MARJORIE TOCAO and WILLIAM T. BELO v. COURT OF APPEALS and NENITA A. ANAY G.R. No. 127405. October 4, 2000.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. FACTS: Petitioner William Belo introduced respondent Nenita Anay to petitioner Marjorie Tocao, who conveyed her desire to enter into a joint venture with her for the importation and local distribution of kitchen cookwares. Under the joint venture, Belo acted as capitalist, Tocao as president and general manager, and Anay as head of the marketing department and later, vice-president for sales. The parties agreed to use Anay's name in securing distributorship of cookware from West Bend Company, a manufacturer of kitchen cookwares in Wisconsin, U.S.A. The parties agreed further that Anay would be entitled to: (1) ten percent (10%) of the annual net profits of the business; (2) overriding commission of six percent (6%) of the overall weekly production; (3) thirty percent (30%) of the sales she would make; and (4) two percent (2%) for her demonstration services. The agreement was not reduced to writing on the strength of Belo's assurances that he was sincere, dependable and honest when it came to financial commitments. Anay having secured the distributorship of cookware products from the West Bend Company and organized the administrative staff and the sales force, the cookware business took off successfully. They operated under the name of Geminesse Enterprise, a sole proprietorship registered in Marjorie Tocao's name, with office at 712 Rufino Building, Ayala Avenue, Makati City. Belo made good his monetary commitments to Anay. On October 9, 1987, Anay learned that Marjorie Tocao had signed a letter6 addressed to the Cubao sales office to the effect that she was no longer the vice-president of Geminesse Enterprise. The following day, October 10, she received a note from Lina T. Cruz, marketing manager, that Marjorie Tocao had barred her from holding office and conducting demonstrations in both Makati and Cubao offices.7 Anay attempted to contact Belo. She wrote him twice to demand her overriding commission for the period of January 8, 1988 to February 5, 1988 and the audit of the company to determine her share in the net profits. When her letters were not answered, Anay consulted her lawyer, who, in turn, wrote Belo a letter. Still, that letter was not answered. Anay still received her five percent (5%) overriding commission up to December 1987. The following year, 1988, she did not receive the same commission although the company netted a gross sales of P13,300,360.00. On April 5, 1988, Nenita A. Anay filed Civil Case No. 88-509, a complaint for sum of money with damages8 against Marjorie D. Tocao and William Belo before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 140. The trial court held that there was indeed an oral partnership agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants, based on the following: (a) there was an intention to create a partnership; (b) a common fund was established through contributions consisting of money and industry, and (c) there was a joint interest in the profits. Petitioners appeal to the Court of Appeals11 was dismissed. Their Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals for lack of merit.12 ISSUE: Whether or not a partnership exists HELD: Yes. The issue of whether or not a partnership exists is a factual matter which are within the exclusive domain of both the trial and appellate courts. This Court cannot set aside factual findings of such courts absent any showing that there is no evidence to support the conclusion drawn by the court a quo.14 In this case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals are one in ruling that petitioners and private respondent established a business partnership. This Court finds no reason to rule otherwise. To be considered a juridical personality, a partnership must fulfill these requisites: (1) two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (2) intention on the part of the partners to divide the profits among themselves.15 It may be constituted in any form; a public instrument is necessary only where immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto.16 This implies that since a contract of partnership is consensual, an oral contract of partnership is as good as a written one. Where no immovable property or real rights are involved, what matters is that the parties have complied with the requisites of a partnership. The fact that there appears to be no record in the Securities and Exchange Commission of a public instrument embodying the partnership agreement pursuant to Article 1772 of the Civil Code17 did not cause the nullification of the partnership. The pertinent provision of the Civil Code on the matter states: Art. 1768. The partnership has a juridical personality separate and distinct from that of each of the partners, even in case of failure to comply with the requirements of article 1772, first paragraph.

J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by it Managing PARTNER, GREGORIA ARANETA, INC. vs.QUIRINO BOLAOS G.R. No. L-4935. May 28, 1954. REYES, J. FACTS: This is an action originally brought in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, to recover possesion of registered land situated in barrio Tatalon, Quezon City. Plaintiff's complaint was amended three times with respect to the extent and description of the land sought to be recovered. The original complaint described the land as a portion of a lot registered in plaintiff's name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37686 of the land record of Rizal Province and as containing an area of 13 hectares more or less. But the complaint was amended by reducing the area of 6 hectares, more or less, after the defendant had indicated the plaintiff's surveyors the portion of land claimed and occupied by him. The second amendment became necessary and was allowed following the testimony of plaintiff's surveyors that a portion of the area was embraced in another certificate of title, which was plaintiff's Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37677. And still later, in the course of trial, after defendant's surveyor and witness, Quirino Feria, had testified that the area occupied and claimed by defendant was about 13 hectares, as shown in his Exhibit 1, plaintiff again, with the leave of court, amended its complaint to make its allegations conform to the evidence.Defendant, in his answer, sets up prescription and title in himself thru "open, continuous, exclusive and public and notorious possession (of land in dispute) under claim of ownership, adverse to the entire world by defendant and his predecessor in interest" from "time in-memorial". The answer further alleges that registration of the land in dispute was obtained by plaintiff or its predecessors in interest thru "fraud or error and without knowledge (of) or interest either personal or thru publication to defendant and/or predecessors in interest." The answer therefore prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs and plaintiff required to reconvey the land to defendant or pay its value. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment for plaintiff, declaring defendant to be without any right to the land in question and ordering him to restore possession thereof to plaintiff and to pay the latter a monthly rent of P132.62 from January, 1940, until he vacates the land, and also to pay the costs. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in not dismissing the case on the ground that the case was not brought by the real property in interest. HELD: No. There is nothing to the contention that the present action is not brought by the real party in interest, that is, by J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc. What the Rules of Court require is that an action be brought in the name of, but not necessarily by, the real party in interest. (Section 2, Rule 2.) In fact the practice is for an attorney-at-law to bring the action, that is to file the complaint, in the name of the plaintiff. That practice appears to have been followed in this case, since the complaint is signed by the law firm of Araneta and Araneta, "counsel for plaintiff" and commences with the statement "comes now plaintiff, through its undersigned counsel." It is true that the complaint also states that the plaintiff is "represented herein by its Managing Partner Gregorio Araneta, Inc.", another corporation, but there is nothing against one corporation being represented by another person, natural or juridical, in a suit in court. The contention that Gregorio Araneta, Inc. can not act as managing partner for plaintiff on the theory that it is illegal for two corporations to enter into a partnership is without merit, for the true rule is that "though a corporation has no power to enter into a partnership, it may nevertheless enter into a joint venture with another where the nature of that venture is in line with the business authorized by its charter." There is nothing in the record to indicate that the venture in which plaintiff is represented by Gregorio Araneta, Inc. as "its managing partner" is not in line with the corporate business of either of them.

AURBACH VS. SANITARY WARES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 180 SCRA 130. DECEMBER 15, 1989. GUTIERREZ, JR., J. FACTS: In 1961, Saniwares, a domestic corporation was incorporated for the primary purpose of manufacturing and marketing sanitary wares. 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." 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. There were protests against the action of the Chairman and heated arguments ensued. The ASI representative, Mr. Jaqua protested the decision of the Chairman and announced that all votes accruing to ASI shares, a total of 1,329,695 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 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 and the six originally nominated by Rogelio Vinluan. The Secretary then certified for the election of the said nominees. The representative of ASI then moved to recess the meeting which was duly seconded. There was also a motion to adjourn. 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. These incidents triggered off the filing of separate petitions by the parties with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 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 and by Luciano E. Salazar. 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 Lagdameo Group the appellate court (Court of Appeals) 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 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. ISSUE: Whether or not the nature of the business established by the parties is a joint venture HELD: Yes. 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 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.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.

TAI TONG CHUACHE & CO.vs.THE INSURANCE COMMISSION and TRAVELLERS MULTI-INDEMNITY CORPORATION, G.R. No. L-55397. February 29, 1988. GANCAYCO, J. FACTS: Complainants, Pedro Palomo and Azucena Palomo, acquired from a certain Rolando Gonzales a parcel of land and a building located at San Rafael Village, Davao City. On April 19, 1975, Azucena Palomo obtained a loan from Tai Tong Chuache Inc. in the amount of P100,000.00. To secure the payment of the loan, a mortgage was executed over the land and the building in favor of Tai Tong Chuache & Co. On April 25, 1975, Arsenio Chua, representative of Tai Tong Chuache & Co. insured the latter's interest with Travellers Multi-Indemnity Corporation for P100,000.00 (P70,000.00 for the building and P30,000.00 for the contents thereof). On July 31, 1975, the building and the contents were totally razed by fire. Travellers Insurance admitted the issuance of the Policy No. 599 DV and alleged as its special and affirmative defenses the following, to wit: that Fire Policy No. 599 DV, covering the furniture and building of complainants was secured by a certain Arsenio Chua, mortgage creditor, for the purpose of protecting his mortgage credit against the complainants; that the said policy was issued in the name of Azucena Palomo, only to indicate that she owns the insured premises; that the policy contains an endorsement in favor of Arsenio Chua as his mortgage interest may appear to indicate that insured was Arsenio Chua and the complainants; that the premium due on said fire policy was paid by Arsenio Chua; that respondent Travellers is not liable to pay complainants. On May 31, 1977, Tai Tong Chuache & Co. filed a complaint in intervention claiming the proceeds of the fire Insurance Policy No. F-559 DV, issued by respondent Travellers MultiIndemnity. Travellers Insurance, in answer to the complaint in intervention, alleged that the Intervenor is not entitled to indemnity under its Fire Insurance Policy for lack of insurable interest before the loss of the insured premises and that the complainants, spouses Pedro and Azucena Palomo, had already paid in full their mortgage indebtedness to the intervenor. 3 The insurance commissioner dismissed petitioner's complaint in intervention in the following words: We move on the issue of liability of respondent Travellers Multi-Indemnity to the Intervenormortgagee. The complainant testified that she was still indebted to Intervenor in the amount of P100,000.00. Such allegation has not however, been sufficiently proven by documentary evidence. The certification (Exhibit 'E-e') issued by the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch 11, indicate that the complainant was Ansenio Lopez Chua and not Tai Tong Chuache & Company. 4 From the above decision, only intervenor Tai Tong Chuache filed a motion for reconsideration but it was likewise denied hence, the present petition. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent Insurance Commission decided an issue not raised in the pleadings of the parties in that it ruled that a certain Arsenio Lopez Chua is the one entitled to the insurance proceeds and not Tai Tong Chuache & Company. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Tai Tong Chuache & Company is entitled to the insurance proceeds

HELD: Yes. The record of the case shows that the petitioner to support its claim for the insurance proceeds offered as evidence the contract of mortgage (Exh. 1) which has not been cancelled nor released. It has been held in a long line of cases that when the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, he need not prove non-payment for it is presumed. 8 The validity of the insurance policy taken by petitioner was not assailed by private respondent. Moreover, petitioner's claim that the loan extended to the Palomos has not yet been paid was corroborated by Azucena Palomo who testified that they are still indebted to herein petitioner. 9 Public respondent however argues that if the civil case really stemmed from the loan granted to Azucena Palomo by petitioner the same should have been brought by Tai Tong Chuache or by its representative in its own behalf. From the above premise respondent concluded that the obligation secured by the insured property must have been paid. The premise is correct but the conclusion is wrong. Citing Rule 3, Sec. 2 10 respondent pointed out that the action must be brought in the name of the real party in interest. We agree. However, it should be borne in mind that petitioner being a partnership may sue and be sued in its name or by its duly authorized representative. The fact that Arsenio Lopez Chua is the representative of petitioner is not questioned. Petitioner's declaration that Arsenio Lopez Chua acts as the managing partner of the partnership was corroborated by respondent insurance company. 11 Thus Chua as the managing partner of the partnership may execute all acts of administration 12 including the right to sue debtors of the partnership in case of their failure to pay their obligations when it became due and demandable. Or at the very least, Chua being a partner of petitioner Tai Tong Chuache & Company is an agent of the partnership. Being an agent, it is understood that he acted for and in behalf of the firm. 13 Public respondent's allegation that the civil case flied by Arsenio Chua was in his capacity as personal creditor of spouses Palomo has no basis. The respondent insurance company having issued a policy in favor of herein petitioner which policy was of legal force and effect at the time of the fire, it is bound by its terms and conditions. Upon its failure to prove the allegation of lack of insurable interest on the part of the petitioner, respondent insurance company is and must be held liable. The decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE and ANOTHER judgment is rendered order private respondent Travellers Multi-Indemnity Corporation to pay petitioner the face value of Insurance Policy No. 599-DV in the amount of P100,000.00. Costs against said private respondent.

