2 Whether the properties that were commonly used in the operation of Allied Air Freight belonged to the alleged partnership business RULING Article

2 whether the properties that were commonly used in

This preview shows page 3 - 6 out of 10 pages.

2. Whether the properties that were commonly used in the operation of Allied Air Freight belonged to the alleged partnership business.
Background image
RULING:Article 1767 of the New Civil Code defines the contract of partnership: Art. 1767. By the contractof partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry toa common fund, with the intention of dividing the proceeds among themselves.A cursory examination of the evidences presented no proof that a partnership, whether oral or written had been constituted. In fact, those movables brought by the plaintiff for the use in the operation of the business remain registered in her name.While there may have been co-ownership or co-possession of some items and/or any sharing of proceeds by way of advances received by both plaintiff and the defendant, these are not indicative and supportive of the existence of any partnership between them. Art. 1769 par. 2 provides: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” Besides, the alleged profit was a difference found after valuating the assets and not arising fromthe real operation of the business. In accounting procedures, strictly, this could not be profit but a net worth.G.R. No. 134559 December 9, 1999ANTONIA TORRES assisted by her husband, ANGELO TORRES; and EMETERIA BARING, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and MANUEL TORRES, respondents.1.)In 1969, sisters Antonia Torres and Emeteria Baring entered into a joint venture agreement with Manuel Torres. 2.)Under the agreement, the sisters agreed to execute a deed of sale in favor Manuel over a parcel of land, 3.) the sisters received no cash payment from Manuel but the promise of profits (60% for the sisters and 40% for Manuel) – said parcel of land is to be developed as a subdivision.4.)Manuel then had the title of the land transferred in his name and he subsequently mortgaged the property.
Background image
5.) He used the proceeds from the mortgage to start building roads, curbs and gutters.6.) Manuel also contracted an engineering firm for the building of housing units. But due to adverse claims in the land, prospective buyers were scared off and the subdivision project eventually failed.7.) petitioners filed a criminal case for estafa against respondent and his wife, who were however acquitted.8.) The sisters then filed a civil case against Manuel for damages equivalent to 60% of the valueof the property, which according to the sisters, is what’s due them as per the contract. Petitionersdeny having formed a partnership with respondent. They contend that the Joint Venture Agreement and the earlier Deed of Sale, both of which were the bases of the appellate court's finding of a partnership, were void.
Background image
Image of page 6

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture