Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. No. 133-J May 31, 1982
BERNARDITA R. MACARIOLA, complainant,
vs.
HONORABLE ELIAS B. ASUNCION, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, respondent.

MAKASIAR, J:
In a verified complaint dated August 6, 1968 Bernardita R. Macariola charged respondent Judge
Elias B. Asuncion of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, now Associate Justice of the Court of
Appeals, with "acts unbecoming a judge."
The factual setting of the case is stated in the report dated May 27, 1971 of then Associate Justice
Cecilia Muoz Palma of the Court of Appeals now retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, to
whom this case was referred on October 28, 1968 for investigation, thus:
Civil Case No. 3010 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte was a complaint for
partition filed by Sinforosa R. Bales, Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto
Reyes, Adela Reyes, and Priscilla Reyes, plaintiffs, against Bernardita R. Macariola,
defendant, concerning the properties left by the deceased Francisco Reyes, the
common father of the plaintiff and defendant.
In her defenses to the complaint for partition, Mrs. Macariola alleged among other
things that; a) plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales was not a daughter of the deceased
Francisco Reyes; b) the only legal heirs of the deceased were defendant Macariola,
she being the only offspring of the first marriage of Francisco Reyes with Felisa
Espiras, and the remaining plaintiffs who were the children of the deceased by his
second marriage with Irene Ondez; c) the properties left by the deceased were all the
conjugal properties of the latter and his first wife, Felisa Espiras, and no properties
were acquired by the deceased during his second marriage; d) if there was any
partition to be made, those conjugal properties should first be partitioned into two
parts, and one part is to be adjudicated solely to defendant it being the share of the
latter's deceased mother, Felisa Espiras, and the other half which is the share of the
deceased Francisco Reyes was to be divided equally among his children by his two
marriages.
On June 8, 1963, a decision was rendered by respondent Judge Asuncion in Civil
Case 3010, the dispositive portion of which reads:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court, upon

a preponderance of evidence, finds and so holds, and hereby renders
judgment (1) Declaring the plaintiffs Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita
Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes and Priscilla Reyes as the only
children legitimated by the subsequent marriage of Francisco Reyes
Diaz to Irene Ondez; (2) Declaring the plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales to
have been an illegitimate child of Francisco Reyes Diaz; (3) Declaring
Lots Nos. 4474, 4475, 4892, 5265, 4803, 4581, 4506 and 1/4 of Lot
1145 as belonging to the conjugal partnership of the spouses
Francisco Reyes Diaz and Felisa Espiras; (4) Declaring Lot No. 2304
and 1/4 of Lot No. 3416 as belonging to the spouses Francisco
Reyes Diaz and Irene Ondez in common partnership; (5) Declaring
that 1/2 of Lot No. 1184 as belonging exclusively to the deceased
Francisco Reyes Diaz; (6) Declaring the defendant Bernardita R.
Macariola, being the only legal and forced heir of her mother Felisa
Espiras, as the exclusive owner of one-half of each of Lots Nos.
4474, 4475, 4892, 5265, 4803, 4581, 4506; and the remaining onehalf (1/2) of each of said Lots Nos. 4474, 4475, 4892, 5265, 4803,
4581, 4506 and one-half (1/2) of one-fourth (1/4) of Lot No. 1154 as
belonging to the estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz; (7) Declaring Irene
Ondez to be the exclusive owner of one-half (1/2) of Lot No. 2304
and one-half (1/2) of one-fourth (1/4) of Lot No. 3416; the remaining
one-half (1/2) of Lot 2304 and the remaining one-half (1/2) of onefourth (1/4) of Lot No. 3416 as belonging to the estate of Francisco
Reyes Diaz; (8) Directing the division or partition of the estate of
Francisco Reyes Diaz in such a manner as to give or grant to Irene
Ondez, as surviving widow of Francisco Reyes Diaz, a hereditary
share of. one-twelfth (1/12) of the whole estate of Francisco Reyes
Diaz (Art. 996 in relation to Art. 892, par 2, New Civil Code), and the
remaining portion of the estate to be divided among the plaintiffs
Sinforosa R. Bales, Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto
Reyes, Adela Reyes, Priscilla Reyes and defendant Bernardita R.
Macariola, in such a way that the extent of the total share of plaintiff
Sinforosa R. Bales in the hereditary estate shall not exceed the
equivalent of two-fifth (2/5) of the total share of any or each of the
other plaintiffs and the defendant (Art. 983, New Civil Code), each of
the latter to receive equal shares from the hereditary estate, (Ramirez
vs. Bautista, 14 Phil. 528; Diancin vs. Bishop of Jaro, O.G. [3rd Ed.]
p. 33); (9) Directing the parties, within thirty days after this judgment
shall have become final to submit to this court, for approval a project
of partition of the hereditary estate in the proportion above indicated,
and in such manner as the parties may, by agreement, deemed
convenient and equitable to them taking into consideration the
location, kind, quality, nature and value of the properties involved;
(10) Directing the plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales and defendant
Bernardita R. Macariola to pay the costs of this suit, in the proportion
of one-third (1/3) by the first named and two-thirds (2/3) by the
second named; and (I 1) Dismissing all other claims of the parties [pp
27-29 of Exh. C].