ALFREDO N. AGUILA, JR., petitioner, vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and FELICIDAD S. VDA. DE ABROGAR, respondents. G.R. No. 127347. November 25, 1999. MENDOZA, J. FACTS: Petitioner Alfredo is the manager of A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co., a partnership engaged in lending activities. Private respondent Felicidad and her late husband, Ruben, 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 (regarding a deed of absolute sale of the property in consideration of P200,000.00 with an option to repurchase for P230,000.00 within 90 days). 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, 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 MeTC. In a decision, dated April 3, 1992, the MeTC 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 RTC Pasig, then to the Court of Appeals, and later to this Court, but she lost in all the cases. Private respondent filed then a petition against petitioner Alfredo N. Aguila, Jr for declaration of nullity of a deed of sale with the RTC Marikina 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.On April 11, 1995, Branch 273 of RTC-Marikina dismissed the petition. The said court was 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.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. 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. Petitioner now contends that: he is not the real party in interest but A.C. Aguila & Co., against which this case should have been brought. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is the real party in interest HELD: No. 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.

HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and BENGUET LUMBER COMPANY, represented by its President TAN ENG LAY, respondents. G.R. No. 126881. October 3, 2000. DE LEON, JR., J. FACTS: 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 declaring among several others: (1) that Benguet Lumber is a joint venture which is akin to a particular partnership (2) 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. 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. ISSUE: Whether Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay were partners in Benguet Lumber HELD: No. 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: (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 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. 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. 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 take ordinary care of his concerns.32 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 copossession 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. There being no partnership, it follows that there is no dissolution, winding up or liquidation to speak of. Hence, the petition must fail.

MARIANO P. PASCUAL and RENATO P. DRAGON, petitioners, vs.THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. G.R. No. 78133. October 18, 1988. GANCAYCO, J. FACTS: 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 to Marenir 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. ISSUE: Whether petitioners formed an unregistered partnership subject to corporate income tax HELD: No. 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 Evangelista, 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. 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. LORENZO T. OA and HEIRS OF JULIA BUALES, namely: RODOLFO B. OA, MARIANO B. OA, LUZ B. OA, VIRGINIA B. OA and LORENZO B. OA, JR., petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. G.R. No. L-19342. May 25, 1972.

BARREDO, J. FACTS: Julia Buales died on March 23, 1944, leaving as heirs her surviving spouse, Lorenzo T. Oa 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. Oa the surviving spouse was appointed administrator of the estate of said deceased. On April 14, 1949, the administrator submitted the project of partition, which was approved by the Court on May 16, 1949. Because three of the heirs, namely Luz, Virginia and Lorenzo, Jr., all surnamed Oa, were still minors when the project of partition was approved, Lorenzo T. Oa, 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. The project of partition 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. 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. The project of partition also shows that the estate shares equally with Lorenzo T. Oa, the administrator thereof, in the obligation of P94,973.00, consisting of loans contracted by the latter with the approval of the Court. 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. Oa 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. 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. The said incomes are recorded in the books of account kept by Lorenzo T. Oa 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. However, petitioners did not actually receive their shares in the yearly income. The income was always left in the hands of Lorenzo T. Oa who, as heretofore pointed out, invested them in real properties and securities. On the basis of the foregoing facts, respondent 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. 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. ISSUE: Whether the petitioners formed an unregistered partnership subject to tax under Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code HELD: Yes. 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. Oa 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. 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. 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 conformity 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" 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." 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.

