Partnership 2.doc

Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

HEIRS OF JOSE LIM,represented by ELENITO LIM,

Petitioners,

- versus - JULIET VILLA LIM,

Respondent.

G.R. No. 172690 Present: CORONA, J., Chairperson,VELASCO, JR.,NACHURA,DEL CASTILLO,*

Promulgated: March 3, 2010

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION

NACHURA, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision [2] dated June 29, 2005, which reversed and set aside the decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ofLucena City, dated April 12, 2004. The facts of the case are as follows: Petitioners are the heirs of the late Jose Lim (Jose), namely: Jose's widow Cresencia Palad (Cresencia); and their children Elenito, Evelia, Imelda, Edelyna and Edison, all surnamed Lim (petitioners), represented by Elenito Lim (Elenito). They filed a Complaint[4] for Partition, Accounting and Damages against respondent Juliet Villa Lim

(respondent), widow of the late Elfledo Lim (Elfledo), who was the eldest son of Jose and Cresencia.

Petitioners alleged that Jose was the liaison officer of Interwood Sawmill in Cagsiay, Mauban, Quezon. Sometime in 1980, Jose, together with his friends Jimmy Yu (Jimmy) and Norberto Uy (Norberto), formed a partnership to engage in the trucking business. Initially, with a contribution of P50,000.00 each, they purchased a truck to be used in the hauling and transport of lumber of the sawmill. Jose managed the operations of this trucking business until his death on August 15, 1981. Thereafter, Jose's heirs, including Elfledo, and partners agreed to continue the business under the management of Elfledo. The shares in the partnership profits and income that formed part of the estate of Jose were held in trust by Elfledo, with petitioners' authority for Elfledo to use, purchase or acquire properties using said funds. Petitioners also alleged that, at that time, Elfledo was a fresh commerce graduate serving as his father’s driver in the trucking business. He was never a partner or an investor in the business and merely supervised the purchase of additional trucks using the income from the trucking business of the partners. By the time the partnership ceased, it had nine trucks, which were all registered in Elfledo's name. Petitioners asseverated that it was also through Elfledo’s management of the partnership that he was able to purchase numerous real properties by using the profits derived therefrom, all of which were registered in his name and that of respondent. In addition to the nine trucks, Elfledo also acquired five other motor vehicles. On May 18, 1995, Elfledo died, leaving respondent as his sole surviving heir. Petitioners claimed that respondent took over the administration of the aforementioned properties, which belonged to the estate of Jose, without their consent and approval. Claiming that they are co-owners of the properties, petitioners required respondent to submit an accounting of all income, profits and rentals received from the estate of Elfledo, and to surrender the administration thereof. Respondent refused; thus, the filing of this case. Respondent traversed petitioners' allegations and claimed that Elfledo was himself a partner of Norberto and Jimmy. Respondent also claimed that per testimony of Cresencia, sometime in 1980, Jose gave Elfledo P50,000.00 as the latter's capital in an informal partnership with Jimmy and Norberto. When Elfledo and respondent got married in 1981, the partnership only had one truck; but through the efforts of Elfledo, the business flourished. Other than this trucking business, Elfledo, together with respondent, engaged in other business ventures. Thus, they were able to buy real properties and to put up their own car assembly and repair business. When Norberto was ambushed and killed on July 16, 1993, the trucking business started to falter. When Elfledo died on May 18, 1995 due to a heart attack, respondent talked to Jimmy and to the heirs of Norberto, as she could no longer run the business. Jimmy suggested that three out of the nine trucks be given to him as his share, while the other three trucks be given to the heirs of Norberto. However,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/172690.htm#_ftn2




Norberto's wife, Paquita Uy, was not interested in the vehicles. Thus, she sold the same to respondent, who paid for them in installments. Respondent also alleged that when Jose died in 1981, he left no known assets, and the partnership with Jimmy and Norberto ceased upon his demise. Respondent also stressed that Jose left no properties that Elfledo could have held in trust. Respondent maintained that all the properties involved in this case were purchased and acquired through her and her husband’s joint efforts and hard work, and without any participation or contribution from petitioners or from Jose. Respondent submitted that these are conjugal partnership properties; and thus, she had the right to refuse to render an accounting for the income or profits of their own business. Trial on the merits ensued. On April 12, 2004, the RTC rendered its decision in favor of petitioners, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered: 1) Ordering the partition of the above-mentioned properties equally between the plaintiffs and heirs of Jose Lim and the defendant Juliet Villa-Lim; and 2) Ordering the defendant to submit an accounting of all incomes, profits and rentals received by her from said properties. SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the CA. On June 29, 2005, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC's decision, dismissing petitioners' complaint for lack of merit. Undaunted, petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration,[5] which the CA, however, denied in its Resolution[6] dated May 8, 2006. Hence, this Petition, raising the sole question, viz.:

IN THE APPRECIATION BY THE COURT OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES, CAN THE TESTIMONY OF ONE OF THE PETITIONERS BE GIVEN GREATER WEIGHT THAN THAT BY A FORMER PARTNER ON THE ISSUE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE OTHER PARTNERS IN THE PARTNERSHIP?[7]

In essence, petitioners argue that according to the testimony of Jimmy, the sole surviving partner, Elfledo was not a partner; and that he and Norberto entered into a partnership with Jose. Thus, the CA erred in not giving that testimony greater weight than that of Cresencia, who was merely the spouse of Jose and not a party to the partnership.[8] Respondent counters that the issue raised by petitioners is not proper in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as it would entail the review, evaluation, calibration, and re-weighing of the factual findings of the CA. Moreover, respondent invokes the rationale of the CA decision that, in light of the admissions of Cresencia and Edison and the testimony of respondent, the testimony of Jimmy was effectively refuted; accordingly, the CA's reversal of the RTC's findings was fully justified.[9]

We resolve first the procedural matter regarding the propriety of the instant Petition. Verily, the evaluation and calibration of the evidence necessarily involves consideration of factual issues — an exercise that is not appropriate for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. This rule provides that the parties may raise only questions of law, because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Generally, we are not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the tribunals below.[10] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions:

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;







(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[11]

We note, however, that the findings of fact of the RTC are contrary to those of the CA. Thus, our review of such findings is warranted. On the merits of the case, we find that the instant Petition is bereft of merit. A partnership exists when two or more persons agree to place their money, effects, labor, and skill in lawful commerce or business, with the understanding that there shall be a proportionate sharing of the profits and losses among them. A contract of partnership is defined by the Civil Code 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.[12]

Undoubtedly, the best evidence would have been the contract of partnership or the articles of partnership. Unfortunately, there is none in this case, because the alleged partnership was never formally organized. Nonetheless, we are asked to determine who between Jose and Elfledo was the “partner” in the trucking business. A careful review of the records persuades us to affirm the CA decision. The evidence presented by petitioners falls short of the quantum of proof required to establish that: (1) Jose was the partner and not Elfledo; and (2) all the properties acquired by Elfledo and respondent form part of the estate of Jose, having been derived from the alleged partnership. Petitioners heavily rely on Jimmy's testimony. But that testimony is just one piece of evidence against respondent. It must be considered and weighed along with petitioners' other evidence vis-à-vis respondent's contrary evidence. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. "Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." "Preponderance of evidence" is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. [13] Rule 133, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides the guidelines in determining preponderance of evidence, thus:

SECTION I. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. In civil cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.

At this juncture, our ruling in Heirs of Tan Eng Kee v. Court of Appeals[14] is enlightening. Therein, we cited Article 1769 of the Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 1769. In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply: (1) Except as provided by Article 1825, persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons; (2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property; (3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from 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 installments 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.





Applying the legal provision to the facts of this case, the following circumstances tend to prove that Elfledo was himself the partner of Jimmy and Norberto: 1) Cresencia testified that Jose gave Elfledo P50,000.00, as share in the partnership, on a date that coincided with the payment of the initial capital in the partnership; [15] (2) Elfledo ran the affairs of the partnership, wielding absolute control, power and authority, without any intervention or opposition whatsoever from any of petitioners herein; [16] (3) all of the properties, particularly the nine trucks of the partnership, were registered in the name of Elfledo; (4) Jimmy testified that Elfledo did not receive wages or salaries from the partnership, indicating that what he actually received were shares of the profits of the business;[17] and (5) none of the petitioners, as heirs of Jose, the alleged partner, demanded periodic accounting from Elfledo during his lifetime. As repeatedly stressed in Heirs of Tan Eng Kee,[18] a demand for periodic accounting is evidence of a partnership. Furthermore, petitioners failed to adduce any evidence to show that the real and personal properties acquired and registered in the names of Elfledo and respondent formed part of the estate of Jose, having been derived from Jose's alleged partnership with Jimmy and Norberto. They failed to refute respondent's claim that Elfledo and respondent engaged in other businesses. Edison even admitted that Elfledo also sold Interwood lumber as a sideline.[19] Petitioners could not offer any credible evidence other than their bare assertions. Thus, we apply the basic rule of evidence that between documentary and oral evidence, the former carries more weight.[20] Finally, we agree with the judicious findings of the CA, to wit:

The above testimonies prove that Elfledo was not just a hired help but one of the partners in the trucking business, active and visible in the running of its affairs from day one until this ceased operations upon his demise. The extent of his control, administration and management of the partnership and its business, the fact that its properties were placed in his name, and that he was not paid salary or other compensation by the partners, are indicative of the fact that Elfledo was a partner and a controlling one at that. It is apparent that the other partners only contributed in the initial capital but had no say thereafter on how the business was ran. Evidently it was through Elfredo’s efforts and hard work that the partnership was able to acquire more trucks and otherwise prosper. Even the appellant participated in the affairs of the partnership by acting as the bookkeeper sans salary. It is notable too that Jose Lim died when the partnership was barely a year old, and the partnership and its business not only continued but also flourished. If it were true that it was Jose Lim and not Elfledo who was the partner, then upon his death the partnership should have

been dissolved and its assets liquidated. On the contrary, these were not done but instead its operation continued under the helm of Elfledo and without any participation from the heirs of Jose Lim. Whatever properties appellant and her husband had acquired, this was through their own concerted efforts and hard work. Elfledo did not limit himself to the business of their partnership but engaged in other lines of businesses as well.

In sum, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings and the ruling of the CA as they are amply supported by the law and by the evidence on record. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. The assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated June 29, 2005 isAFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.







Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 78133 October 18, 1988

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

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

The Solicitor General for respondents

GANCAYCO, J.:

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

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

However, in a letter dated March 31, 1979 of then Acting BIR Commissioner Efren I. Plana, petitioners were assessed and required to pay a total amount of P107,101.70 as alleged

deficiency corporate income taxes for the years 1968 and 1970.

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

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

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

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

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

under the Tax Code.

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

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

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

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

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

The petition is meritorious.

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

In the said case, petitioners borrowed a sum of money from their father which together with their own personal funds they used in buying several real properties. They appointed their brother to manage their properties with full power to lease,

collect, rent, issue receipts, etc. They had the real properties rented or leased to various tenants for several years and they gained net profits from the rental income. Thus, the Collector of Internal Revenue demanded the payment of income tax on a corporation, among others, from them.

In resolving the issue, this Court held as follows:

The issue in this case is whether petitioners are subject to the tax on corporations provided for in section 24 of Commonwealth Act No. 466, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code, as well as to the residence tax for corporations and the real estate dealers' fixed tax. With respect to the tax on corporations, the issue hinges on the meaning of the terms corporation and partnership as used in sections 24 and 84 of said Code, the pertinent parts of which read:

Sec. 24. Rate of the tax on corporations.—There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources by every corporation organized in, or existing under the laws of the Philippines, no matter how created or organized but not including duly registered general co-partnerships (companies collectives), a tax upon such income equal to the sum of the following: ...