The decision in civil case 3010 became final for lack of an appeal, and on October
16, 1963, a project of partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion which is marked
Exh. A. Notwithstanding the fact that the project of partition was not signed by the
parties themselves but only by the respective counsel of plaintiffs and defendant,
Judge Asuncion approved it in his Order dated October 23, 1963, which for
convenience is quoted hereunder in full:
The parties, through their respective counsels, presented to this
Court for approval the following project of partition:
COMES NOW, the plaintiffs and the defendant in the above-entitled
case, to this Honorable Court respectfully submit the following Project
of Partition:
l. The whole of Lots Nos. 1154, 2304 and 4506 shall belong
exclusively to Bernardita Reyes Macariola;
2. A portion of Lot No. 3416 consisting of 2,373.49 square meters
along the eastern part of the lot shall be awarded likewise to
Bernardita R. Macariola;
3. Lots Nos. 4803, 4892 and 5265 shall be awarded to Sinforosa
Reyes Bales;
4. A portion of Lot No. 3416 consisting of 1,834.55 square meters
along the western part of the lot shall likewise be awarded to
Sinforosa Reyes-Bales;
5. Lots Nos. 4474 and 4475 shall be divided equally among Luz
Reyes Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes
and Priscilla Reyes in equal shares;
6. Lot No. 1184 and the remaining portion of Lot No. 3416 after taking
the portions awarded under item (2) and (4) above shall be awarded
to Luz Reyes Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela
Reyes and Priscilla Reyes in equal shares, provided, however that
the remaining portion of Lot No. 3416 shall belong exclusively to
Priscilla Reyes.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Project of Partition
indicated above which is made in accordance with the decision of the
Honorable Court be approved.
Tacloban City, October 16, 1963.
(SGD) BONIFACIO RAMO Atty. for the Defendant Tacloban City
(SGD) ZOTICO A. TOLETE Atty. for the Plaintiff Tacloban City

While the Court thought it more desirable for all the parties to have
signed this Project of Partition, nevertheless, upon assurance of both
counsels of the respective parties to this Court that the Project of
Partition, as above- quoted, had been made after a conference and
agreement of the plaintiffs and the defendant approving the above
Project of Partition, and that both lawyers had represented to the
Court that they are given full authority to sign by themselves the
Project of Partition, the Court, therefore, finding the above-quoted
Project of Partition to be in accordance with law, hereby approves the
same. The parties, therefore, are directed to execute such papers,
documents or instrument sufficient in form and substance for the
vesting of the rights, interests and participations which were
adjudicated to the respective parties, as outlined in the Project of
Partition and the delivery of the respective properties adjudicated to
each one in view of said Project of Partition, and to perform such
other acts as are legal and necessary to effectuate the said Project of
Partition.
SO ORDERED.
Given in Tacloban City, this 23rd day of October, 1963.
(SGD) ELIAS B. ASUNCION Judge
EXH. B.
The above Order of October 23, 1963, was amended on November 11, 1963, only for
the purpose of giving authority to the Register of Deeds of the Province of Leyte to
issue the corresponding transfer certificates of title to the respective adjudicatees in
conformity with the project of partition (see Exh. U).
One of the properties mentioned in the project of partition was Lot 1184 or rather
one-half thereof with an area of 15,162.5 sq. meters. This lot, which according to the
decision was the exclusive property of the deceased Francisco Reyes, was
adjudicated in said project of partition to the plaintiffs Luz, Anacorita Ruperto, Adela,
and Priscilla all surnamed Reyes in equal shares, and when the project of partition
was approved by the trial court the adjudicatees caused Lot 1184 to be subdivided
into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E inclusive (Exh. V).
Lot 1184-D was conveyed to Enriqueta D. Anota, a stenographer in Judge Asuncion's
court (Exhs. F, F-1 and V-1), while Lot 1184-E which had an area of 2,172.5556 sq.
meters was sold on July 31, 1964 to Dr. Arcadio Galapon (Exh. 2) who was issued
transfer certificate of title No. 2338 of the Register of Deeds of the city of Tacloban
(Exh. 12).
On March 6, 1965, Dr. Arcadio Galapon and his wife Sold a portion of Lot 1184-E
with an area of around 1,306 sq. meters to Judge Asuncion and his wife, Victoria S.
Asuncion (Exh. 11), which particular portion was declared by the latter for taxation
purposes (Exh. F).

On August 31, 1966, spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon conveyed their
respective shares and interest in Lot 1184-E to "The Traders Manufacturing and
Fishing Industries Inc." (Exit 15 & 16). At the time of said sale the stockholders of the
corporation were Dominador Arigpa Tan, Humilia Jalandoni Tan, Jaime Arigpa Tan,
Judge Asuncion, and the latter's wife, Victoria S. Asuncion, with Judge Asuncion as
the President and Mrs. Asuncion as the secretary (Exhs. E-4 to E-7). The Articles of
Incorporation of "The Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc." which we
shall henceforth refer to as "TRADERS" were registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission only on January 9, 1967 (Exh. E) [pp. 378-385, rec.].
Complainant Bernardita R. Macariola filed on August 9, 1968 the instant complaint dated August 6,
1968 alleging four causes of action, to wit: [1] that respondent Judge Asuncion violated Article 1491,
paragraph 5, of the New Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot No. 1184-E which was
one of those properties involved in Civil Case No. 3010 decided by him; [2] that he likewise violated
Article 14, paragraphs I and 5 of the Code of Commerce, Section 3, paragraph H, of R.A. 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil
Service Rules, and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, by associating himself with the
Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., as a stockholder and a ranking officer while he
was a judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte; [3] that respondent was guilty of coddling an
impostor and acted in disregard of judicial decorum by closely fraternizing with a certain Dominador
Arigpa Tan who openly and publicly advertised himself as a practising attorney when in truth and in
fact his name does not appear in the Rolls of Attorneys and is not a member of the Philippine Bar;
and [4] that there was a culpable defiance of the law and utter disregard for ethics by respondent
Judge (pp. 1-7, rec.).
Respondent Judge Asuncion filed on September 24, 1968 his answer to which a reply was filed on
October 16, 1968 by herein complainant. In Our resolution of October 28, 1968, We referred this
case to then Justice Cecilia Muoz Palma of the Court of Appeals, for investigation, report and
recommendation. After hearing, the said Investigating Justice submitted her report dated May 27,
1971 recommending that respondent Judge should be reprimanded or warned in connection with the
first cause of action alleged in the complaint, and for the second cause of action, respondent should
be warned in case of a finding that he is prohibited under the law to engage in business. On the third
and fourth causes of action, Justice Palma recommended that respondent Judge be exonerated.
The records also reveal that on or about November 9 or 11, 1968 (pp. 481, 477, rec.), complainant
herein instituted an action before the Court of First Instance of Leyte, entitled "Bernardita R.
Macariola, plaintiff, versus Sinforosa R. Bales, et al., defendants," which was docketed as Civil Case
No. 4235, seeking the annulment of the project of partition made pursuant to the decision in Civil
Case No. 3010 and the two orders issued by respondent Judge approving the same, as well as the
partition of the estate and the subsequent conveyances with damages. It appears, however, that
some defendants were dropped from the civil case. For one, the case against Dr. Arcadio Galapon
was dismissed because he was no longer a real party in interest when Civil Case No. 4234 was
filed, having already conveyed on March 6, 1965 a portion of lot 1184-E to respondent Judge and on
August 31, 1966 the remainder was sold to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc.
Similarly, the case against defendant Victoria Asuncion was dismissed on the ground that she was
no longer a real party in interest at the time the aforesaid Civil Case No. 4234 was filed as the
portion of Lot 1184 acquired by her and respondent Judge from Dr. Arcadio Galapon was already
sold on August 31, 1966 to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing industries, Inc. Likewise, the
cases against defendants Serafin P. Ramento, Catalina Cabus, Ben Barraza Go, Jesus Perez,

Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., Alfredo R. Celestial and Pilar P. Celestial,
Leopoldo Petilla and Remedios Petilla, Salvador Anota and Enriqueta Anota and Atty. Zotico A.
Tolete were dismissed with the conformity of complainant herein, plaintiff therein, and her counsel.
On November 2, 1970, Judge Jose D. Nepomuceno of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, who was
directed and authorized on June 2, 1969 by the then Secretary (now Minister) of Justice and now
Minister of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile to hear and decide Civil Case No. 4234, rendered a
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
A. IN THE CASE AGAINST JUDGE ELIAS B. ASUNCION
(1) declaring that only Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Leyte has
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the issue of the legality and validity of the Project of
Partition [Exhibit "B"] and the two Orders [Exhibits "C" and "C- 3"] approving the
partition;
(2) dismissing the complaint against Judge Elias B. Asuncion;
(3) adjudging the plaintiff, Mrs. Bernardita R. Macariola to pay defendant Judge Elias
B. Asuncion,
(a) the sum of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [P400,000.00]
for moral damages;
(b) the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [P200,000.001
for exemplary damages;
(c) the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS [P50,000.00] for nominal
damages; and
(d) he sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS [PI0,000.00] for Attorney's
Fees.
B. IN THE CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT MARIQUITA
VILLASIN, FOR HERSELF AND FOR THE HEIRS OF THE
DECEASED GERARDO VILLASIN
(1) Dismissing the complaint against the defendants Mariquita Villasin and the heirs
of the deceased Gerardo Villasin;
(2) Directing the plaintiff to pay the defendants Mariquita Villasin and the heirs of
Gerardo Villasin the cost of the suit.
C. IN THE CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT SINFOROSA R.
BALES, ET AL., WHO WERE PLAINTIFFS IN CIVIL CASE NO. 3010

(1) Dismissing the complaint against defendants Sinforosa R. Bales, Adela R. Herrer,
Priscilla R. Solis, Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita R. Eng and Ruperto O. Reyes.
D. IN THE CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT BONIFACIO RAMO
(1) Dismissing the complaint against Bonifacio Ramo;
(2) Directing the plaintiff to pay the defendant Bonifacio Ramo the cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED [pp. 531-533, rec.]
It is further disclosed by the record that the aforesaid decision was elevated to the Court of Appeals
upon perfection of the appeal on February 22, 1971.
I
WE find that there is no merit in the contention of complainant Bernardita R. Macariola, under her
first cause of action, that respondent Judge Elias B. Asuncion violated Article 1491, paragraph 5, of
the New Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot No. 1184-E which was one of those
properties involved in Civil Case No. 3010. 'That Article provides:
Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or
judicial action, either in person or through the mediation of another:
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and
other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the
property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within
whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition
includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect
to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may
take part by virtue of their profession [emphasis supplied].
The prohibition in the aforesaid Article applies only to the sale or assignment of the property which is
the subject of litigation to the persons disqualified therein. WE have already ruled that "... for the
prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of
the litigation involving the property" (The Director of Lands vs. Ababa et al., 88 SCRA 513, 519
[1979], Rosario vda. de Laig vs. Court of Appeals, 86 SCRA 641, 646 [1978]).
In the case at bar, when the respondent Judge purchased on March 6, 1965 a portion of Lot 1184-E,
the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 which he rendered on June 8, 1963 was already final because
none of the parties therein filed an appeal within the reglementary period; hence, the lot in question
was no longer subject of the litigation. Moreover, at the time of the sale on March 6, 1965,
respondent's order dated October 23, 1963 and the amended order dated November 11,
1963 approving the October 16, 1963 project of partition made pursuant to the June 8, 1963
decision, had long become final for there was no appeal from said orders.

Furthermore, respondent Judge did not buy the lot in question on March 6, 1965 directly from the
plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 but from Dr. Arcadio Galapon who earlier purchased on July 31,
1964 Lot 1184-E from three of the plaintiffs, namely, Priscilla Reyes, Adela Reyes, and Luz R.
Bakunawa after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010. It may be recalled that Lot 1184 or
more specifically one-half thereof was adjudicated in equal shares to Priscilla Reyes, Adela Reyes,
Luz Bakunawa, Ruperto Reyes and Anacorita Reyes in the project of partition, and the same was
subdivided into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E. As aforestated, Lot 1184-E was sold
on July 31, 1964 to Dr. Galapon for which he was issued TCT No. 2338 by the Register of Deeds of
Tacloban City, and on March 6, 1965 he sold a portion of said lot to respondent Judge and his wife
who declared the same for taxation purposes only. The subsequent sale on August 31, 1966 by
spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon of their respective shares and interest in said Lot 1184-E to
the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., in which respondent was the president and
his wife was the secretary, took place long after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 and
of the subsequent two aforesaid orders therein approving the project of partition.
While it appears that complainant herein filed on or about November 9 or 11, 1968 an action before
the Court of First Instance of Leyte docketed as Civil Case No. 4234, seeking to annul the project of
partition and the two orders approving the same, as well as the partition of the estate and the
subsequent conveyances, the same, however, is of no moment.
The fact remains that respondent Judge purchased on March 6, 1965 a portion of Lot 1184-E from
Dr. Arcadio Galapon; hence, after the finality of the decision which he rendered on June 8, 1963 in
Civil Case No. 3010 and his two questioned orders dated October 23, 1963 and November 11, 1963.
Therefore, the property was no longer subject of litigation.
The subsequent filing on November 9, or 11, 1968 of Civil Case No. 4234 can no longer alter,
change or affect the aforesaid facts that the questioned sale to respondent Judge, now Court of
Appeals Justice, was effected and consummated long after the finality of the aforesaid decision or
orders.
Consequently, the sale of a portion of Lot 1184-E to respondent Judge having taken place over one
year after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 as well as the two orders approving the
project of partition, and not during the pendency of the litigation, there was no violation of paragraph
5, Article 1491 of the New Civil Code.
It is also argued by complainant herein that the sale on July 31, 1964 of Lot 1184-E to Dr. Arcadio
Galapon by Priscilla Reyes, Adela Reyes and Luz R. Bakunawa was only a mere scheme to conceal
the illegal and unethical transfer of said lot to respondent Judge as a consideration for the approval
of the project of partition. In this connection, We agree with the findings of the Investigating Justice
thus:
And so we are now confronted with this all-important question whether or not the
acquisition by respondent of a portion of Lot 1184-E and the subsequent transfer of
the whole lot to "TRADERS" of which respondent was the President and his wife the
Secretary, was intimately related to the Order of respondent approving the project of
partition, Exh. A.
Respondent vehemently denies any interest or participation in the transactions
between the Reyeses and the Galapons concerning Lot 1184-E, and he insists that

there is no evidence whatsoever to show that Dr. Galapon had acted, in the purchase
of Lot 1184-E, in mediation for him and his wife. (See p. 14 of Respondent's
Memorandum).
xxx xxx xxx
On this point, I agree with respondent that there is no evidence in the record showing
that Dr. Arcadio Galapon acted as a mere "dummy" of respondent in acquiring Lot
1184-E from the Reyeses. Dr. Galapon appeared to this investigator as a respectable
citizen, credible and sincere, and I believe him when he testified that he bought Lot
1184-E in good faith and for valuable consideration from the Reyeses without any
intervention of, or previous understanding with Judge Asuncion (pp. 391- 394, rec.).
On the contention of complainant herein that respondent Judge acted illegally in approving the
project of partition although it was not signed by the parties, We quote with approval the findings of
the Investigating Justice, as follows:
1. I agree with complainant that respondent should have required the signature of the
parties more particularly that of Mrs. Macariola on the project of partition submitted to
him for approval; however, whatever error was committed by respondent in that
respect was done in good faith as according to Judge Asuncion he was assured by
Atty. Bonifacio Ramo, the counsel of record of Mrs. Macariola, That he was
authorized by his client to submit said project of partition, (See Exh. B and tsn p. 24,
January 20, 1969). While it is true that such written authority if there was any, was
not presented by respondent in evidence, nor did Atty. Ramo appear to corroborate
the statement of respondent, his affidavit being the only one that was presented as
respondent's Exh. 10, certain actuations of Mrs. Macariola lead this investigator to
believe that she knew the contents of the project of partition, Exh. A, and that she
gave her conformity thereto. I refer to the following documents:
1) Exh. 9 Certified true copy of OCT No. 19520 covering Lot 1154 of the Tacloban
Cadastral Survey in which the deceased Francisco Reyes holds a "1/4 share" (Exh.
9-a). On tills certificate of title the Order dated November 11, 1963, (Exh. U)
approving the project of partition was duly entered and registered on November 26,
1963 (Exh. 9-D);
2) Exh. 7 Certified copy of a deed of absolute sale executed by Bernardita Reyes
Macariola onOctober 22, 1963, conveying to Dr. Hector Decena the one-fourth share
of the late Francisco Reyes-Diaz in Lot 1154. In this deed of sale the vendee stated
that she was the absolute owner of said one-fourth share, the same having been
adjudicated to her as her share in the estate of her father Francisco Reyes Diaz as
per decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte under case No. 3010 (Exh. 7-A).
The deed of sale was duly registered and annotated at the back of OCT 19520 on
December 3, 1963 (see Exh. 9-e).
In connection with the abovementioned documents it is to be noted that in the project
of partition dated October 16, 1963, which was approved by respondent on October
23, 1963, followed by an amending Order on November 11, 1963, Lot 1154 or rather
1/4 thereof was adjudicated to Mrs. Macariola. It is this 1/4 share in Lot 1154 which

complainant sold to Dr. Decena on October 22, 1963, several days after the
preparation of the project of partition.
Counsel for complainant stresses the view, however, that the latter sold her onefourth share in Lot 1154 by virtue of the decision in Civil Case 3010 and not because
of the project of partition, Exh. A. Such contention is absurd because from the
decision, Exh. C, it is clear that one-half of one- fourth of Lot 1154 belonged to the
estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz while the other half of said one-fourth was the share
of complainant's mother, Felisa Espiras; in other words, the decision did not
adjudicate the whole of the one-fourth of Lot 1154 to the herein complainant (see
Exhs. C-3 & C-4). Complainant became the owner of the entire one-fourth of Lot
1154 only by means of the project of partition, Exh. A. Therefore, if Mrs. Macariola
sold Lot 1154 on October 22, 1963, it was for no other reason than that she was wen
aware of the distribution of the properties of her deceased father as per Exhs. A and
B. It is also significant at this point to state that Mrs. Macariola admitted during the
cross-examination that she went to Tacloban City in connection with the sale of Lot
1154 to Dr. Decena (tsn p. 92, November 28, 1968) from which we can deduce that
she could not have been kept ignorant of the proceedings in civil case 3010 relative
to the project of partition.
Complainant also assails the project of partition because according to her the
properties adjudicated to her were insignificant lots and the least valuable.
Complainant, however, did not present any direct and positive evidence to prove the
alleged gross inequalities in the choice and distribution of the real properties when
she could have easily done so by presenting evidence on the area, location, kind, the
assessed and market value of said properties. Without such evidence there is
nothing in the record to show that there were inequalities in the distribution of the
properties of complainant's father (pp. 386389, rec.).
Finally, while it is. true that respondent Judge did not violate paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the New
Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot 1184-E which was in litigation in his court, it was,
however, improper for him to have acquired the same. He should be reminded of Canon 3 of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics which requires that: "A judge's official conduct should be free from the
appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the
performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach." And as
aptly observed by the Investigating Justice: "... it was unwise and indiscreet on the part of
respondent to have purchased or acquired a portion of a piece of property that was or had been in
litigation in his court and caused it to be transferred to a corporation of which he and his wife were
ranking officers at the time of such transfer. One who occupies an exalted position in the judiciary
has the duty and responsibility of maintaining the faith and trust of the citizenry in the courts of
justice, so that not only must he be truly honest and just, but his actuations must be such as not give
cause for doubt and mistrust in the uprightness of his administration of justice. In this particular case
of respondent, he cannot deny that the transactions over Lot 1184-E are damaging and render his
actuations open to suspicion and distrust. Even if respondent honestly believed that Lot 1184-E was
no longer in litigation in his court and that he was purchasing it from a third person and not from the
parties to the litigation, he should nonetheless have refrained from buying it for himself and
transferring it to a corporation in which he and his wife were financially involved, to avoid possible
suspicion that his acquisition was related in one way or another to his official actuations in civil case
3010. The conduct of respondent gave cause for the litigants in civil case 3010, the lawyers

practising in his court, and the public in general to doubt the honesty and fairness of his actuations
and the integrity of our courts of justice" (pp. 395396, rec.).
II
With respect to the second cause of action, the complainant alleged that respondent Judge violated
paragraphs 1 and 5, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce when he associated himself with the
Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. as a stockholder and a ranking officer, said
corporation having been organized to engage in business. Said Article provides that:
Article 14 The following cannot engage in commerce, either in person or by proxy,
nor can they hold any office or have any direct, administrative, or financial
intervention in commercial or industrial companies within the limits of the districts,
provinces, or towns in which they discharge their duties:
1. Justices of the Supreme Court, judges and officials of the department of public
prosecution in active service. This provision shall not be applicable to mayors,
municipal judges, and municipal prosecuting attorneys nor to those who by chance
are temporarily discharging the functions of judge or prosecuting attorney.
xxx xxx xxx
5. Those who by virtue of laws or special provisions may not engage in commerce in
a determinate territory.
It is Our considered view that although the aforestated provision is incorporated in the Code of
Commerce which is part of the commercial laws of the Philippines, it, however, partakes of the
nature of a political law as it regulates the relationship between the government and certain public
officers and employees, like justices and judges.
Political Law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with the organization and
operation of the governmental organs of the State and define the relations of the state with the
inhabitants of its territory (People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887, 897 [1922]). It may be recalled that
political law embraces constitutional law, law of public corporations, administrative law including the
law on public officers and elections. Specifically, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce partakes more
of the nature of an administrative law because it regulates the conduct of certain public officers and
employees with respect to engaging in business: hence, political in essence.
It is significant to note that the present Code of Commerce is the Spanish Code of Commerce of
1885, with some modifications made by the "Commission de Codificacion de las Provincias de
Ultramar," which was extended to the Philippines by the Royal Decree of August 6, 1888, and took
effect as law in this jurisdiction on December 1, 1888.
Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and later on from the United States
to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of this Code of Commerce must be deemed to have
been abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former
sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated,
unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.