JOSE GATCHALIAN, ET AL. vs.THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE G.R. No. L-45425 April 29, 1939 IMPERIAL, J. FACTS: Herein plaintiffs, Jose Gatchalian et. al., residents of Pulilan Bulacan, purchased one sweepstakes ticket bearing No. 178637 for the sum of two pesos (P2). The said ticket was registered in the name of Jose Gatchalian and Company. As a result of the drawing of the sweepstakes, the ticket bearing No. 178637 won one of the third prizes in the amount of P50,000. The corresponding check was drawn by the National Charity Sweepstakes Office in favor of Jose Gatchalian & Company against the Philippine National Bank, which check was cashed by Jose Gatchalian & Company. Jose Gatchalian was required by income tax examiner Alfredo David to file the corresponding income tax return covering the prize won by Jose Gatchalian & Company. Herein defendant, Collector of Internal Revenue, made an assessment against Jose Gatchalian & Company requesting the payment of the sum of P1,499.94 to the deputy provincial treasurer of Pulilan, Bulacan. The plaintiffs, through their attorney, sent to defendant a reply, requesting exemption from payment of the income tax. The defendant in his letter denied plaintiffs' request for exemption. In view of the failure of the plaintiffs to pay the amount of tax demanded by the defendant, notwithstanding subsequent demand made, defendant issued a warrant of distraint and levy against the property of the plaintiffs. To avoid embarrassment arising from the embargo of the property of the plaintiffs, the said plaintiffs paid under protest the sum of P601.51 as part of the tax and penalties to the municipal treasurer of Pulilan, Bulacan, and requested defendant that plaintiffs be allowed to pay under protest the balance of the tax and penalties by monthly installments. The said plaintiffs formally protested against the payment of the sum of P602.51 but that defendant in his letter overruled the protest and denied the request for refund of the plaintiffs. In view of the failure of the plaintiffs to pay the monthly installments, the defendant in his letter ordered the municipal treasurer of Pulilan, Bulacan to execute within five days the warrant of distraint and levy. In order to avoid annoyance and embarrassment arising from the levy of their property, the plaintiffs paid under protest the sum of P1,260.93 representing the unpaid balance of the income tax and penalties demanded by defendant. The plaintiffs formally protested to the defendant against the payment of said amount and requested the refund thereof but the defendant overruled the protest and denied the refund thereof. Plaintiffs demanded upon defendant the refund of P1,863.44 paid under protest by them but that defendant refused and still refuses to refund the said amount notwithstanding the plaintiffs' demands. ISSUE: Whether the plaintiffs formed a partnership, or merely a community of property without a personality of its own; in the first case it is admitted that the partnership thus formed is liable for the payment of income tax, whereas if there was merely a community of property, they are exempt from such payment HELD: According to the stipulation facts the plaintiffs organized a partnership of a civil nature because each of them put up money to buy a sweepstakes ticket for the sole purpose of dividing equally the prize which they may win, as they did in fact in the amount of P50,000 (article 1665, Civil Code). The partnership was not only formed, but upon the organization thereof and the winning of the prize, Jose Gatchalian personally appeared in the office of the Philippines Charity Sweepstakes, in his capacity as co-partner, as such collection the prize, the office issued the check for P50,000 in favor of Jose Gatchalian and company, and the said partner, in the same capacity, collected the said check. All these circumstances repel the idea that the plaintiffs organized and formed a community of property only. Having organized and constituted a partnership of a civil nature, the said entity is the one bound to pay the income tax which the defendant collected under the aforesaid section 10 (a) of Act No. 2833, as amended by section 2 of Act No. 3761.

Obillos, Jr. vs CIR October 29, 1985 Aquino, J. FACTS: 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. 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. ISSUE: WON there existed an unregistered partnership HELD: No. 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.

