939]; Buckley v. Chadwick, 45 Cal. 2d. 183, 288 P.2d. 12 289 P.2d. 242 [1955]). The main distinction cited by most opinions in common law jurisdiction is that the partnership contemplates a general business with some degree of continuity, while the joint venture is formed for the execution of a single transaction, and is thus of a temporary nature. (Tufts v. Mann. 116 Cal. App. 170, 2 P. 2d. 500 [1931]; Harmon v. Martin, 395 Ill. 595, 71 NE 2d. 74 [1947]; Gates v. Megargel 266 Fed. 811 [1920]). This observation is not entirely accurate in this jurisdiction, since under the Civil Code, a partnership may be particular or universal, and a particular partnership may have for its object a specific undertaking. (Art. 1783, Civil Code). It would seem therefore that under Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of partnership and should thus be governed by the law of partnerships. The Supreme Court has however recognized a distinction between these two business forms, and has held that although a corporation cannot enter into a partnership contract, it may however engage

in a joint venture with others. (At p. 12, Tuazon v. Bolaños, 95 Phil. 906 [1954]) (Campos and Lopez-Campos Comments, Notes and Selected Cases, Corporation Code 1981).

Undoubtedly, the best evidence would have been the contract of partnership itself, or the articles of partnership but there is none. The alleged partnership, though, was never formally organized. In addition, petitioners point out that the New Civil Code was not yet in effect when the partnership was allegedly formed sometime in 1945, although the contrary may well be argued that nothing prevented the parties from complying with the provisions of the New Civil Code when it took effect on August 30, 1950. But all that is in the past. The net effect, however, is that we are asked to determine whether a partnership existed based purely on circumstantial evidence. A review of the record persuades us that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the decision of the trial court. The evidence presented by petitioners falls short of the quantum of proof required to establish a partnership.

Unfortunately for petitioners, Tan Eng Kee has passed away. Only he, aside from Tan Eng Lay, could have expounded on the precise nature of the business relationship between them. In the absence of evidence, we cannot accept as an established fact that Tan Eng Kee allegedly contributed his resources to a common fund for the purpose of establishing a partnership. The testimonies to that effect of petitioners' witnesses is directly controverted by Tan Eng Lay. It should be noted that it is not with the number of witnesses wherein preponderance lies;24 the quality of their testimonies is to be considered. None of petitioners' witnesses could suitably account for the beginnings of Benguet Lumber Company, except perhaps for Dionisio Peralta whose deceased wife was related to Matilde Abubo.25 He stated that when he met Tan Eng Kee after the liberation, the latter asked the former to accompany him to get 80 pieces of G.I. sheets supposedly owned by both brothers.26 Tan Eng Lay, however, denied knowledge of this meeting or of the conversation between Peralta and his brother.27 Tan Eng Lay consistently testified that he had his business and his brother had his, that it was only later on that his said brother, Tan Eng Kee, came to work for him. Be that as it may, co-ownership or co-possession (specifically here, of the G.I. sheets) is not an indicium of the existence of a partnership.28

Besides, it is indeed odd, if not unnatural, that despite the forty years the partnership was allegedly in existence, Tan Eng Kee never asked for an accounting. The essence of a partnership is that the partners share in the profits and losses.29 Each has the right to demand an accounting as long as the partnership exists.30 We have allowed a scenario wherein "[i]f excellent relations exist among the partners at the start of the business and all the partners are more interested in seeing the firm grow rather than get immediate returns, a deferment of sharing in the profits is perfectly plausible."31 But in the situation in the case at bar, the deferment, if any, had gone on too long to be plausible. A person is presumed to

Page | 49

50

take ordinary care of his concerns.32 As we explained in another case:

In the first place, plaintiff did not furnish the supposed P20,000.00 capital. In the second place, she did not furnish any help or intervention in the management of the theatre. In the third place, it does not appear that she has even demanded from defendant any accounting of the expenses and earnings of the business. Were she really a partner, her first concern should have been to find out how the business was progressing, whether the expenses were legitimate, whether the earnings were correct, etc. She was absolutely silent with respect to any of the acts that a partner should have done; all that she did was to receive her share of P3,000.00 a month, which cannot be interpreted in any manner than a payment for the use of the premises which she had leased from the owners. Clearly, plaintiff had always acted in accordance with the original letter of defendant of June 17, 1945 (Exh. "A"), which shows that both parties considered this offer as the real contract between them.33 [emphasis supplied]

A demand for periodic accounting is evidence of a partnership.34 During his lifetime, Tan Eng Kee appeared never to have made any such demand for accounting from his brother, Tang Eng Lay.