Sec. 84(b). The term "corporation" includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized, joint-stock companies, joint accounts (cuentas en participation), associations or insurance companies, but does not include duly registered general co-partnerships (companies colectivas).

Article 1767 of the Civil Code of the

Philippines provides:

By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.

Pursuant to this article, the essential elements of a partnership are two, namely: (a) an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to divide the profits among the contracting parties. The first element is undoubtedly present in the case at bar, for, admittedly, petitioners have agreed to, and did, contribute money and property to a common fund. Hence, the issue narrows down to their intent in acting as they did. Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, we are fully satisfied that their purpose was to engage in real estate transactions for monetary gain and then divide the same among themselves, because:

1. Said common fund was not something they found already in existence. It was not a property inherited by them pro indiviso. They created it purposely. What is more they jointly borrowed a substantial portion thereof in order to establish said common fund.

2. They invested the same, not merely in one transaction, but in a series of transactions. On February 2, 1943, they bought a lot for P100,000.00. On April 3, 1944, they purchased 21 lots for P18,000.00. This was soon followed, on April 23, 1944, by the acquisition of another real estate for P108,825.00. Five (5) days later (April 28, 1944), they got a fourth lot for

P237,234.14. The number of lots (24) acquired and transcations undertaken, as well as the brief interregnum between each, particularly the last three purchases, is strongly indicative of a pattern or common design that was not limited to the conservation and preservation of the aforementioned common fund or even of the property acquired by petitioners in February, 1943. In other words, one cannot but perceive a character of habituality peculiar to business transactions engaged in for purposes of gain.

3. The aforesaid lots were not devoted to residential purposes or to other personal uses, of petitioners herein. The properties were leased separately to several persons, who, from 1945 to 1948 inclusive, paid the total sum of P70,068.30 by way of rentals. Seemingly, the lots are still being so let, for petitioners do not even suggest that there has been any change in the utilization thereof.

4. Since August, 1945, the properties have been under the management of one person, namely, Simeon Evangelists, with full power to lease, to collect rents, to issue receipts, to bring suits, to sign letters and contracts, and to indorse and deposit notes and checks. Thus, the affairs relative to said properties have been handled as if the same belonged to a corporation or business enterprise operated for profit.

5. The foregoing conditions have existed for more than ten (10) years, or, to be exact, over fifteen (15) years, since the first property was acquired, and over twelve (12) years, since Simeon Evangelists became the manager.

6. Petitioners have not testified or introduced any evidence, either on their purpose in creating the set up already adverted to, or on the causes for its continued existence. They did not even try to offer an explanation therefor.

Although, taken singly, they might not suffice to establish the intent necessary to constitute a partnership, the collective effect of these circumstances is such as to leave no room for doubt on the existence of said intent in petitioners herein. Only one or two of the aforementioned circumstances were present in the cases cited by petitioners herein, and, hence, those cases are not in point. 5

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

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

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

present.

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

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

I wish however to make the following observation Article 1769 of the new Civil Code lays down the rule for determining when a transaction should be deemed a partnership or a co-ownership. Said article paragraphs 2 and 3, provides;

(2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property;

(3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived;

From the above it appears that the fact that those who agree to form a co- ownership share or do not share any profits made by the use of the property held in common does not convert their venture into a partnership. Or the sharing of the gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership whether or not the persons sharing therein have a joint or common right or interest in the property. This only means that, aside from the circumstance of profit, the presence of other

elements constituting partnership is necessary, such as the clear intent to form a partnership, the existence of a juridical personality different from that of the individual partners, and the freedom to transfer or assign any interest in the property by one with the consent of the others (Padilla, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. I, 1953 ed., pp. 635-636)

It is evident that an isolated transaction whereby two or more persons contribute funds to buy certain real estate for profit in the absence of other circumstances showing a contrary intention cannot be considered a partnership.

Persons who contribute property or funds for a common enterprise and agree to share the

[G.R. No. 135813. October 25, 2001]

FERNANDO SANTOS, petitioner, vs. Spouses ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

As a general rule, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are binding on the Supreme Court. However, there are several exceptions to this principle. In the present case, we find occasion to apply both the rule and one of the exceptions.

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the November 28, 1997 Decision,[1] as well as the August 17, 1998 and the October 9, 1998 Resolutions, [2] issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 34742. The Assailed Decision disposed as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED save as for the counterclaim which is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against [petitioner].”[3]

Resolving respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, the August 17, 1998 Resolution ruled as follows:

“WHEREFORE, [respondents’] motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Accordingly, the court’s decision dated November 28, 1997 is hereby MODIFIED in that the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against [petitioner].”[4]

The October 9, 1998 Resolution denied “for lack of merit” petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the August 17, 1998 Resolution.[5]

The Facts

The events that led to this case are summarized by the CA as follows:

“Sometime in June, 1986, [Petitioner] Fernando Santos and [Respondent] Nieves Reyes were introduced to each other by one Meliton Zabat regarding a lending business venture proposed by Nieves. It was verbally agreed that [petitioner would] act as financier while [Nieves] and Zabat [would] take charge of solicitation of members and collection of loan payments. The venture was launched on June 13, 1986, with the understanding that [petitioner] would receive 70% of the profits while x x x Nieves and Zabat would earn 15% each.

“In July, 1986, x x x Nieves introduced Cesar Gragera to [petitioner]. Gragera, as chairman of the Monte Maria Development Corporation[6] (Monte Maria, for brevity), sought short-term loans for members of the corporation. [Petitioner] and Gragera executed an agreement providing funds for Monte Maria’s members. Under the agreement, Monte Maria, represented by Gragera, was entitled to P1.31 commission per thousand paid daily to [petitioner] (Exh. ‘A’). x x x Nieves kept the books as representative of [petitioner] while [Respondent] Arsenio, husband of Nieves, acted as credit investigator.

“On August 6, 1986, [petitioner], x x x [Nieves] and Zabat executed the ‘Article of Agreement’ which formalized their earlier verbal arrangement.

“[Petitioner] and [Nieves] later discovered that their partner Zabat engaged in the same lending business in competition with their partnership[.] Zabat was thereby expelled from the partnership. The operations with Monte Maria continued.

“On June 5, 1987, [petitioner] filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money and damages. [Petitioner] charged [respondents], allegedly in their capacities as employees of [petitioner], with having misappropriated funds intended for Gragera for the period July 8, 1986 up to March 31, 1987. Upon Gragera’s complaint that his commissions were

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/135813.htm#_edn6






inadequately remitted, [petitioner] entrusted P200,000.00 to x x x Nieves to be given to Gragera. x x x Nieves allegedly failed to account for the amount. [Petitioner] asserted that after examination of the records, he found that of the total amount of P4,623,201.90 entrusted to [respondents], onlyP3,068,133.20 was remitted to Gragera, thereby leaving the balance of P1,555,065.70 unaccounted for.

“In their answer, [respondents] asserted that they were partners and not mere employees of [petitioner]. The complaint, they alleged, was filed to preempt and prevent them from claiming their rightful share to the profits of the partnership.

“x x x Arsenio alleged that he was enticed by [petitioner] to take the place of Zabat after [petitioner] learned of Zabat’s activities. Arsenio resigned from his job at the Asian Development Bank to join the partnership.

“For her part, x x x Nieves claimed that she participated in the business as a partner, as the lending activity with Monte Maria originated from her initiative. Except for the limited period of July 8, 1986 through August 20, 1986, she did not handle sums intended for Gragera. Collections were turned over to Gragera because he guaranteed 100% payment of all sums loaned by Monte Maria. Entries she made on worksheets were based on this assumptive 100% collection of all loans. The loan releases were made less Gragera’s agreed commission. Because of this arrangement, she neither received payments from borrowers nor remitted any amount to Gragera. Her job was merely to make worksheets (Exhs. ‘15’ to ‘15-DDDDDDDDDD’) to convey to [petitioner] how much he would earn if all the sums guaranteed by Gragera were collected.

“[Petitioner] on the other hand insisted that [respondents] were his mere employees and not partners with respect to the agreement with Gragera. He claimed that after he discovered Zabat’s activities, he ceased infusing funds, thereby causing the extinguishment of the partnership. The agreement with Gragera was a distinct partnership [from] that of [respondent] and Zabat. [Petitioner] asserted that [respondents] were hired as salaried employees with respect to the partnership between [petitioner] and Gragera.

“[Petitioner] further asserted that in Nieves’ capacity as bookkeeper, she received all payments from which Nieves deducted Gragera’s commission. The commission would then be remitted to Gragera. She likewise determined loan releases.

“During the pre-trial, the parties narrowed the issues to the following points: whether [respondents] were employees or partners of [petitioner], whether [petitioner] entrusted money to [respondents] for delivery to Gragera, whether the P1,555,068.70 claimed under the complaint was actually remitted to Gragera and whether [respondents] were entitled to their counterclaim for share in the profits.”[7]

Ruling of the Trial Court

In its August 13, 1991 Decision, the trial court held that respondents were partners, not mere employees, of petitioner. It further ruled that Gragera was only a commission agent of petitioner, not his partner. Petitioner moreover failed to prove that he had entrusted any money to Nieves. Thus, respondents’ counterclaim for their share in the partnership and for damages was granted. The trial court disposed as follows:

“39. WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:

39.1. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT dated July 26, 1989 is DISMISSED.

39.2. The [Petitioner] FERNANDO J. SANTOS is ordered to pay the [Respondent] NIEVES S. REYES, the following:

P3,064,428.00 - The 15 percent share of the [respondent] NIEVES S. REYES in the profits of her joint venture with the [petitioner].

Six (6) percent of - As damages from P3,064,428.00 August 3, 1987 until theP3,064,428.00 is fully paid.

39.2.3. P50,000.00 - As moral damages

39.2.4. P10,000.00 - As exemplary damages

39.3. The [petitioner] FERNANDO J. SANTOS is ordered to pay the [respondent] ARSENIO REYES, the following:

P2,899,739.50 - The balance of the 15 percent share of the [respondent] ARSENIO REYES in the profits of his joint venture with the [petitioner].

Six (6) percent of - As damages from P2,899,739.50 August 3, 1987 until theP2,899,739.50 is fully paid.

39.3.3. P25,000.00 - As moral damages

39.3.4. P10,000.00 - As exemplary damages

39.4. The [petitioner] FERNANDO J. SANTOS is ordered to pay the [respondents]:

39.4.1. P50,000.00 - As attorney’s fees; and

39.4.2 The cost of the suit.”[8]



Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the Decision of the trial court was upheld, and the counterclaim of respondents was dismissed. Upon the latter’s Motion for Reconsideration, however, the trial court’s Decision was reinstated in toto. Subsequently, petitioner’s own Motion for Reconsideration was denied in the CA Resolution of October 9, 1998.

The CA ruled that the following circumstances indicated the existence of a partnership among the parties: (1) it was Nieves who broached to petitioner the idea of starting a money-lending business and introduced him to Gragera; (2) Arsenio received “dividends” or “profit-shares” covering the period July 15 to August 7, 1986 (Exh. “6”); and (3) the partnership contract was executed after the Agreement with Gragera and petitioner and thus showed the parties’ intention to consider it as a transaction of the partnership. In their common venture, petitioner invested capital while respondents contributed industry or services, with the intention of sharing in the profits of the business.

The CA disbelieved petitioner’s claim that Nieves had misappropriated a total of P200,000 which was supposed to be delivered to Gragera to cover unpaid commissions. It was his task to collect the amounts due, while hers was merely to prepare the daily cash flow reports (Exhs. “15-15DDDDDDDDDD”) to keep track of his collections.