AFISCO Insurance Corp. vs CA January 25, 1999 Panganiban, J. FACTS: The petitioners are 41 non-life insurance corporations, organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. The petitioners on August 1, 1965 entered into a Quota Share Reinsurance Treaty and a Surplus Reinsurance Treaty with the Munchener RuckversicherungsGesselschaft (hereafter called Munich), a non-resident foreign insurance corporation. The reinsurance treaties required petitioners to form a [p]ool. Accordingly, a pool composed of the petitioners was formed on the same day. On April 14, 1976, the pool of machinery insurers submitted a financial statement and filed an "Information Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax" for the year ending in 1975, on the basis of which it was assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue deficiency corporate taxes in the amount of P1,843,273.60, and withholding taxes in the amount of P1,768,799.39 and P89,438.68 on dividends paid to Munich and to the petitioners, respectively. These assessments were protested by the petitioners. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied the protest and ordered the petitioners, assessed as "Pool of Machinery Insurers," to pay deficiency income tax, interest, and with [h]olding tax. Petitioners belie the existence of a partnership in this case, because (1) they, the reinsurers, did not share the same risk or solidary liability, 14 (2) there was no common fund; 15 (3) the executive board of the pool did not exercise control and management of its funds, unlike the board of directors of a corporation; 16 and (4) the pool or clearing house "was not and could not possibly have engaged in the business of reinsurance from which it could have derived income for itself." 17 ISSUE: WON the pool of machinery insurers was a partnership taxable as a corporation HELD: Yes. In the case before us, the ceding companies entered into a Pool Agreement 29 or an association 30 that would handle all the insurance businesses covered under their quota-share reinsurance treaty 31 and surplus reinsurance treaty 32 with Munich. The following unmistakably indicates a partnership or an association covered by Section 24 of the NIRC: (1) The pool has a common fund, consisting of money and other valuables that are deposited in the name and credit of the pool. 33 This common fund pays for the administration and operation expenses of the pool. 24 (2) The pool functions through an executive board, which resembles the board of directors of a corporation, composed of one representative for each of the ceding companies. 35 (3) True, the pool itself is not a reinsurer and does not issue any insurance policy; however, its work is indispensable, beneficial and economically useful to the business of the ceding companies and Munich, because without it they would not have received their premiums. The ceding companies share "in the business ceded to the pool" and in the "expenses" according to a "Rules of Distribution" annexed to the Pool Agreement. 36 Profit motive or business is, therefore, the primordial reason for the pool's formation.

Torres vs CA December 9, 1999 Pnganiban, J. 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 respondents 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. ISSUE: (a) WON the transaction between the petitioners and respondent was that of a joint venture/partnership (b) WON the Joint Venture Agreement is void HELD: (a) Yes. 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. Respondents actions clearly belie petitioners contention that he made no contribution to the partnership. Under Article 1767 of the Civil Code, a partner may contribute not only money or property, but also industry. (b) No. 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.

Lim Tong Lim vs Philippine Fishing Gear Industries November 3, 1999 Panganiban, J. 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 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. Chua filed a Manifestation admitting his liability and requesting a reasonable time within which to pay. Lim Tong Lim, on the other hand, filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim and moved for the lifting of the Writ of Attachment. The trial court ruled that a partnership among Lim, Chua and Yao existed. ISSUE: WON, based on the Compromise Agreement, Chua, Yao and Lim entered into in a separate case, and that a partnership agreement existed among them HELD: Yes. 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. 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.

Agad vs Mabato & Agad & Co. June 28, 1968 Concepcion, C.J. FACTS: He and defendant Severino Mabato are pursuant to a public instrument dated August 29, 1952, copy of which is attached to the complaint as Annex "A" partners in a fishpond business, to the capital of which Agad contributed P1,000, with the right to receive 50% of the profits; that from 1952 up to and including 1956, Mabato who handled the partnership funds, had yearly rendered accounts of the operations of the partnership; and that, despite repeated demands, Mabato had failed and refused to render accounts for the years 1957 to 1963, Agad prayed in his complaint against Mabato and Mabato & Agad Company, filed on June 9, 1964, that judgment be rendered sentencing Mabato to pay him (Agad) the sum of P14,000, as his share in the profits of the partnership for the period from 1957 to 1963, in addition to P1,000 as attorney's fees, and ordering the dissolution of the partnership, as well as the winding up of its affairs by a receiver to be appointed therefor. In his answer, Mabato admitted the formal allegations of the complaint and denied the existence of said partnership, upon the ground that the contract therefor had not been perfected, despite the execution of Annex "A", because Agad had allegedly failed to give his P1,000 contribution to the partnership capital. ISSUE: WON "immovable property or real rights" have been contributed to the partnership under consideration HELD: Yes. It is really inconceivable how a partnership engaged in the fishpond business could exist without said fishpond property (being) contributed to the partnership." It should be noted, however, that, as stated in Annex "A" the partnership was established "to operate a fishpond", not to "engage in a fishpond business". Moreover, none of the partners contributed either a fishpond or a real right to any fishpond. Their contributions were limited to the sum of P1,000 each. The operation of the fishpond mentioned in Annex "A" was the purpose of the partnership. Neither said fishpond nor a real right thereto was contributed to the partnership or became part of the capital thereof, even if a fishpond or a real right thereto could become part of its assets.