Thus, We held in Roa vs. Collector of Customs (23 Phil. 315, 330, 311 [1912]) that:
By well-settled public law, upon the cession of territory by one nation to another,
either following a conquest or otherwise, ... those laws which are political in their
nature and pertain to the prerogatives of the former government immediately cease
upon the transfer of sovereignty. (Opinion, Atty. Gen., July 10, 1899).
While municipal laws of the newly acquired territory not in conflict with the, laws of
the new sovereign continue in force without the express assent or affirmative act of
the conqueror, the political laws do not. (Halleck's Int. Law, chap. 34, par. 14).
However, such political laws of the prior sovereignty as are not in conflict with the
constitution or institutions of the new sovereign, may be continued in force if the
conqueror shall so declare by affirmative act of the commander-in-chief during the
war, or by Congress in time of peace. (Ely's Administrator vs. United States, 171 U.S.
220, 43 L. Ed. 142). In the case of American and Ocean Ins. Cos. vs. 356 Bales of
Cotton (1 Pet. [26 U.S.] 511, 542, 7 L. Ed. 242), Chief Justice Marshall said:
On such transfer (by cession) of territory, it has never been held that
the relations of the inhabitants with each other undergo any change.
Their relations with their former sovereign are dissolved, and new
relations are created between them and the government which has
acquired their territory. The same act which transfers their country,
transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it; and the law which
may be denominated political, is necessarily changed, although that
which regulates the intercourse and general conduct of individuals,
remains in force, until altered by the newly- created power of the
State.
Likewise, in People vs. Perfecto (43 Phil. 887, 897 [1922]), this Court stated that: "It is a general
principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded
region are totally abrogated. "
There appears no enabling or affirmative act that continued the effectivity of the aforestated
provision of the Code of Commerce after the change of sovereignty from Spain to the United States
and then to the Republic of the Philippines. Consequently, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce has
no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the respondent, then Judge of the Court of First
Instance, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.
It is also argued by complainant herein that respondent Judge violated paragraph H, Section 3 of
Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which provides
that:
Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of
public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt
practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx

(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any

business, contract or transaction in connection with which he
intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is
prohibited by the Constitution or by any Iaw from having any interest.
Respondent Judge cannot be held liable under the aforestated paragraph because there is no
showing that respondent participated or intervened in his official capacity in the business or
transactions of the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. In the case at bar, the
business of the corporation in which respondent participated has obviously no relation or connection
with his judicial office. The business of said corporation is not that kind where respondent intervenes
or takes part in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance. As was held in one case
involving the application of Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code which has a similar prohibition on
public officers against directly or indirectly becoming interested in any contract or business in which it
is his official duty to intervene, "(I)t is not enough to be a public official to be subject to this crime; it is
necessary that by reason of his office, he has to intervene in said contracts or transactions; and,
hence, the official who intervenes in contracts or transactions which have no relation to his office
cannot commit this crime.' (People vs. Meneses, C.A. 40 O.G. 11th Supp. 134, cited by Justice
Ramon C. Aquino; Revised Penal Code, p. 1174, Vol. 11 [1976]).
It does not appear also from the records that the aforesaid corporation gained any undue advantage
in its business operations by reason of respondent's financial involvement in it, or that the
corporation benefited in one way or another in any case filed by or against it in court. It is undisputed
that there was no case filed in the different branches of the Court of First Instance of Leyte in which
the corporation was either party plaintiff or defendant except Civil Case No. 4234 entitled "Bernardita
R. Macariola, plaintiff, versus Sinforosa O. Bales, et al.," wherein the complainant herein sought to
recover Lot 1184-E from the aforesaid corporation. It must be noted, however, that Civil Case No.
4234 was filed only on November 9 or 11, 1968 and decided on November 2, 1970 by CFI Judge
Jose D. Nepomuceno when respondent Judge was no longer connected with the corporation, having
disposed of his interest therein on January 31, 1967.
Furthermore, respondent is not liable under the same paragraph because there is no provision in
both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions of the Philippines, nor is there an existing law expressly
prohibiting members of the Judiciary from engaging or having interest in any lawful business.
It may be pointed out that Republic Act No. 296, as amended, also known as the Judiciary Act of
1948, does not contain any prohibition to that effect. As a matter of fact, under Section 77 of said
law, municipal judges may engage in teaching or other vocation not involving the practice of law after
office hours but with the permission of the district judge concerned.
Likewise, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges from engaging in commerce is,
as heretofore stated, deemed abrogated automatically upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to
America, because it is political in nature.
Moreover, the prohibition in paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the New Civil Code against the purchase by
judges of a property in litigation before the court within whose jurisdiction they perform their duties,
cannot apply to respondent Judge because the sale of the lot in question to him took place after the
finality of his decision in Civil Case No. 3010 as well as his two orders approving the project of
partition; hence, the property was no longer subject of litigation.