Hence, this Petition.[9]

Issue

Petitioner asks this Court to rule on the following issues:[10]

“Whether or not Respondent Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to excess or lack of jurisdiction in:

1. Holding that private respondents were partners/joint venturers and not employees of Santos in connection with the agreement between Santos and Monte Maria/Gragera;

2. Affirming the findings of the trial court that the phrase ‘Received by’ on documents signed by Nieves Reyes signified receipt of copies of the documents and not of the sums shown thereon;

3. Affirming that the signature of Nieves Reyes on Exhibit ‘E’ was a forgery;

4. Finding that Exhibit ‘H’ [did] not establish receipt by Nieves Reyes of P200,000.00 for delivery to Gragera;

5. Affirming the dismissal of Santos’ [Second] Amended Complaint;

6. Affirming the decision of the trial court, upholding private respondents’ counterclaim;

7. Denying Santos’ motion for reconsideration dated September 11, 1998.”

Succinctly put, the following were the issues raised by petitioner: (1) whether the parties’ relationship was one of partnership or of employer-employee; (2) whether Nieves misappropriated the sums of money allegedly entrusted to her for delivery to Gragera as his commissions; and (3) whether respondents were entitled to the partnership profits as determined by the trial court.

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition is partly meritorious.

First Issue:

Business Relationship

Petitioner maintains that he employed the services of respondent spouses in the money-lending venture with Gragera, with Nieves as bookkeeper and Arsenio as credit investigator. That Nieves introduced Gragera to Santos did not make her a partner. She was only a witness to the Agreement between the two. Separate from the partnership between petitioner and Gragera was that which existed among petitioner, Nieves and Zabat, a partnership that was dissolved when Zabat was expelled.

On the other hand, both the CA and the trial court rejected petitioner’s contentions and ruled that the business relationship was one of partnership. We quote from the CA Decision, as follows:

“[Respondents] were industrial partners of [petitioner]. x x x Nieves herself provided the initiative in the lending activities with Monte Maria. In consonance with the agreement between appellant, Nieves and Zabat (later replaced by Arsenio), [respondents] contributed industry to the common fund with the intention of sharing in the profits of the partnership. [Respondents] provided services without which the partnership would not



have [had] the wherewithal to carry on the purpose for which it was organized and as such [were] considered industrial partners (Evangelista v. Abad Santos, 51 SCRA 416 [1973]).

“While concededly, the partnership between [petitioner,] Nieves and Zabat was technically dissolved by the expulsion of Zabat therefrom, the remaining partners simply continued the business of the partnership without undergoing the procedure relative to dissolution. Instead, they invited Arsenio to participate as a partner in their operations. There was therefore, no intent to dissolve the earlier partnership. The partnership between [petitioner,] Nieves and Arsenio simply took over and continued the business of the former partnership with Zabat, one of the incidents of which was the lending operations with Monte Maria.

x x x x x x x x x

“Gragera and [petitioner] were not partners. The money-lending activities undertaken with Monte Maria was done in pursuit of the business for which the partnership between [petitioner], Nieves and Zabat (later Arsenio) was organized. Gragera who represented Monte Maria was merely paid commissions in exchange for the collection of loans. The commissions were fixed on gross returns, regardless of the expenses incurred in the operation of the business. The sharing of gross returns does not in itself establish a partnership.”[11]

We agree with both courts on this point. By the contract of partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.[12] The “Articles of Agreement” stipulated that the signatories shall share the profits of the business in a 70-15-15 manner, with petitioner getting the lion’s share.[13] This stipulation clearly proved the establishment of a partnership.

We find no cogent reason to disagree with the lower courts that the partnership continued lending money to the members of the Monte Maria Community Development Group, Inc., which later on changed its business name to Private Association for Community Development, Inc. (PACDI). Nieves was not merely petitioner’s employee. She discharged her bookkeeping duties in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Agreement, which states as follows:

“2. That the SECOND PARTY and THIRD PARTY shall handle the solicitation and screening of prospective borrowers, and shall x x x each be responsible in handling the collection of the loan payments of the borrowers that they each solicited.

“3. That the bookkeeping and daily balancing of account of the business operation shall be handled by the SECOND PARTY.”[14]

The “Second Party” named in the Agreement was none other than Nieves Reyes. On the other hand, Arsenio’s duties as credit investigator are subsumed under the phrase “screening of prospective borrowers.” Because of this Agreement and the disbursement of monthly “allowances” and “profit shares” or “dividends” (Exh. “6”) to Arsenio, we uphold the factual finding of both courts that he replaced Zabat in the partnership.

Indeed, the partnership was established to engage in a money-lending business, despite the fact that it was formalized only after the Memorandum of Agreement had been signed by petitioner and Gragera. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, there is no evidence to show that a different business venture is referred to in this Agreement, which was executed on August 6, 1986, or about a month after the Memorandum had been signed by petitioner and Gragera on July 14, 1986. The Agreement itself attests to this fact:

“WHEREAS, the parties have decided to formalize the terms of their business relationship in order that their respective interests may be properly defined and established for their mutual benefit and understanding.”[15]

Second Issue:

No Proof of Misappropriation of Gragera’s Unpaid Commission

Petitioner faults the CA finding that Nieves did not misappropriate money intended for Gragera’s commission. According to him, Gragera remitted his daily collection to Nieves. This is shown by Exhibit “B” (the “Schedule of Daily Payments”), which bears her signature under the words “received by.” For the period July 1986 to March 1987, Gragera should have earned a total commission of P4,282,429.30. However, only P3,068,133.20 was received by him. Thus, petitioner infers that she misappropriated the difference of P1,214,296.10, which represented the unpaid commissions. Exhibit “H” is an untitled tabulation which, according to him, shows that Gragera was also entitled to a commission of P200,000, an amount that was never delivered by Nieves.[16]

On this point, the CA ruled that Exhibits “B,” “F,” “E” and “H” did not show that Nieves received for delivery to Gragera any amount from which theP1,214,296.10 unpaid commission was supposed to come, and that such exhibits were insufficient proof that she had embezzled P200,000. Said the CA:

“The presentation of Exhibit “D” vaguely denominated as ‘members ledger’ does not clearly establish that Nieves received amounts from Monte Maria’s members. The document does not clearly state what amounts the entries thereon represent. More importantly, Nieves made the entries for the limited period of January 11, 1987 to February 17, 1987 only while the rest were made by Gragera’s own staff.







“Neither can we give probative value to Exhibit ‘E’ which allegedly shows acknowledgment of the remittance of commissions to Verona Gonzales. The document is a private one and its due execution and authenticity have not been duly proved as required in [S]ection 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which states:

‘Sec. 20. Proof of Private Document – Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

‘Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.’

“The court a quo even ruled that the signature thereon was a forgery, as it found that:

‘x x x. But NIEVES denied that Exh. E-1 is her signature; she claimed that it is a forgery. The initial stroke of Exh. E-1 starts from up and goes downward. The initial stroke of the genuine signatures of NIEVES (Exhs. A-3, B-1, F-1, among others) starts from below and goes upward. This difference in the start of the initial stroke of the signatures Exhs. E-1 and of the genuine signatures lends credence to Nieves’ claim that the signature Exh. E-1 is a forgery.’

x x x x x x x x x

“Nieves’ testimony that the schedules of daily payment (Exhs. ‘B’ and ‘F’) were based on the predetermined 100% collection as guaranteed by Gragera is credible and clearly in accord with the evidence. A perusal of Exhs. “B” and “F” as well as Exhs. ‘15’ to 15-DDDDDDDDDD’ reveal that the entries were indeed based on the 100% assumptive collection guaranteed by Gragera. Thus, the total amount recorded on Exh. ‘B’ is exactly the number of borrowers multiplied by the projected collection of P150.00 per borrower. This holds true for Exh. ‘F.’

“Corollarily, Nieves’ explanation that the documents were pro forma and that she signed them not to signify that she collected the amounts but that she received the documents themselves is more believable than [petitioner’s] assertion that she actually handled the amounts.

“Contrary to [petitioner’s] assertion, Exhibit ‘H’ does not unequivocally establish that x x x Nieves received P200,000.00 as commission for Gragera. As correctly stated by the court a quo, the document showed a liquidation of P240,000.00 and not P200,000.00.

“Accordingly, we find Nieves’ testimony that after August 20, 1986, all collections were made by Gragera believable and worthy of credence. Since Gragera guaranteed a daily 100% payment of the loans, he took charge of the collections. As [petitioner’s] representative, Nieves merely prepared the daily cash flow reports (Exh. ‘15’ to ’15 DDDDDDDDDD’) to enable [petitioner] to keep track of Gragera’s operations. Gragera on the other hand devised the schedule of daily payment (Exhs. ‘B’ and ‘F’) to record the projected gross daily collections.

“As aptly observed by the court a quo:

‘26.1. As between the versions of SANTOS and NIEVES on how the commissions of GRAGERA [were] paid to him[,] that of NIEVES is more logical and practical and therefore, more believable. SANTOS’ version would have given rise to this improbable situation: GRAGERA would collect the daily amortizations and then give them to NIEVES; NIEVES would get GRAGERA’s commissions from the amortizations and then give such commission to GRAGERA.’”[17]

These findings are in harmony with the trial court’s ruling, which we quote below:

“21. Exh. H does not prove that SANTOS gave to NIEVES and the latter received P200,000.00 for delivery to GRAGERA. Exh. H shows under its sixth column ‘ADDITIONAL CASH’ that the additional cash was P240,000.00. If Exh. H were the liquidation of the P200,000.00 as alleged by SANTOS, then his claim is not true. This is so because it is a liquidation of the sum of P240,000.00.

“21.1. SANTOS claimed that he learned of NIEVES’ failure to give the P200,000.00 to GRAGERA when he received the latter’s letter complaining of its delayed release. Assuming as true SANTOS’ claim that he gave P200,000.00 to GRAGERA, there is no competent evidence that NIEVES did not give it to GRAGERA. The only proof that NIEVES did not give it is the letter. But SANTOS did not even present the letter in evidence. He did not explain why he did not.

“21.2. The evidence shows that all money transactions of the money-lending business of SANTOS were covered by petty cash vouchers. It is therefore strange why SANTOS did not present any voucher or receipt covering the P200,000.00.”[18]

In sum, the lower courts found it unbelievable that Nieves had embezzled P1,555,068.70 from the partnership. She did not remit P1,214,296.10 to Gragera, because he had deducted his commissions before remitting his collections. Exhibits “B” and “F” are merely computations of what Gragera should collect for the day; they do not show that Nieves received the amounts stated therein. Neither is there sufficient proof that she misappropriated P200,000, because Exhibit “H” does not indicate that such amount was received by her; in fact, it shows a different figure.



Petitioner has utterly failed to demonstrate why a review of these factual findings is warranted. Well-entrenched is the basic rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court.[19] Although there are exceptions to this rule, petitioner has not satisfactorily shown that any of them is applicable to this issue.

Third Issue:

Accounting of Partnership

Petitioner refuses any liability for respondents’ claims on the profits of the partnership. He maintains that “both business propositions were flops,” as his investments were “consumed and eaten up by the commissions orchestrated to be due Gragera” – a situation that “could not have been rendered possible without complicity between Nieves and Gragera.”

Respondent spouses, on the other hand, postulate that petitioner instituted the action below to avoid payment of the demands of Nieves, because sometime in March 1987, she “signified to petitioner that it was about time to get her share of the profits which had already accumulated to some P3 million.” Respondents add that while the partnership has not declared dividends or liquidated its earnings, the profits are already reflected on paper. To prove the counterclaim of Nieves, the spouses show that from June 13, 1986 up to April 19, 1987, the profit totaled P20,429,520 (Exhs. “10” et seq. and “15” et seq.). Based on that income, her 15 percent share under the joint venture amounts to P3,064,428 (Exh. “10-I-3”); and Arsenio’s, P2,026,000 minus the P30,000 which was already advanced to him (Petty Cash Vouchers, Exhs. “6, 6-A to 6-B”).