Moran, Jr. vs CA October 31, 1984 Gutierrez, Jr., J. FACTS: On February 22, 1971 Pecson and Moran entered into an agreement whereby both would contribute P15,000 each for the purpose of printing 95,000 posters (featuring the delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention), with Moran actually supervising the work; that Pecson would receive a commission of P l,000 a month starting on April 15, 1971 up to December 15, 1971; that on December 15, 1971, a liquidation of the accounts in the distribution and printing of the 95,000 posters would be made, that Pecson gave Moran P10,000 for which the latter issued a receipt; that only a few posters were printed; that on or about May 28, 1971, Moran executed in favor of Pecson a promissory note in the amount of P20,000 payable in two equal installments (P10,000 payable on or before June 15, 1971 and P10,000 payable on or before June 30, 1971), the whole sum becoming due upon default in the payment of the first installment on the date due, complete with the costs of collection. Private respondent Pecson filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila an action for the recovery of a sum of money and alleged in his complaint three (3) causes of action, namely: (1) on the alleged partnership agreement, the return of his contribution of P10,000.00, payment of his share in the profits that the partnership would have earned, and, payment of unpaid commission; (2) on the alleged promissory note, payment of the sum of P20,000.00; and, (3) moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. ISSUE: WON Moran is liable Pecson in the sum of P47,500 as the supposed expected profits due him HELD: No. When a partner who has undertaken to contribute a sum of money fails to do so, he becomes a debtor of the partnership for whatever he may have promised to contribute (Art. 1786, Civil Code) and for interests and damages from the time he should have complied with his obligation (Art. 1788, Civil Code)

There was no evidence to show that the partnership made some profits during the periods from July 2, 1956 to December 31, 1957 and from January 1, 1958 up to September 30, 1959. The profits on two government contracts worth P2,327,335.76 were not speculative. In the instant case, there is no evidence whatsoever that the partnership between the petitioner and the private respondent would have been a profitable venture. In fact, it was a failure doomed from the start. There is therefore no basis for the award of speculative damages in favor of the private respondent. There was mutual breach. Private respondent failed to give his entire contribution in the amount of P15,000.00. He contributed only P10,000.00. The petitioner likewise failed to give any of the amount expected of him. He further failed to comply with the agreement to print 95,000 copies of the posters. Instead, he printed only 2,000 copies. Being a contract of partnership, each partner must share in the profits and losses of the venture. That is the essence of a partnership. And even with an assurance made by one of the partners that they would earn a huge amount of profits, in the absence of fraud, the other partner cannot claim a right to recover the highly speculative profits. It is a rare business venture guaranteed to give 100% profits.

Feu Leung vs IAC January 31, 1989 Gutierrez, Jr., J. FACTS: The Sun Wah Panciteria, a restaurant, located at Florentino Torres Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, was established sometime in October, 1955. It was registered as a single proprietorship and its licenses and permits were issued to and in favor of petitioner Dan Fue Leung as the sole proprietor. Respondent Leung Yiu adduced evidence during the trial of the case to show that Sun Wah Panciteria was actually a partnership and that he was one of the partners having contributed P4,000.00 to its initial establishment. The private respondent received from the petitioner the amount of P12,000.00 covered by the latter's Equitable Banking Corporation Check No. 13389470-B from the profits of the operation of the restaurant for the year 1974. The petitioner denied having received from the private respondent the amount of P4,000.00. He contested and impugned the genuineness of the receipt . ISSUE: WON the private respondent is a partner of the petitioner in the establishment of Sun Wah Panciteria

HELD: Yes. The private respondent is a partner of the petitioner in Sun Wah Panciteria. The requisites of a partnership which are 1) two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund; and 2) intention on the part of the partners to divide the profits among themselves (Article 1767, Civil Code; Yulo v. Yang Chiao Cheng, 106 Phil. 110)-have been established. As stated by the respondent, a partner shares not only in profits but also in the losses of the firm. If excellent relations exist among the partners at the start of 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. It would be incorrect to state that if a partner does not assert his rights anytime within ten years from the start of operations, such rights are irretrievably lost. The private respondent's cause of action is premised upon the failure of the petitioner to give him the agreed profits in the operation of Sun Wah Panciteria. In effect the private respondent was asking for an accounting of his interests in the partnership.

