Topic: Particular Partnership, Article 1783

Commission of Internal Revenue v Suter

No. L-25532. February 28, 1969
Reyes, J.

Petitioner: Commission of Internal Revenue (CIR)

Respondents: WILLIAM J. SUTER and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

Facts:
 Respondent William Suter, Julia Spirig and Gustav Carlson formed the limited
partnership, William J. Suter “Morcoin” Co., Ltd, to engage among other activities, in the
importation, marketing and operation of automatic phonographs, radios, television sets
and amusement machines, their parts and accessories.

 Suter was the general partner while both Spirig and Carlson were limited partners. In
1947, the limited partnership was registered with the SEC.

 In 1948, Suter and Spirig got married and, thereafter, Carlson sold his share to Suter and
Spirig.

 The limited partnership had been filing its income tax returns as a corporation, without
any objection by petitioner CIR, until in 1959 when CIR, in an assessment, consolidated
the income of the firm and the individual incomes of the partner spouses, resulting in a
determination of a deficiency income tax against Suter.

 The CIR argued that the marriage of Suter and Spirig and their subsequent acquisition of
Carlson’s share in the partnership dissolved the limited partnership.

 CIR’s theory on the dissolution of the Suter’s limited partnership, by operation of law,
was rested by CIR upon the opinion of Tolentino in his book that says

“…persons prohibited from making donations to each other (such as husband and wife)
are prohibited from entering into universal partnerships. It follows that the ,arriage of
partners necessarily brings about the dissolution of a pre-existing partnership.”

Contention of Suter:
His marriage with Spirig and their acquisition of Carlson’s interests in the partnership 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 has been retained, as a limited partnership, it is
taxable on its income similarly with corporations. So, he is not bound to include in his individual
return, the income of the limited partnership, contrary to the contention of the CIR.
Issue:
Whether the partnership was dissolved after the marriage of the partners Suter and Spirig,
and the subsequent sale to them by Carlson of his participation in the partnership.

Ruling:
No.
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 “all that the partners may acquire by their industry or work during the
existence of the partnership”.
In the present case, William J. Suter “Morcoin” Co., Ltd. was not such a
universal partnership, since the contributions of the partners were fixed sums of money, and
neither one of them was an industrial partner.
CIR failed to observe that William J. Suter “Morcoin” Co., Ltd. was not a universal
partnership, but a particular one.

Doctrine: Where respondent company in the case at bar is considered a particular partnership
and not universal.

Notes:
The subject matter or object in a particular partnership is limited and well defined, being
confined to an undertaking of a single, temporary, or ad hoc nature. In the present case, the
limited partnership in question is a particular partnership because it is confined in a single
undertaking.

On the contention of CIR that the limited partnership became a single proprietorship after
the marriage of Suter and Spirig, the Court said:

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; xxx,”

Thus, the individual interest of Suter and Spirig did not become common property of both
after their marriage in 1948.