The CA originally held that respondents’ counterclaim was premature, pending an accounting of the partnership. However, in its assailed Resolution of August 17, 1998, it turned volte face. Affirming the trial court’s ruling on the counterclaim, it held as follows:

“We earlier ruled that there is still need for an accounting of the profits and losses of the partnership before we can rule with certainty as to the respective shares of the partners. Upon a further review of the records of this case, however, there appears to be sufficient basis to determine the amount of shares of the parties and damages incurred by [respondents]. The fact is that the court a quo already made such a determination [in its] decision dated August 13, 1991 on the basis of the facts on record.”[20]

The trial court’s ruling alluded to above is quoted below:

“27. The defendants’ counterclaim for the payment of their share in the profits of their joint venture with SANTOS is supported by the evidence.

“27.1. NIEVES testified that: Her claim to a share in the profits is based on the agreement (Exhs. 5, 5-A and 5-B). The profits are shown in the working papers (Exhs. 10 to 10-I, inclusive) which she prepared. Exhs. 10 to 10-I (inclusive) were based on the daily cash flow reports of which Exh. 3 is a sample. The originals of the daily cash flow reports (Exhs. 3 and 15 to 15-D (10) were given to SANTOS. The joint venture had a net profit of P20,429,520.00 (Exh. 10-I-1), from its operations from June 13, 1986 to April 19, 1987 (Exh. 1-I-4). She had a share of P3,064,428.00 (Exh. 10-I-3) and ARSENIO, about P2,926,000.00, in the profits.

“27.1.1 SANTOS never denied NIEVES’ testimony that the money-lending business he was engaged in netted a profit and that the originals of the daily case flow reports were furnished to him. SANTOS however alleged that the money-lending operation of his joint venture with NIEVES and ZABAT resulted in a loss of about half a million pesos to him. But such loss, even if true, does not negate NIEVES’ claim that overall, the joint venture among them – SANTOS, NIEVES and ARSENIO – netted a profit. There is no reason for the Court to doubt the veracity of [the testimony of] NIEVES.

“27.2 The P26,260.50 which ARSENIO received as part of his share in the profits (Exhs. 6, 6-A and 6-B) should be deducted from his total share.”[21]

After a close examination of respondents’ exhibits, we find reason to disagree with the CA. Exhibit “10-I”[22] shows that the partnership earned a “total income” of P20,429,520 for the period June 13, 1986 until April 19, 1987. This entry is derived from the sum of the amounts under the following column headings: “2-Day Advance Collection,” “Service Fee,” “Notarial Fee,” “Application Fee,” “Net Interest Income” and “Interest Income on Investment.” Such entries represent the collections of the money-lending business or its gross income.

The “total income” shown on Exhibit “10-I” did not consider the expenses sustained by the partnership. For instance, it did not factor in the “gross loan releases” representing the money loaned to clients. Since the business is money-lending, such releases are comparable with the inventory or supplies in other business enterprises.

Noticeably missing from the computation of the “total income” is the deduction of the weekly allowance disbursed to respondents. Exhibits “I” et seq. and “J” et seq.[23] show that Arsenio received allowances from July 19, 1986 to March 27, 1987 in the aggregate amount of P25,500; and Nieves, from July 12, 1986 to March 27, 1987 in the total amount of P25,600. These allowances are different from the profit already received by Arsenio. They represent expenses that should have been deducted from the business profits. The point is that all expenses incurred by the money-lending enterprise of the parties must first be deducted from the “total income” in order to arrive at the “net profit” of the partnership. The share of each one of them should be based on this “net profit” and not from the “gross income” or “total income” reflected in Exhibit “10-I,” which the two courts invariably referred to as “cash flow” sheets.






Similarly, Exhibits “15” et seq.,[24] which are the “Daily Cashflow Reports,” do not reflect the business expenses incurred by the parties, because they show only the daily cash collections. Contrary to the rulings of both the trial and the appellate courts, respondents’ exhibits do not reflect the complete financial condition of the money-lending business. The lower courts obviously labored over a mistaken notion that Exhibit “10-I-1” represented the “net profits” earned by the partnership.

For the purpose of determining the profit that should go to an industrial partner (who shares in the profits but is not liable for the losses), the gross income from all the transactions carried on by the firm must be added together, and from this sum must be subtracted the expenses or the losses sustained in the business. Only in the difference representing the net profits does the industrial partner share. But if, on the contrary, the losses exceed the income, the industrial partner does not share in the losses.[25]

When the judgment of the CA is premised on a misapprehension of facts or a failure to notice certain relevant facts that would otherwise justify a different conclusion, as in this particular issue, a review of its factual findings may be conducted, as an exception to the general rule applied to the first two issues.[26]

The trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses while they are testifying, an opportunity not available to appellate courts. Thus, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great weight, even finality, when supported by substantial evidence; more so when such assessment is affirmed by the CA. But when the issue involves the evaluation of exhibits or documents that are attached to the case records, as in the third issue, the rule may be relaxed. Under that situation, this Court has a similar opportunity to inspect, examine and evaluate those records, independently of the lower courts. Hence, we deem the award of the partnership share, as computed by the trial court and adopted by the CA, to be incomplete and not binding on this Court.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is partly GRANTED. The assailed November 28, 1997 Decision is AFFIRMED, but the challenged Resolutions dated August 17, 1998 and October 9, 1998 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs.

SO ORDERED.





Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-68118 October 29, 1985

JOSE P. OBILLOS, JR., SARAH P. OBILLOS, ROMEO P. OBILLOS and REMEDIOS P. OBILLOS, brothers and sisters, petitioners vs.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

Demosthenes B. Gadioma for petitioners.

AQUINO, J.:

This case is about the income tax liability of four brothers and sisters who sold two parcels of land which they had acquired from their father.

On March 2, 1973 Jose Obillos, Sr. completed payment to Ortigas & Co., Ltd. on two lots with areas of 1,124 and 963 square meters located at Greenhills, San Juan, Rizal. The next day he transferred his rights to his four children, the petitioners, to enable them to build their residences. The company sold the two lots to petitioners for P178,708.12 on March 13 (Exh. A and B, p. 44, Rollo).

Presumably, the Torrens titles issued to them would show that they were co-owners of the two lots.

In 1974, or after having held the two lots for more than a year, the petitioners resold them to the Walled City Securities Corporation and Olga Cruz Canda for the total sum of P313,050 (Exh. C and D). They derived from the sale a total profit of P134,341.88 or P33,584 for each of them. They treated the profit as a capital gain and paid an income tax on one-half thereof or of P16,792.

In April, 1980, or one day before the expiration of the five-year prescriptive period, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue required the four petitioners to pay corporate income tax on the total profit of P134,336 in addition to individual income tax on their shares thereof He assessed P37,018 as corporate income tax, P18,509 as 50% fraud surcharge and P15,547.56 as 42% accumulated interest, or a total of P71,074.56.

Not only that. He considered the share of the profits of each petitioner in the sum of P33,584 as a " taxable in full (not a mere capital gain of which ½ is taxable) and required them to pay deficiency income taxes aggregating P56,707.20 including the 50% fraud surcharge and the accumulated interest.

Thus, the petitioners are being held liable for deficiency income taxes and penalties totalling P127,781.76 on their profit of P134,336, in addition to the tax on capital gains already paid by them.

The Commissioner acted on the theory that the four petitioners had formed an unregistered partnership or joint venture within the meaning of sections 24(a) and 84(b) of the Tax Code (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Batangas Trans. Co., 102 Phil. 822).

The petitioners contested the assessments. Two Judges of the Tax Court sustained the same. Judge Roaquin dissented. Hence, the instant appeal.

We hold that it is error to consider the petitioners as having formed a partnership under article 1767 of the Civil Code simply because they allegedly contributed P178,708.12 to buy the two lots, resold the same and divided the profit among themselves.

To regard the petitioners as having formed a taxable unregistered partnership would result in oppressive taxation and confirm the dictum that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. That eventuality should be obviated.

As testified by Jose Obillos, Jr., they had no such intention. They were co-owners pure and simple. To consider them as partners would obliterate the distinction between a co-ownership and a partnership. The petitioners were not engaged in any joint venture by reason of that isolated transaction.

Their original purpose was to divide the lots for residential purposes. If later on they found it not feasible to build their residences on the lots because of the high cost of construction, then they had no choice but to resell the same to dissolve the co-ownership. The division of the profit was merely incidental to the dissolution of the co-ownership which was in the nature of things a temporary state. It had to be terminated sooner or later. Castan Tobeñas says:

Como establecer el deslinde entre la comunidad ordinaria o copropiedad y la sociedad?

El criterio diferencial-segun la doctrina mas generalizada-esta: por razon del origen, en que la sociedad presupone necesariamente la convencion, mentras que la comunidad puede existir y existe ordinariamente sin ela; y por razon del fin objecto, en que el objeto de la sociedad es obtener lucro, mientras que el de la indivision es solo mantener en su integridad la cosa comun y favorecer su conservacion.

Reflejo de este criterio es la sentencia de 15 de Octubre de 1940, en la que se dice que si en nuestro Derecho positive se ofrecen a veces dificultades al tratar de fijar la linea divisoria entre comunidad de bienes y contrato de sociedad, la moderna orientacion de la doctrina cientifica señala como nota fundamental de diferenciacion aparte del origen de fuente de que surgen, no siempre uniforme, la finalidad perseguida por los interesados: lucro comun partible en la sociedad, y mera conservacion y aprovechamiento en la comunidad. (Derecho Civil Espanol, Vol. 2, Part 1, 10 Ed., 1971, 328- 329).

Article 1769(3) of the Civil Code provides that "the sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived". There must be an unmistakable intention to form a partnership or joint venture.*

Such intent was present in Gatchalian vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 67 Phil. 666, where 15 persons contributed small amounts to purchase a two-peso sweepstakes ticket with the agreement that they would divide the prize The ticket

won the third prize of P50,000. The 15 persons were held liable for income tax as an unregistered partnership.

The instant case is distinguishable from the cases where the parties engaged in joint ventures for profit. Thus, in Oña vs.

** This view is supported by the following rulings of respondent Commissioner:

Co-owership distinguished from partnership.—We find that the case at bar is fundamentally similar to the De Leon case. Thus, like the De Leon heirs, the Longa heirs inherited the 'hacienda' in questionpro-indiviso from their deceased parents; they did not contribute or invest additional ' capital to increase or expand the inherited properties; they merely continued dedicating the property to the use to which it had been put by their forebears; they individually reported in their tax returns their corresponding shares in the income and expenses of the 'hacienda', and they continued for many years the status of co-ownership in order, as conceded by respondent, 'to preserve its (the 'hacienda') value and to continue the existing contractual relations with the Central Azucarera de Bais for milling purposes. Longa vs. Aranas, CTA Case No. 653, July 31, 1963).

All co-ownerships are not deemed unregistered pratnership.—Co-Ownership who own properties which produce income should not automatically be considered partners of an unregistered partnership, or a corporation, within the purview of the income tax law. To hold otherwise, would be to subject the income of all co-ownerships of inherited properties to the tax on corporations, inasmuch as if a property does not produce an income at all, it is not subject to any kind of income tax, whether the income tax on individuals or the income tax on corporation. (De Leon vs. CI R, CTA Case No. 738, September 11, 1961, cited in Arañas, 1977 Tax Code Annotated, Vol. 1, 1979 Ed., pp. 77-78).

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-19342, May 25, 1972, 45 SCRA 74, where after an extrajudicial settlement the co-heirs used the inheritance or the incomes derived therefrom as a common fund to produce profits for themselves, it was held that they were taxable as an unregistered partnership.

It is likewise different from Reyes vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 24 SCRA 198, where father and son purchased a lot and building, entrusted the administration of the building to an administrator and divided equally the net income, and from Evangelista vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 102 Phil. 140,

where the three Evangelista sisters bought four pieces of real property which they leased to various tenants and derived rentals therefrom. Clearly, the petitioners in these two cases had formed an unregistered partnership.

