Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • De La Rosa V Ortega Go-Catay PDF

    Încărcat de

    Gertrude Gamonnac
    470 vizualizări2 pagini
    Go Lio and Vicente Go-Sengco formed a society for the purchase and sale of articles of commerce and opened a store in Nueva Ecija. Go Lio died there leaving a widow and 3 children, one of whom came to the Philippines and filed a petition for the appointment of Ildefonso De La Rosa as administrator of the intestate estate of his deceased father. De La Rosa also prayed that he be appointed as receiver for the property of the partnership. He opposed the

    Descriere originală:

    Titlu original

    De la Rosa v Ortega Go-Catay.pdf

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    Go Lio and Vicente Go-Sengco formed a society for the purchase and sale of articles of commerce and opened a store in Nueva Ecija. Go Lio died there leaving a widow and 3 children, one of whom came to the Philippines and filed a petition for the appointment of Ildefonso De La Rosa as administrator of the intestate estate of his deceased father. De La Rosa also prayed that he be appointed as receiver for the property of the partnership. He opposed the

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    470 vizualizări2 pagini

    De La Rosa V Ortega Go-Catay PDF

    Încărcat de

    Gertrude Gamonnac
    Go Lio and Vicente Go-Sengco formed a society for the purchase and sale of articles of commerce and opened a store in Nueva Ecija. Go Lio died there leaving a widow and 3 children, one of whom came to the Philippines and filed a petition for the appointment of Ildefonso De La Rosa as administrator of the intestate estate of his deceased father. De La Rosa also prayed that he be appointed as receiver for the property of the partnership. He opposed the

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 2

    DelaRosavOrtegaGoCotay

    No.24243;15January1926;Gancayco,J.

    FACTS:
    1. GoLioandVicenteGoSengcoformedasocietyforthepurchaseandsaleofarticlesofcommerceandopeneda
    storeinSanIsidro,NuevaEcija
    2. GoLiowenttoChinaanddiedthereleavingawidowand3children,oneofwhomcametothePhilippinesand
    filedapetitionfortheappointmentofIldefonsodelaRosa(PLAINTIFF)asadministratoroftheintestateestate
    ofhisdeceasedfather.ThepetitionwasgrantedbytheCFIofNuevaEcija
    3. VicenteGoSengcoalsodiedandhissonEnriqueOrtegaGoCatay(DEFENDANT)tookchargeofthebusiness
    4. EnriqueOrtegarefusedtowindupthebusinessanddelivertoDelaRosatheportioncorrespondingtothe
    deceasedGoLio.Heallegedthatthebusinessishisexclusively
    5. ThispromptedDeLaRosatofileacomplaintagainstEnriqueOrtega.DeLaRosaalsoprayedthathebe
    appointedasreceiverforthepropertyofthepartnership.Defendantopposedtheprayer.
    6. TheCFIappointed3commissionerstomakeaninventory,liquidateanddeterminethehalfbelongingtothe
    plaintiff.Thecommissionerssubmittedareportshowingthatthebusinessshowednetprofitsfrom19131917
    amountingtoP25,038.70
    7. August3,1918:InordertopreventJustoCaboChan(oneofthecommissioners)fromassumingthepositionof
    receiverpursuanttotheorderofthecourt,thedefendantfiledabondinthesumofP10,000.
    8. Inviewoftheappealtakenbydefendant,thepartiesagreedtosuspendtheliquidationorderedbythelower
    courtandthedefendantwasauthorizedtocontinueinthepossessionofthepropertyinlitigationaftergivinga
    P25,000bondcancellingtheP10,000bond.
    9. Aftertrial,thelowercourtadoptedthereportmadebyJustoCaboChanwhichshowedthatthebusiness
    sufferedanetlossamountingtoP89,099.22andrejectedthereportofthetwoothercommissioners.
    10. Becauseoftheloss,theplaintiffhadnothingtorecoverfromdefendantastherewasnoprofittodivide.The
    reportsshowedthestatusofthebusinessfrom19191922(Loseswereincurred1918onwards)

    ISSUE:
    WONthelossshouldbebornebythepartnershipNO.Thedefendantaloneshouldbeartheloss

    HELD:
    DefendantshouldpaytheplaintiffP30,299.14ashissharebeforeAugust3,1918.

    RATIO:
    1. InAugust3,1918,thedefendantassumedcompleteresponsibilityforthebusinesswhenheobjectedtothe
    appointmentofareceiverandevengivingabond.
    a) Fromthatpointforward,hisactswerenolongerthatofamanagingpartnerbindingagainstthepartnership.
    HebecameareceiverwhoseauthorityisprovidedforinSection175oftheCodeofCivilProcedure
    b) AccordingtotheCode,areceiverhasnorighttocarryonandconductabusinessunlessheisauthorizedor
    directedbythecourttodoso.Hisroleistotakeandpreservetheproperty.
    c) Sincehewasnotauthorizedbythecourttocontinuethebusinessofthepartnershipinliquidation,heis
    personallyliableforthelossesthatthebusinesshadsustainedafterhebecameareceiver
    d) Thepartnershipthereforeisnotliablefortheactsofthedefendantinconnectionwiththemanagementof
    thebusinessafterAugust3,1918.
    2. ThecourtaddedtheCapitalofthepartnershipandprofitsuntilthefirstsemesterof1918toamountto
    P60,598.28.OnehalfofthetotalisP30,299.14whichpertainstotheestateofGoLio.

    SIDENOTES:
    3. Theassetsofthepartnership,aswellasthevalueofitsproperty,couldnotbedeterminedwhenmakingthe
    liquidationbecausetherewasnoinventoryhenceitwasnotpossibletodeterminethecapitalofthe
    partnership.Theplaintiffhoweveragreedtoconsidertheinitialcapitalasthecapitalatthetimeofwindingup
    ofthebusiness.

    4. Itwasalsodifficultforthecourttodeterminenetprofitsearlierthan1912becausesomeofthebooksof
    accountweredestroyedbyanay.TheSCcomputedthenetprofitsbasedontheaveragenetprofitin1913
    onwards.

    S-ar putea să vă placă și