Ramnani vs CA May 7. 1991 Gancayco, J. FACTS: Ishwar, Choithram and Navalrai, all surnamed Jethmal Ramnani, are brothers of the full blood. Ishwar and his spouse Sonya had their main business based in New York. Realizing the difficulty of managing their investments in the Philippines they executed a general power of attorney on January 24, 1966 appointing Navalrai and Choithram as attorneys-in-fact, empowering them to manage and conduct their business concern in the Philippines. 1 On February 1, 1966 and on May 16, 1966, Choithram, in his capacity as aforesaid attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, entered into two agreements for the purchase of two parcels of land located in Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, from Ortigas & Company, Ltd. Partnership (Ortigas for short) with a

total area of approximately 10,048 square meters. 2Per agreement, Choithram paid the down payment and installments on the lot with his personal checks. A building was constructed thereon by Choithram in 1966 and this was occupied and rented by Jethmal Industries and a wardrobe shop called Eppie's Creation. Three other buildings were built thereon by Choithram through a loan of P100,000.00 obtained from the Merchants Bank as well as the income derived from the first building. The buildings were leased out by Choithram as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. Two of these buildings were later burned. Sometime in 1970 Ishwar asked Choithram to account for the income and expenses relative to these properties during the period 1967 to 1970. Choithram failed and refused to render such accounting. As a consequence, on February 4, 1971, Ishwar revoked the general power of attorney. Nevertheless, Choithram as such attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, transferred all rights and interests of Ishwar and Sonya in favor of his daughter-inlaw, Nirmla Ramnani, on February 19, 1973. Her husband is Moti, son of Choithram. Upon complete payment of the lots, Ortigas executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Nirmla. 6 Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 403150 and 403152 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal were issued in her favor. Thus, on October 6, 1982, Ishwar and Sonya (spouses Ishwar for short) filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Choithram and/or spouses Nirmla and Moti (Choithram et al. for brevity) and Ortigas for reconveyance of said properties or payment of its value and damages. An amended complaint for damages was thereafter filed by said spouses. ISSUE: WON Ishwar and Choithram entered into a joint venture HELD: Yes. Nevertheless, under the peculiar circumstances of this case and despite the fact that Choithram, et al., have committed acts which demonstrate their bad faith and scheme to defraud spouses Ishwar and Sonya of their rightful share in the properties in litigation, the Court cannot ignore the fact that Choithram must have been motivated by a strong conviction that as the industrial partner in the acquisition of said assets he has as much claim to said properties as Ishwar, the capitalist partner in the joint venture. The scenario is clear. Spouses Ishwar supplied the capital of $150,000.00 for the business. They entrusted the money to Choithram to invest in a profitable business venture in the Philippines. For this purpose they appointed Choithram as their attorney-in-fact. Choithram in turn decided to invest in the real estate business. He bought the two (2) parcels of land in question from Ortigas as attorney-infact of Ishwar- Instead of paying for the lots in cash, he paid in installments and used the balance of the capital entrusted to him, plus a loan, to build two buildings. Although the buildings were burned later, Choithram was able to build two other buildings on the property. He rented them out and collected the rentals. Through the industry and genius of Choithram, Ishwar's property was developed and improved into what it is nowa valuable asset worth millions of pesos. As of the last estimate in 1985, while the case was pending before the trial court, the market value of the properties is no less than P22,304,000.00. 39 It should be worth much more today. We have a situation where two brothers engaged in a business venture. One furnished the capital, the other contributed his industry and talent. Justice and equity dictate that the two share equally the fruit of their joint investment and efforts. Perhaps this Solomonic solution may pave the way towards their reconciliation. Both would stand to gain. No one would end up the loser. After all, blood is thicker than water.