In the instant case, what the Commissioner should have investigated was whether the father donated the two lots to the petitioners and whether he paid the donor's tax (See Art. 1448, Civil Code). We are not prejudging this matter. It might have already prescribed.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Tax Court is reversed and set aside. The assessments are cancelled. No costs.

SO ORDERED.


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-21906 December 24, 1968

INOCENCIA DELUAO and FELIPE DELUAO plaintiffs-appellees, vs.NICANOR CASTEEL and JUAN DEPRA, defendants, NICANOR CASTEEL, defendant-appellant.

Aportadera and Palabrica and Pelaez, Jalandoni and Jamir plaintiffs-appellees.Ruiz Law Offices for defendant-appellant.

CASTRO, J.:

This is an appeal from the order of May 2, 1956, the decision of May 4, 1956 and the order of May 21, 1956, all of the Court of First Instance of Davao, in civil case 629. The basic action is for specific performance, and damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract.

In 1940 Nicanor Casteel filed a fishpond application for a big tract of swampy land in the then Sitio of Malalag (now the Municipality of Malalag), Municipality of Padada, Davao. No action was taken thereon by the authorities concerned. During the Japanese occupation, he filed another fishpond application for the same area, but because of the conditions then prevailing, it was not acted upon either. On December 12, 1945 he filed a third fishpond application for the same area, which, after a survey, was found to contain 178.76 hectares. Upon investigation conducted by a representative of the Bureau of Forestry, it was discovered that the area applied for was still needed for firewood production. Hence on May 13, 1946 this third application was disapproved.

Despite the said rejection, Casteel did not lose interest. He filed a motion for reconsideration. While this motion was pending resolution, he was advised by the district forester of Davao City that no further action would be taken on his motion, unless he filed a new application for the area concerned. So he filed on May 27, 1947 his fishpond application 1717.

Meanwhile, several applications were submitted by other persons for portions of the area covered by Casteel's application.

On May 20, 1946 Leoncio Aradillos filed his fishpond application 1202 covering 10 hectares of land found inside the area applied for by Casteel; he was later granted fishpond permit F-289-C covering 9.3 hectares certified as available for fishpond purposes by the Bureau of Forestry.

Victor D. Carpio filed on August 8, 1946 his fishpond application 762 over a portion of the land applied for by Casteel. Alejandro Cacam's fishpond application 1276, filed on December 26, 1946, was given due course on December 9, 1947 with the issuance to him of fishpond permit F-539-C to develop 30 hectares of land comprising a portion of the area applied for by Casteel, upon certification of the Bureau of Forestry that the area was likewise available for fishpond purposes. On November 17, 1948 Felipe Deluao filed his own fishpond application for the area covered by Casteel's application.

Because of the threat poised upon his position by the above applicants who entered upon and spread themselves within the area, Casteel realized the urgent necessity of expanding his occupation thereof by constructing dikes and cultivating marketable fishes, in order to prevent old and new squatters from usurping the land. But lacking financial resources at that time, he sought financial aid from his uncle Felipe Deluao who then extended loans totalling more or less P27,000 with which to finance the needed improvements on the fishpond. Hence, a wide productive fishpond was built.

Moreover, upon learning that portions of the area applied for by him were already occupied by rival applicants, Casteel immediately filed the corresponding protests. Consequently, two administrative cases ensued involving the area in question, to wit: DANR Case 353, entitled "Fp. Ap. No. 661 (now Fp. A. No. 1717), Nicanor Casteel, applicant-appellant versus Fp. A. No. 763, Victorio D. Carpio, applicant-appellant"; and DANR Case 353-B, entitled "Fp. A. No. 661 (now Fp. A. No. 1717), Nicanor Casteel, applicant-protestant versus Fp. Permit No. 289-C, Leoncio Aradillos, Fp. Permit No. 539-C, Alejandro Cacam, Permittees-Respondents."

However, despite the finding made in the investigation of the above administrative cases that Casteel had already introduced improvements on portions of the area applied for by him in the form of dikes, fishpond gates, clearings, etc., the Director of Fisheries nevertheless rejected Casteel's application on October 25, 1949, required him to remove all the improvements which he had introduced on the land, and ordered that the land be leased through public auction. Failing to secure a favorable resolution of his motion for reconsideration of the Director's order, Casteel appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

In the interregnum, some more incidents occurred. To avoid repetition, they will be taken up in our discussion of the appellant's third assignment of error.

On November 25, 1949 Inocencia Deluao (wife of Felipe Deluao) as party of the first part, and Nicanor Casteel as party of the second part, executed a contract — denominated a "contract of service" — the salient provisions of which are as follows:

That the Party of the First Part in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements made herein to the Party of the Second Part, hereby enter into a contract of service, whereby the Party of the First Part hires and employs the Party of the Second Part on the following terms and conditions, to wit:

That the Party of the First Part will finance as she has hereby financed the sum of TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (P27,000.00), Philippine Currency, to the Party of the Second Part who renders only his services for the construction and improvements of a fishpond at Barrio Malalag, Municipality of Padada, Province of Davao, Philippines;

That the Party of the Second Part will be the Manager and sole buyer of all the produce of the fish that will be produced from said fishpond;

That the Party of the First Part will be the administrator of the same she having financed the construction and improvement of said fishpond;

That this contract was the result of a verbal agreement entered into between the Parties sometime in the month of November, 1947, with all the above-mentioned conditions enumerated; ...

On the same date the above contract was entered into, Inocencia Deluao executed a special power of attorney in favor of Jesus Donesa, extending to the latter the authority "To represent me in the administration of the fishpond at Malalag, Municipality of Padada, Province of Davao, Philippines, which has been applied for fishpond permit by Nicanor Casteel, but rejected by the Bureau of Fisheries, and to supervise, demand, receive, and collect the value of the fish that is being periodically realized from it...."

On November 29, 1949 the Director of Fisheries rejected the application filed by Felipe Deluao on November 17, 1948. Unfazed by this rejection, Deluao reiterated his claim over the same area in the two administrative cases (DANR Cases 353 and 353-B) and asked for reinvestigation of the application of Nicanor Casteel over the subject fishpond. However, by letter dated March 15, 1950 sent to the Secretary of Commerce and Agriculture and Natural Resources (now Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources), Deluao withdrew his petition for reinvestigation.

On September 15, 1950 the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued a decision in DANR Case 353, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

In view of all the foregoing considerations, Fp. A. No. 661 (now Fp. A. No. 1717) of Nicanor Casteel should be, as hereby it is, reinstated and given due course for the area indicated in the sketch drawn at the back of the last page hereof; and Fp. A. No. 762 of Victorio D. Carpio shall remain rejected.

On the same date, the same official issued a decision in DANR Case 353-B, the dispositive portion stating as follows:

WHEREFORE, Fishpond Permit No. F-289-C of Leoncio Aradillos and Fishpond Permit No. F-539-C of Alejandro Cacam, should be, as they are hereby cancelled and revoked; Nicanor Casteel is required to pay the improvements introduced thereon by said permittees in accordance with the terms and dispositions contained elsewhere in this decision....

Sometime in January 1951 Nicanor Casteel forbade Inocencia Deluao from further administering the fishpond, and ejected the latter's representative (encargado), Jesus Donesa, from the premises.

Alleging violation of the contract of service (exhibit A) entered into between Inocencia Deluao and Nicanor Casteel, Felipe Deluao and Inocencia Deluao on April 3, 1951 filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Davao for specific performance and damages against Nicanor Casteel and Juan Depra (who, they alleged, instigated Casteel to violate his contract), praying inter alia, (a) that Casteel be ordered to respect and abide by the terms and conditions of said contract and that Inocencia Deluao be allowed to continue administering the said fishpond and collecting the proceeds from the sale of the fishes caught from time to time; and (b) that the defendants be ordered to pay jointly and severally to plaintiffs the sum of P20,000 in damages.

On April 18, 1951 the plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, praying among other things, that during the pendency of the case and upon their filling the requisite bond as may be fixed by the court, a preliminary injunction be issued to restrain Casteel from doing the acts complained of, and that after trial the said injunction be made permanent. The lower court on April 26, 1951 granted the motion, and, two days later, it issued a preliminary mandatory injunction addressed to Casteel, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

POR EL PRESENTE, queda usted ordenado que, hasta nueva orden, usted, el demandado y todos usu abogados, agentes, mandatarios y demas personas que obren en su ayuda, desista de impedir a la demandante Inocencia R. Deluao que continue administrando personalmente la pesqueria objeto de esta causa y que la misma continue recibiendo los productos de la venta de los pescados provenientes de dicha pesqueria, y que, asimismo, se prohibe a dicho demandado Nicanor Casteel a desahuciar mediante fuerza al encargado de los demandantes llamado Jesus Donesa de la pesqueria objeto de la demanda de autos.

On May 10, 1951 Casteel filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, alleging among others, that he was the owner, lawful applicant and occupant of the fishpond in question. This motion, opposed by the plaintiffs on June 15, 1951, was denied by the lower court in its order of June 26, 1961.

The defendants on May 14, 1951 filed their answer with counterclaim, amended on January 8, 1952, denying the material averments of the plaintiffs' complaint. A reply to the defendants' amended answer was filed by the plaintiffs on January 31, 1952.

The defendant Juan Depra moved on May 22, 1951 to dismiss the complaint as to him. On June 4, 1951 the plaintiffs opposed his motion.

The defendants filed on October 3, 1951 a joint motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The motion, opposed by the plaintiffs on October 12, 1951, was denied for lack of merit by the lower court in its order of October 22, 1951. The defendants' motion for reconsideration filed on October 31, 1951 suffered the same fate when it was likewise denied by the lower court in its order of November 12, 1951.

After the issues were joined, the case was set for trial. Then came a series of postponements. The lower court (Branch I, presided by Judge Enrique A. Fernandez) finally issued on March 21, 1956 an order in open court, reading as follows: .

Upon petition of plaintiffs, without any objection on the part of defendants, the hearing of this case is hereby transferred to May 2 and 3, 1956 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning.

This case was filed on April 3, 1951 and under any circumstance this Court will not entertain any other transfer of hearing of this case and if the parties will not be ready on that day set for hearing, the court will take the necessary steps for the final determination of this case. (emphasis supplied)

On April 25, 1956 the defendants' counsel received a notice of hearing dated April 21, 1956, issued by the office of the Clerk of Court (thru the special deputy Clerk of Court) of the Court of First Instance of Davao, setting the hearing of the case for May 2 and 3, 1956 before Judge Amador Gomez of Branch II. The defendants, thru counsel, on April 26, 1956 filed a motion for postponement. Acting on this motion, the lower court (Branch II, presided by Judge Gomez) issued an order dated April 27, 1956, quoted as follows:

This is a motion for postponement of the hearing of this case set for May 2 and 3, 1956. The motion is filed by the counsel for the defendants and has the conformity of the counsel for the plaintiffs.

An examination of the records of this case shows that this case was initiated as early as April 1951 and that the same has been under advisement of the Honorable Enrique A. Fernandez, Presiding Judge of Branch No. I, since September 24, 1953, and that various incidents have already been considered and resolved by Judge Fernandez on various occasions. The last order issued by Judge Fernandez on this case was issued on March 21, 1956, wherein he definitely states that the Court will not entertain any further postponement of the hearing of this case.

CONSIDERING ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court believes that the consideration and termination of any incident referring to this case should be referred back to Branch I, so that the same may be disposed of therein. (emphasis supplied)

A copy of the abovequoted order was served on the defendants' counsel on May 4, 1956.

On the scheduled date of hearing, that is, on May 2, 1956, the lower court (Branch I, with Judge Fernandez presiding), when informed about the defendants' motion for postponement filed on April 26, 1956, issued an order reiterating its previous order handed down in open court on March 21, 1956 and directing the plaintiffs to introduce their evidence ex parte, there being no appearance on the part of the defendants or their counsel. On the basis of the plaintiffs' evidence, a decision was rendered on May 4, 1956 the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

EN SU VIRTUD, el Juzgado dicta de decision a favor de los demandantes y en contra del demandado Nicanor Casteel:

(a) Declara permanente el interdicto prohibitorio expedido contra el demandado;

(b) Ordena al demandado entregue la demandante la posesion y administracion de la mitad (½) del "fishpond" en cuestion con todas las mejoras existentes dentro de la misma;

(c) Condena al demandado a pagar a la demandante la suma de P200.00 mensualmente en concepto de danos a contar de la fecha de la expiracion de los 30 dias de la promulgacion de esta decision hasta que entregue la posesion y administracion de la porcion del "fishpond" en conflicto;

(d) Condena al demandado a pagar a la demandante la suma de P2,000.00 valor de los pescado beneficiados, mas los intereses legales de la fecha de la incoacion de la demanda de autos hasta el completo pago de la obligacion principal;

(e) Condena al demandado a pagar a la demandante la suma de P2,000.00, por gastos incurridos por aquella durante la pendencia de esta causa;

(f) Condena al demandado a pagar a la demandante, en concepto de honorarios, la suma de P2,000.00;

(g) Ordena el sobreseimiento de esta demanda, por insuficiencia de pruebas, en tanto en cuanto se refiere al demandado Juan Depra;

(h) Ordena el sobreseimiento de la reconvencion de los demandados por falta de pruebas;

(i) Con las costas contra del demandado, Casteel.

The defendant Casteel filed a petition for relief from the foregoing decision, alleging, inter alia, lack of knowledge of the order of the court a quo setting the case for trial. The petition, however, was denied by the lower court in its order of May 21, 1956, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:

The duty of Atty. Ruiz, was not to inquire from the Clerk of Court whether the trial of this case has been transferred or not, but to inquire from the presiding Judge, particularly because his motion asking the transfer of this case was not set for hearing and was not also acted upon.

Atty. Ruiz knows the nature of the order of this Court dated March 21, 1956, which reads as follows:

Upon petition of the plaintiff without any objection on the part of the defendants, the hearing of this case is hereby transferred to May 2 and 3, 1956, at 8:30 o'clock in the morning.

This case was filed on April 3, 1951, and under any circumstance this Court will not entertain any other transfer of the hearing of this case, and if the parties will not be ready on the day set for hearing, the Court will take necessary steps for the final disposition of this case.

In view of the order above-quoted, the Court will not accede to any transfer of this case and the duty of Atty. Ruiz is no other than to be present in the Sala of this Court and to call the attention of the same to the existence of his motion for transfer.

Petition for relief from judgment filed by Atty. Ruiz in behalf of the defendant, not well taken, the same is hereby denied.

Dissatisfied with the said ruling, Casteel appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to us for final determination on the ground that it involves only questions of law.

Casteel raises the following issues:

(1) Whether the lower court committed gross abuse of discretion when it ordered reception of the appellees' evidence in the absence of the appellant at the trial on May 2, 1956, thus depriving the appellant of his day in court and of his property without due process of law;

(2) Whether the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the verified petition for relief from judgment filed by the appellant on May 11, 1956 in accordance with Rule 38, Rules of Court; and

(3) Whether the lower court erred in ordering the issuance ex parte of a writ of preliminary injunction against defendant-appellant, and in not dismissing appellees' complaint.

1. The first and second issues must be resolved against the appellant.

The record indisputably shows that in the order given in open court on March 21, 1956, the lower court set the case for hearing on May 2 and 3, 1956 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning and empathically stated that, since the case had been pending since April 3, 1951, it would not entertain any further motion for transfer of the scheduled hearing.

An order given in open court is presumed received by the parties on the very date and time of promulgation,1 and amounts to a legal notification for all legal purposes.2 The order of March 21, 1956, given in open court, was a valid notice to the parties, and the notice of hearing dated April 21, 1956 or one month thereafter, was a superfluity. Moreover, as between the order of March 21, 1956, duly promulgated by the lower court, thru Judge Fernandez, and the notice of hearing signed by a "special deputy clerk of court" setting the hearing in another branch of the same court, the former's order was the one legally binding. This is because the incidents of postponements and adjournments are controlled by the court and not by the clerk of court, pursuant to section 4, Rule 31 (now sec. 3, Rule 22) of the Rules of Court.

Much less had the clerk of court the authority to interfere with the order of the court or to transfer the cage from one sala to another without authority or order from the court where the case originated and was being tried. He had neither the duty nor prerogative to re-assign the trial of the case to a different branch of the same court. His duty as such clerk of court, in so far as the incident in question was concerned, was simply to prepare the trial calendar. And this duty devolved upon the clerk of court and not upon the "special deputy clerk of court" who purportedly signed the notice of hearing.

It is of no moment that the motion for postponement had the conformity of the appellees' counsel. The postponement of hearings does not depend upon agreement of the parties, but upon the court's discretion.3

The record further discloses that Casteel was represented by a total of 12 lawyers, none of whom had ever withdrawn as counsel. Notice to Atty. Ruiz of the order dated March 21, 1956 intransferably setting the case for hearing for May 2 and 3, 1956, was sufficient notice to all the appellant's eleven other counsel of record. This is a well-settled rule in our jurisdiction.4

It was the duty of Atty. Ruiz, or of the other lawyers of record, not excluding the appellant himself, to appear before Judge Fernandez on the scheduled dates of hearing Parties and their lawyers have no right to presume that their motions for postponement will be granted.5 For indeed, the appellant and his 12 lawyers cannot pretend ignorance of the recorded fact that since September 24, 1953 until the trial held on May 2, 1956, the case was under the advisement of Judge Fernandez who presided over Branch I. There was, therefore, no necessity to "re-assign" the same to Branch II because Judge Fernandez had exclusive control of said case, unless he was legally inhibited to try the case — and he was not.

There is truth in the appellant's contention that it is the duty of the clerk of court — not of the Court — to prepare the trial calendar. But the assignment or reassignment of cases already pending in one sala to another sala, and the setting of the date of trial after the trial calendar has been prepared, fall within the exclusive control of the presiding judge.

The appellant does not deny the appellees' claim that on May 2 and 3, 1956, the office of the clerk of court of the Court of First Instance of Davao was located directly below Branch I. If the appellant and his counsel had exercised due diligence, there was no impediment to their going upstairs to the second storey of the Court of First Instance building in Davao on May 2, 1956 and checking if the case was scheduled for hearing in the said sala. The appellant after all admits that on May 2, 1956 his counsel went to the office of the clerk of court.

The appellant's statement that parties as a matter of right are entitled to notice of trial, is correct. But he was properly accorded this right. He was notified in open court on March 21, 1956 that the case was definitely and intransferably set for hearing on May 2 and 3, 1956 before Branch I. He cannot argue that, pursuant to the doctrine in Siochi vs. Tirona,6 his counsel was entitled to a timely notice of the denial of his motion for postponement. In the cited case the motion for postponement was the first one filed by the defendant; in the case at bar, there had already been a series of postponements. Unlike the case at bar, the Siochi case was not intransferably set for hearing. Finally, whereas the cited case did not spend for a long time, the case at bar was only finally and

intransferably set for hearing on March 21, 1956 — after almost five years had elapsed from the filing of the complaint on April 3, 1951.

The pretension of the appellant and his 12 counsel of record that they lacked ample time to prepare for trial is unacceptable because between March 21, 1956 and May 2, 1956, they had one month and ten days to do so. In effect, the appellant had waived his right to appear at the trial and therefore he cannot be heard to complain that he has been deprived of his property without due process of law.7 Verily, the constitutional requirements of due process have been fulfilled in this case: the lower court is a competent court; it lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant (appellant) and the subject matter of the action; the defendant (appellant) was given an opportunity to be heard; and judgment was rendered upon lawful hearing.8

2. Finally, the appellant contends that the lower court incurred an error in ordering the issuance ex parte of a writ of preliminary injunction against him, and in not dismissing the appellee's complaint. We find this contention meritorious.

Apparently, the court a quo relied on exhibit A — the so-called "contract of service" — and the appellees' contention that it created a contract of co-ownership and partnership between Inocencia Deluao and the appellant over the fishpond in question.

Too well-settled to require any citation of authority is the rule that everyone is conclusively presumed to know the law. It must be assumed, conformably to such rule, that the parties entered into the so-called "contract of service" cognizant of the mandatory and prohibitory laws governing the filing of applications for fishpond permits. And since they were aware of the said laws, it must likewise be assumed — in fairness to the parties — that they did not intend to violate them. This view must perforce negate the appellees' allegation that exhibit A created a contract of co-ownership between the parties over the disputed fishpond. Were we to admit the establishment of a co-ownership violative of the prohibitory laws which will hereafter be discussed, we shall be compelled to declare altogether the nullity of the contract. This would certainly not serve the cause of equity and justice, considering that rights and obligations have already arisen between the parties. We shall therefore construe the contract as one of partnership, divided into two parts — namely, a contract of partnership to exploit the fishpond pending its award to either Felipe Deluao or Nicanor Casteel, and a contract of partnership to divide the fishpond between them after such award. The first is valid, the second illegal.

It is well to note that when the appellee Inocencia Deluao and the appellant entered into the so-called "contract of service" on November 25, 1949, there were two pending applications over the fishpond. One was Casteel's which was appealed by him to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources after it was

disallowed by the Director of Fisheries on October 25, 1949. The other was Felipe Deluao's application over the same area which was likewise rejected by the Director of Fisheries on November 29, 1949, refiled by Deluao and later on withdrawn by him by letter dated March 15, 1950 to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Clearly, although the fishpond was then in the possession of Casteel, neither he nor, Felipe Deluao was the holder of a fishpond permit over the area. But be that as it may, they were not however precluded from exploiting the fishpond pending resolution of Casteel's appeal or the approval of Deluao's application over the same area — whichever event happened first. No law, rule or regulation prohibited them from doing so. Thus, rather than let the fishpond remain idle they cultivated it.

The evidence preponderates in favor of the view that the initial intention of the parties was not to form a co-ownership but to establish a partnership — Inocencia Deluao as capitalist partner and Casteel as industrial partner — the ultimate undertaking of which was to divide into two equal parts such portion of the fishpond as might have been developed by the amount extended by the plaintiffs-appellees, with the further provision that Casteel should reimburse the expenses incurred by the appellees over one-half of the fishpond that would pertain to him. This can be gleaned, among others, from the letter of Casteel to Felipe Deluao on November 15, 1949, which states, inter alia:

... [W]ith respect to your allowing me to use your money, same will redound to your benefit because you are the ones interested in half of the work we have done so far, besides I did not insist on our being partners in my fishpond permit, but it was you "Tatay" Eping the one who wanted that we be partners and it so happened that we became partners because I am poor, but in the midst of my poverty it never occurred to me to be unfair to you. Therefore so that each of us may be secured, let us have a document prepared to the effect that we are partners in the fishpond that we caused to be made here in Balasinon, but it does not mean that you will treat me as one of your "Bantay" (caretaker) on wage basis but not earning wages at all, while the truth is that we are partners. In the event that you are not amenable to my proposition and consider me as "Bantay" (caretaker) instead, do not blame me if I withdraw all my cases and be left without even a little and you likewise. (emphasis supplied)9

Pursuant to the foregoing suggestion of the appellant that a document be drawn evidencing their partnership, the appellee Inocencia Deluao and the appellant executed exhibit A which, although denominated a "contract of service," was actually the memorandum of their partnership agreement. That it was not a contract of the services of the appellant, was admitted by the appellees themselves in their letter10 to Casteel dated December 19, 1949 wherein they

stated that they did not employ him in his (Casteel's) claim but because he used their money in developing and improving the fishpond, his right must be divided between them. Of course, although exhibit A did not specify any wage or share appertaining to the appellant as industrial partner, he was so entitled — this being one of the conditions he specified for the execution of the document of partnership.11

Further exchanges of letters between the parties reveal the continuing intent to divide the fishpond. In a letter,12dated March 24, 1950, the appellant suggested that they divide the fishpond and the remaining capital, and offered to pay the Deluaos a yearly installment of P3,000 — presumably as reimbursement for the expenses of the appellees for the development and improvement of the one-half that would pertain to the appellant. Two days later, the appellee Felipe Deluao replied,13expressing his concurrence in the appellant's suggestion and advising the latter to ask for a reconsideration of the order of the Director of Fisheries disapproving his (appellant's) application, so that if a favorable decision was secured, then they would divide the area.

Apparently relying on the partnership agreement, the appellee Felipe Deluao saw no further need to maintain his petition for the reinvestigation of Casteel's application. Thus by letter14 dated March 15, 1950 addressed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, he withdrew his petition on the alleged ground that he was no longer interested in the area, but stated however that he wanted his interest to be protected and his capital to be reimbursed by the highest bidder.

The arrangement under the so-called "contract of service" continued until the decisions both dated September 15, 1950 were issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in DANR Cases 353 and 353-B. This development, by itself, brought about the dissolution of the partnership. Moreover, subsequent events likewise reveal the intent of both parties to terminate the partnership because each refused to share the fishpond with the other.

Art. 1830(3) of the Civil Code enumerates, as one of the causes for the dissolution of a partnership, "... any event which makes it unlawful for the business of the partnership to be carried on or for the members to carry it on in partnership." The approval of the appellant's fishpond application by the decisions in DANR Cases 353 and 353-B brought to the fore several provisions of law which made the continuation of the partnership unlawful and therefore caused its ipso facto dissolution.

Act 4003, known as the Fisheries Act, prohibits the holder of a fishpond permit (the permittee) from transferring or subletting the fishpond granted to him, without the previous consent or approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.15 To the same effect is Condition No. 3 of the fishpond permit which

states that "The permittee shall not transfer or sublet all or any area herein granted or any rights acquired therein without the previous consent and approval of this Office." Parenthetically, we must observe that in DANR Case 353-B, the permit granted to one of the parties therein, Leoncio Aradillos, was cancelled not solely for the reason that his permit covered a portion of the area included in the appellant's prior fishpond application, but also because, upon investigation, it was ascertained thru the admission of Aradillos himself that due to lack of capital, he allowed one Lino Estepa to develop with the latter's capital the area covered by his fishpond permit F-289-C with the understanding that he (Aradillos) would be given a share in the produce thereof.16

Sec. 40 of Commonwealth Act 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, likewise provides that

The lessee shall not assign, encumber, or sublet his rights without the consent of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, and the violation of this condition shall avoid the contract; Provided, That assignment, encumbrance, or subletting for purposes of speculation shall not be permitted in any case:Provided, further, That nothing contained in this section shall be understood or construed to permit the assignment, encumbrance, or subletting of lands leased under this Act, or under any previous Act, to persons, corporations, or associations which under this Act, are not authorized to lease public lands.

Finally, section 37 of Administrative Order No. 14 of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued in August 1937, prohibits a transfer or sublease unless first approved by the Director of Lands and under such terms and conditions as he may prescribe. Thus, it states:

When a transfer or sub-lease of area and improvement may be allowed. — If the permittee or lessee had, unless otherwise specifically provided, held the permit or lease and actually operated and made improvements on the area for at least one year, he/she may request permission to sub-lease or transfer the area and improvements under certain conditions.

(a) Transfer subject to approval. — A sub-lease or transfer shall only be valid when first approved by the Director under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, otherwise it shall be null and void. A transfer not previously approved or reported shall be considered sufficient cause for the cancellation of the permit or lease and forfeiture of the bond and for granting the area to a qualified applicant or bidder, as provided in subsection (r) of Sec. 33 of this Order.

Since the partnership had for its object the division into two equal parts of the fishpond between the appellees and the appellant after it shall have been awarded to the latter, and therefore it envisaged the unauthorized transfer of one-half thereof to parties other than the applicant Casteel, it was dissolved by the approval of his application and the award to him of the fishpond. The approval was an event which made it unlawful for the business of the partnership to be carried on or for the members to carry it on in partnership.

The appellees, however, argue that in approving the appellant's application, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources likewise recognized and/or confirmed their property right to one-half of the fishpond by virtue of the contract of service, exhibit A. But the untenability of this argument would readily surface if one were to consider that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources did not do so for the simple reason that he does not possess the authority to violate the aforementioned prohibitory laws nor to exempt anyone from their operation.

However, assuming in gratia argumenti that the approval of Casteel's application, coupled with the foregoing prohibitory laws, was not enough to cause the dissolution ipso facto of their partnership, succeeding events reveal the intent of both parties to terminate the partnership by refusing to share the fishpond with the other.

On December 27, 1950 Casteel wrote17 the appellee Inocencia Deluao, expressing his desire to divide the fishpond so that he could administer his own share, such division to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. By letter dated December 29, 1950,18 the appellee Felipe Deluao demurred to Casteel's proposition because there were allegedly no appropriate grounds to support the same and, moreover, the conflict over the fishpond had not been finally resolved.

The appellant wrote on January 4, 1951 a last letter19 to the appellee Felipe Deluao wherein the former expressed his determination to administer the fishpond himself because the decision of the Government was in his favor and the only reason why administration had been granted to the Deluaos was because he was indebted to them. In the same letter, the appellant forbade Felipe Deluao from sending the couple's encargado, Jesus Donesa, to the fishpond. In reply thereto, Felipe Deluao wrote a letter20 dated January 5, 1951 in which he reiterated his refusal to grant the administration of the fishpond to the appellant, stating as a ground his belief "that only the competent agencies of the government are in a better position to render any equitable arrangement relative to the present case; hence, any action we may privately take may not meet the procedure of legal order."

Inasmuch as the erstwhile partners articulated in the aforecited letters their respective resolutions not to share the fishpond with each other — in direct violation of the undertaking for which they have established their partnership — each must be deemed to have expressly withdrawn from the partnership, thereby causing its dissolution pursuant to art. 1830(2) of the Civil Code which provides, inter alia, that dissolution is caused "by the express will of any partner at any time."

In this jurisdiction, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources possesses executive and administrative powers with regard to the survey, classification, lease, sale or any other form of concession or disposition and management of the lands of the public domain, and, more specifically, with regard to the grant or withholding of licenses, permits, leases and contracts over portions of the public domain to be utilized as fishponds.21, Thus, we held in Pajo, et al. vs. Ago, et al. (L-15414, June 30, 1960), and reiterated in Ganitano vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. (L-21167, March 31, 1966), that

... [T]he powers granted to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce (Natural Resources) by law regarding the disposition of public lands such as granting of licenses, permits, leases, and contracts, or approving, rejecting, reinstating, or cancelling applications, or deciding conflicting applications, are all executive and administrative in nature. It is a well-recognized principle that purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the courts (Coloso v. Board of Accountancy, G.R. No. L-5750, April 20, 1953). In general, courts have no supervising power over the proceedings and action of the administrative departments of the government. This is generally true with respect to acts involving the exercise of judgment or discretion, and findings of fact. (54 Am. Jur. 558-559) Findings of fact by an administrative board or official, following a hearing, are binding upon the courts and will not be disturbed except where the board or official has gone beyond his statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers or clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty or with grave abuse of discretion... (emphasis supplied)

In the case at bar, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources gave due course to the appellant's fishpond application 1717 and awarded to him the possession of the area in question. In view of the finality of the Secretary's decision in DANR Cases 353 and 353-B, and considering the absence of any proof that the said official exceeded his statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers, or acted with arbitrariness and in disregard of his duty, or with grave abuse of discretion, we can do no less than respect and maintain unfettered his official acts in the premises. It is a salutary rule that the judicial department should not dictate to the executive department what to do with regard to the administration

and disposition of the public domain which the law has entrusted to its care and administration. Indeed, courts cannot superimpose their discretion on that of the land department and compel the latter to do an act which involves the exercise of judgment and discretion.22

Therefore, with the view that we take of this case, and even assuming that the injunction was properly issued because present all the requisite grounds for its issuance, its continuation, and, worse, its declaration as permanent, was improper in the face of the knowledge later acquired by the lower court that it was the appellant's application over the fishpond which was given due course. After the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved the appellant's application, he became to all intents and purposes the legal permittee of the area with the corresponding right to possess, occupy and enjoy the same. Consequently, the lower court erred in issuing the preliminary mandatory injunction. We cannot overemphasize that an injunction should not be granted to take property out of the possession and control of one party and place it in the hands of another whose title has not been clearly established by law.23

However, pursuant to our holding that there was a partnership between the parties for the exploitation of the fishpond before it was awarded to Casteel, this case should be remanded to the lower court for the reception of evidence relative to an accounting from November 25, 1949 to September 15, 1950, in order for the court to determine (a) the profits realized by the partnership, (b) the share (in the profits) of Casteel as industrial partner, (e) the share (in the profits) of Deluao as capitalist partner, and (d) whether the amounts totalling about P27,000 advanced by Deluao to Casteel for the development and improvement of the fishpond have already been liquidated. Besides, since the appellee Inocencia Deluao continued in possession and enjoyment of the fishpond even after it was awarded to Casteel, she did so no longer in the concept of a capitalist partner but merely as creditor of the appellant, and therefore, she must likewise submit in the lower court an accounting of the proceeds of the sales of all the fishes harvested from the fishpond from September 16, 1950 until Casteel shall have been finally given the possession and enjoyment of the same. In the event that the appellee Deluao has received more than her lawful credit of P27,000 (or whatever amounts have been advanced to Casteel), plus 6% interest thereon per annum, then she should reimburse the excess to the appellant.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the lower court is set aside. Another judgment is hereby rendered: (1) dissolving the injunction issued against the appellant, (2) placing the latter back in possession of the fishpond in litigation, and (3) remanding this case to the court of origin for the reception of evidence relative to the accounting that the parties must perforce render in the premises, at the termination of which the court shall render judgment accordingly. The appellant's counterclaim is dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs.


Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 143340 August 15, 2001

LILIBETH SUNGA-CHAN and CECILIA SUNGA, petitioners, vs.LAMBERTO T. CHUA, respondent.

GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated January 31, 2000 in the case entitled "Lamberto T. Chua vs. Lilibeth Sunga Chan and Cecilia Sunga" and of the Resolution dated May 23, 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration of herein petitioners Lilibeth Sunga and Cecilia Sunga (hereafter collectively referred to as petitioners).

The pertinent facts of this case are as follows:

On June 22, 1992, Lamberto T. Chua (hereafter respondent) filed a complaint against Lilibeth Sunga Chan (hereafter petitioner Lilibeth) and Cecilia Sunga (hereafter petitioner Cecilia), daughter and wife, respectively of the deceased Jacinto L. Sunga (hereafter Jacinto), for "Winding Up of Partnership Affairs, Accounting, Appraisal and Recovery of Shares and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Attachment" with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte.

Respondent alleged that in 1977, he verbally entered into a partnership with Jacinto in the distribution of Shellane Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in Manila. For business convenience, respondent and Jacinto allegedly agreed to register the business name of their partnership, SHELLITE GAS APPLIANCE CENTER (hereafter Shellite), under the name of Jacinto as a sole proprietorship. Respondent allegedly delivered his initial capital contribution of P100,000.00 to Jacinto while the latter in turn produced P100,000.00 as his counterpart contribution, with the intention that the profits would be equally divided between them. The partnership allegedly had Jacinto as manager, assisted by Josephine Sy (hereafter Josephine), a sister of the wife respondent, Erlinda Sy. As compensation, Jacinto would receive a manager's fee or remuneration of 10% of

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_143340_2001.html#fnt1

the gross profit and Josephine would receive 10% of the net profits, in addition to her wages and other remuneration from the business.

Allegedly, from the time that Shellite opened for business on July 8, 1977, its business operation went quite and was profitable. Respondent claimed that he could attest to success of their business because of the volume of orders and deliveries of filled Shellane cylinder tanks supplied by Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation. While Jacinto furnished respondent with the merchandise inventories, balance sheets and net worth of Shellite from 1977 to 1989, respondent however suspected that the amount indicated in these documents were understated and undervalued by Jacinto and Josephine for their own selfish reasons and for tax avoidance.

Upon Jacinto's death in the later part of 1989, his surviving wife, petitioner Cecilia and particularly his daughter, petitioner Lilibeth, took over the operations, control, custody, disposition and management of Shellite without respondent's consent. Despite respondent's repeated demands upon petitioners for accounting, inventory, appraisal, winding up and restitution of his net shares in the partnership, petitioners failed to comply. Petitioner Lilibeth allegedly continued the operations of Shellite, converting to her own use and advantage its properties.

On March 31, 1991, respondent claimed that after petitioner Lilibeth ran out the alibis and reasons to evade respondent's demands, she disbursed out of the partnership funds the amount of P200,000.00 and partially paid the same to respondent. Petitioner Lilibeth allegedly informed respondent that the P200,000.00 represented partial payment of the latter's share in the partnership, with a promise that the former would make the complete inventory and winding up of the properties of the business establishment. Despite such commitment, petitioners allegedly failed to comply with their duty to account, and continued to benefit from the assets and income of Shellite to the damage and prejudice of respondent.

On December 19, 1992, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Manila, not the Regional Trial Court in Zamboanga del Norte had jurisdiction over the action. Respondent opposed the motion to dismiss.

On January 12, 1993, the trial court finding the complaint sufficient in from and substance denied the motion to dismiss.

On January 30, 1993, petitioners filed their Answer with Compulsory Counter-claims, contending that they are not liable for partnership shares, unreceived income/profits, interests, damages and attorney's fees, that respondent does not have a cause of action against them, and that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action, the SEC being the agency that has original and

exclusive jurisdiction over the case. As counterclaim, petitioner sought attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

On August 2, 1993, petitioner filed a second Motion to Dismiss this time on the ground that the claim for winding up of partnership affairs, accounting and recovery of shares in partnership affairs, accounting and recovery of shares in partnership assets/properties should be dismissed and prosecuted against the estate of deceased Jacinto in a probate or intestate proceeding.

On August 16, 1993, the trial denied the second motion to dismiss for lack of merit.

On November 26, 1993, petitioners filed their Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 32499 questioning the denial of the motion to dismiss.

On November 29, 1993, petitioners filed with the trial court a Motion to Suspend Pre-trial Conference.

On December 13, 1993, the trial court granted the motion to suspend pre-trial conference.

On November 15, 1994, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of merit.

On January 16, 1995, this Court denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner, "as petitioners failed to show that a reversible error was committed by the appellate court."2

On February 20, 1995, entry of judgment was made by the Clerk of Court and the case was remanded to the trial court on April 26, 1995.

On September 25, 1995, the trial court terminated the pre-trial conference and set the hearing of the case of January 17, 1996. Respondent presented his evidence while petitioners were considered to have waived their right to present evidence for their failure to attend the scheduled date for reception of evidence despite notice.

On October 7, 1997, the trial court rendered its Decision ruling for respondent. The dispositive of the Decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, as follows:


(1) DIRECTING them to render an accounting in acceptable form under accounting procedures and standards of the properties, assets, income and profits of the Shellite Gas Appliance Center Since the time of death of Jacinto L. Sunga, from whom they continued the business operations including all businesses derived from Shellite Gas Appliance Center, submit an inventory, and appraisal of all these properties, assets, income, profits etc. to the Court and to plaintiff for approval or disapproval;

(2) ORDERING them to return and restitute to the partnership any and all properties, assets, income and profits they misapplied and converted to their own use and advantage the legally pertain to the plaintiff and account for the properties mentioned in pars. A and B on pages 4-5 of this petition as basis;

(3) DIRECTING them to restitute and pay to the plaintiff ½ shares and interest of the plaintiff in the partnership of the listed properties, assets and good will (sic) in schedules A, B and C, on pages 4-5 of the petition;

(4) ORDERING them to pay the plaintiff earned but unreceived income and profits from the partnership from 1988 to May 30, 1992, when the plaintiff learned of the closure of the store the sum of P35,000.00 per month, with legal rate of interest until fully paid;

(5) ORDERING them to wind up the affairs of the partnership and terminate its business activities pursuant to law, after delivering to the plaintiff all the ½ interest, shares, participation and equity in the partnership, or the value thereof in money or money's worth, if the properties are not physically divisible;

(6) FINDING them especially Lilibeth Sunga-Chan guilty of breach of trust and in bad faith and hold them liable to the plaintiff the sum of P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages; and,

(7) DIRECTING them to reimburse and pay the sum of P25,000.00 as attorney's (sic) and P25,000.00 as litigation expenses.

NO special pronouncements as to COSTS.

SO ORDERED."3

On October 28, 1997, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal with the trial court, appealing the case to the Court of Appeals.

On January 31, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is dismissed. The appealed decision is AFFIRMED in all respects."4

On May 23, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner.

Hence, this petition wherein petitioner relies upon following grounds:

"1. The Court of Appeals erred in making a legal conclusion that there existed a partnership between respondent Lamberto T. Chua and the late Jacinto L. Sunga upon the latter'' invitation and offer and that upon his death the partnership assets and business were taken over by petitioners.

2. The Court of Appeals erred in making the legal conclusion that laches and/or prescription did not apply in the instant case.

3. The Court of Appeals erred in making the legal conclusion that there was competent and credible evidence to warrant the finding of a partnership, and assuming arguendo that indeed there was a partnership, the finding of highly exaggerated amounts or values in the partnership assets and profits."5

Petitioners question the correctness of the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that a partnership existed between respondent and Jacinto from 1977 until Jacinto's death. In the absence of any written document to show such partnership between respondent and Jacinto, petitioners argues that these courts were proscribes from hearing the testimonies of respondent and his witness, Josephine, to prove the alleged partnership three years after Jacinto's death. To support this argument, petitioners invoke the "Dead Man's Statute' or "Survivorship Rule" under Section 23, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court that provides:

"SEC. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. – Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person, or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any




matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind."

Petitioners thus implore this Court to rule that the testimonies of respondent and his alter ego, Josephine, should not have been admitted to prove certain claims against a deceased person (Jacinto), now represented by petitioners.

We are not persuaded.

A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where immovable property of real rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall necessary.6 Hence, based on the intention of the parties, as gathered from the facts and ascertained from their language and conduct, a verbal contract of partnership may arise.7 The essential profits that must be proven to that a partnership was agreed upon are (1) mutual contribution to a common stock, and (2) a joint interest in the profits.8 Understandably so, in view of the absence of the written contract of partnership between respondent and Jacinto, respondent resorted to the introduction of documentary and testimonial evidence to prove said partnership. The crucial issue to settle then is to whether or not the "Dead Man's Statute" applies to this case so as to render inadmissible respondent's testimony and that of his witness, Josephine.

The "Dead Man's Statute" provides that if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction.9 But before this rule can be successfully invoked to bar the introduction of testimonial evidence, it is necessary that:

"1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to case or persons in whose behalf a case in prosecuted.

2. The action is against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person or a person of unsound mind;

3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against person of unsound mind;

4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact of which occurred before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind."10

Two reasons forestall the application of the "Dead Man's Statute" to this case.

First, petitioners filed a compulsory counterclaim11 against respondents in their answer before the trial court, and with the filing of their counterclaim, petitioners themselves effectively removed this case from the ambit of the "Dead Man's Statute".12 Well entrenched is the rule that when it is the executor or administrator or representatives of the estates that sets up the counterclaim, the plaintiff, herein respondent, may testify to occurrences before the death of the deceased to defeat the counterclaim.13 Moreover, as defendant in the counterclaim, respondent is not disqualified from testifying as to matters of facts occurring before the death of the deceased, said action not having been brought against but by the estate or representatives of the deceased.14

Second, the testimony of Josephine is not covered by the "Dead Man's Statute" for the simple reason that she is not "a party or assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted." Records show that respondent offered the testimony of Josephine to establish the existence of the partnership between respondent and Jacinto. Petitioners' insistence that Josephine is the alter ego of respondent does not make her an assignor because the term "assignor" of a party means "assignor of a cause of action which has arisen, and not the assignor of a right assigned before any cause of action has arisen."15 Plainly then, Josephine is merely a witness of respondent, the latter being the party plaintiff.

We are not convinced by petitioners' allegation that Josephine's testimony lacks probative value because she was allegedly coerced coerced by respondent, her brother-in-law, to testify in his favor, Josephine merely declared in court that she was requested by respondent to testify and that if she were not requested to do so she would not have testified. We fail to see how we can conclude from this candid admission that Josephine's testimony is involuntary when she did not in any way categorically say that she was forced to be a witness of respondent.

Also, the fact that Josephine is the sister of the wife of respondent does not diminish the value of her testimony since relationship per se, without more, does not affect the credibility of witnesses.16

Petitioners' reliance alone on the "Dead Man's Statute" to defeat respondent's claim cannot prevail over the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that a partnership was established between respondent and Jacinto. Based not only on the testimonial evidence, but the documentary evidence as well, the trial court and the Court of Appeals considered the evidence for respondent as sufficient to prove the formation of partnership, albeit an informal one.

Notably, petitioners did not present any evidence in their favor during trial. By the weight of judicial precedents, a factual matter like the finding of the existence of a partnership between respondent and Jacinto cannot be inquired into by this Court on review.17 This Court can no longer be tasked to go over the proofs presented by













the parties and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the trial court and the appellate court were correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence of one party or the other.18 It must be also pointed out that petitioners failed to attend the presentation of evidence of respondent. Petitioners cannot now turn to this Court to question the admissibility and authenticity of the documentary evidence of respondent when petitioners failed to object to the admissibility of the evidence at the time that such evidence was offered.19

With regard to petitioners' insistence that laches and/or prescription should have extinguished respondent's claim, we agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the action for accounting filed by respondents three (3) years after Jacinto's death was well within the prescribed period. The Civil Code provides that an action to enforce an oral contract prescribes in six (6) years20 while the right to demand an accounting for a partner's interest as against the person continuing the business accrues at the date of dissolution, in the absence of any contrary agreement.21 Considering that the death of a partner results in the dissolution of the partnership22, in this case, it was Jacinto's death that respondent as the surviving partner had the right to an account of his interest as against petitioners. It bears stressing that while Jacinto's death dissolved the partnership, the dissolution did not immediately terminate the partnership. The Civil Code23 expressly provides that upon dissolution, the partnership continues and its legal personality is retained until the complete winding up of its business, culminating in its termination.24

In a desperate bid to cast doubt on the validity of the oral partnership between respondent and Jacinto, petitioners maintain that said partnership that had initial capital of P200,000.00 should have been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) since registration is mandated by the Civil Code, True, Article 1772 of the Civil Code requires that partnerships with a capital of P3,000.00 or more must register with the SEC, however, this registration requirement is not mandatory. Article 1768 of the Civil Code25 explicitly provides that the partnership retains its juridical personality even if it fails to register. The failure to register the contract of partnership does not invalidate the same as among the partners, so long as the contract has the essential requisites, because the main purpose of registration is to give notice to third parties, and it can be assumed that the members themselves knew of the contents of their contract.26 In the case at bar, non-compliance with this directory provision of the law will not invalidate the partnership considering that the totality of the evidence proves that respondent and Jacinto indeed forged the partnership in question.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED and the appealed decision is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.1âwphi1.nêthip










Partnership 2.doc

Documents

Transcript of Partnership 2.doc