This brings us to the matter of Exhibits "4" to "4-U" for private respondents, consisting of payrolls purporting to show that Tan Eng Kee was an ordinary employee of Benguet Lumber, as it was then called. The authenticity of these documents was questioned by petitioners, to the extent that they filed criminal charges against Tan Eng Lay and his wife and children. As aforesaid, the criminal cases were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Exhibits "4" to "4-U" in fact shows that Tan Eng Kee received sums as wages of an employee. In connection therewith, Article 1769 of the Civil Code provides:

In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply:

(1) Except as provided by Article 1825, persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons;

(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 a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property which the returns are derived;

(4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is a prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment:

(a) As a debt by installment or otherwise;

(b) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord;

(c) As an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner;

(d) As interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the business;

(e) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by installments or otherwise.

In the light of the aforequoted legal provision, we conclude that Tan Eng Kee was only an employee, not a partner. Even if the payrolls as evidence were discarded, petitioners would still be back to square one, so to speak, since they did not present and offer evidence that would show that Tan Eng Kee received amounts of money allegedly representing his share in the profits of the enterprise. Petitioners failed to show how much their father, Tan Eng Kee, received, if any, as his share in the profits of Benguet Lumber Company for any particular period. Hence, they failed to prove that Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay intended to divide the profits of the business between themselves, which is one of the essential features of a partnership.

Nevertheless, petitioners would still want us to infer or believe the alleged existence of a partnership from this set of circumstances: that Tan Eng Lay and Tan Eng Kee were commanding the employees; that both were supervising the employees; that both were the ones who determined the price at which the stocks were to be sold; and that both placed orders to the suppliers of the Benguet Lumber Company. They also point out that the families of the brothers Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay lived at the Benguet Lumber Company compound, a privilege not extended to its ordinary employees.

However, private respondent counters that:

Petitioners seem to have missed the point in asserting that the above enumerated powers and privileges granted in favor of Tan Eng Kee, were indicative of his being a partner in Benguet Lumber for the following reasons:

(i) even a mere supervisor in a company, factory or store gives orders and directions to his subordinates. So long, therefore, that an employee's position is higher in rank, it is not unusual that he orders around those lower in rank.

(ii) even a messenger or other trusted employee, over whom confidence is reposed by the owner, can order materials from suppliers for and in behalf of Benguet Lumber. Furthermore, even a partner does not necessarily have to perform this particular task. It is, thus, not an indication that Tan Eng Kee was a partner.

(iii) although Tan Eng Kee, together with his family, lived in the lumber compound and this privilege was not accorded to other employees, the undisputed fact remains that Tan Eng Kee is the brother of Tan Eng Lay. Naturally, close personal relations existed between them. Whatever privileges Tan Eng Lay gave his brother, and which were not given the other employees, only proves the kindness and generosity of Tan Eng Lay towards a blood relative.

(iv) and even if it is assumed that Tan Eng Kee was quarreling with Tan Eng Lay in connection with the pricing of stocks, this does not adequately prove the existence of a partnership relation between them. Even

Page | 50

51

highly confidential employees and the owners of a company sometimes argue with respect to certain matters which, in no way indicates that they are partners as to each other.35

In the instant case, we find private respondent's arguments to be well-taken. Where circumstances taken singly may be inadequate to prove the intent to form a partnership, nevertheless, the collective effect of these circumstances may be such as to support a finding of the existence of the parties' intent.36 Yet, in the case at bench, even the aforesaid circumstances when taken together are not persuasive indicia of a partnership. They only tend to show that Tan Eng Kee was involved in the operations of Benguet Lumber, but in what capacity is unclear. We cannot discount the likelihood that as a member of the family, he occupied a niche above the rank-and-file employees. He would have enjoyed liberties otherwise unavailable were he not kin, such as his residence in the Benguet Lumber Company compound. He would have moral, if not actual, superiority over his fellow employees, thereby entitling him to exercise powers of supervision. It may even be that among his duties is to place orders with suppliers. Again, the circumstances proffered by petitioners do not provide a logical nexus to the conclusion desired; these are not inconsistent with the powers and duties of a manager, even in a business organized and run as informally as Benguet Lumber Company.

There being no partnership, it follows that there is no dissolution, winding up or liquidation to speak of. Hence, the petition must fail.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby denied, and the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 51