In addition, although Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules made pursuant to the Civil
Service Act of 1959 prohibits an officer or employee in the civil service from engaging in any private
business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural or
industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of department, the same, however,
may not fall within the purview of paragraph h, Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
because the last portion of said paragraph speaks of a prohibition by the Constitution or law on any
public officer from having any interest in any business and not by a mere administrative rule or
regulation. Thus, a violation of the aforesaid rule by any officer or employee in the civil service, that
is, engaging in private business without a written permission from the Department Head may not
constitute graft and corrupt practice as defined by law.
On the contention of complainant that respondent Judge violated Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil
Service Rules, We hold that the Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. No. 2260) and the Civil Service Rules
promulgated thereunder, particularly Section 12 of Rule XVIII, do not apply to the members of the
Judiciary. Under said Section 12: "No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private
business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural or
industrial undertaking without a written permission from the Head of Department ..."
It must be emphasized at the outset that respondent, being a member of the Judiciary, is covered by
Republic Act No. 296, as amended, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948 and by Section 7,
Article X, 1973 Constitution.
Under Section 67 of said law, the power to remove or dismiss judges was then vested in the
President of the Philippines, not in the Commissioner of Civil Service, and only on two grounds,
namely, serious misconduct and inefficiency, and upon the recommendation of the Supreme Court,
which alone is authorized, upon its own motion, or upon information of the Secretary (now Minister)
of Justice to conduct the corresponding investigation. Clearly, the aforesaid section defines the
grounds and prescribes the special procedure for the discipline of judges.
And under Sections 5, 6 and 7, Article X of the 1973 Constitution, only the Supreme Court can
discipline judges of inferior courts as well as other personnel of the Judiciary.
It is true that under Section 33 of the Civil Service Act of 1959: "The Commissioner may, for ...
violation of the existing Civil Service Law and rules or of reasonable office regulations, or in the
interest of the service, remove any subordinate officer or employee from the service, demote him in
rank, suspend him for not more than one year without pay or fine him in an amount not exceeding
six months' salary." Thus, a violation of Section 12 of Rule XVIII is a ground for disciplinary action
against civil service officers and employees.
However, judges cannot be considered as subordinate civil service officers or employees subject to
the disciplinary authority of the Commissioner of Civil Service; for, certainly, the Commissioner is not
the head of the Judicial Department to which they belong. The Revised Administrative Code (Section
89) and the Civil Service Law itself state that the Chief Justice is the department head of the
Supreme Court (Sec. 20, R.A. No. 2260) [1959]); and under the 1973 Constitution, the Judiciary is
the only other or second branch of the government (Sec. 1, Art. X, 1973 Constitution). Besides, a
violation of Section 12, Rule XVIII cannot be considered as a ground for disciplinary action against
judges because to recognize the same as applicable to them, would be adding another ground for
the discipline of judges and, as aforestated, Section 67 of the Judiciary Act recognizes only two
grounds for their removal, namely, serious misconduct and inefficiency.

Moreover, under Section 16(i) of the Civil Service Act of 1959, it is the Commissioner of Civil Service
who has original and exclusive jurisdiction "(T)o decide, within one hundred twenty days, after
submission to it, all administrative cases against permanent officers and employees in the
competitive service, and, except as provided by law, to have final authority to pass upon their
removal, separation, and suspension and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline, and
efficiency of such officers and employees; and prescribe standards, guidelines and regulations
governing the administration of discipline" (emphasis supplied). There is no question that a judge
belong to the non-competitive or unclassified service of the government as a Presidential appointee
and is therefore not covered by the aforesaid provision. WE have already ruled that "... in interpreting
Section 16(i) of Republic Act No. 2260, we emphasized that only permanent officers and employees
who belong to the classified service come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner of
Civil Service" (Villaluz vs. Zaldivar, 15 SCRA 710,713 [1965], Ang-Angco vs. Castillo, 9 SCRA 619
[1963]).
Although the actuation of respondent Judge in engaging in private business by joining the Traders
Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. as a stockholder and a ranking officer, is not violative of
the provissions of Article 14 of the Code of Commerce and Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act as well as Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules promulgated pursuant to
the Civil Service Act of 1959, the impropriety of the same is clearly unquestionable because Canon
25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics expressly declares that:
A judge should abstain from making personal investments in enterprises which are
apt to be involved in litigation in his court; and, after his accession to the bench, he
should not retain such investments previously made, longer than a period sufficient
to enable him to dispose of them without serious loss. It is desirable that he should,
so far as reasonably possible, refrain from all relations which would normally tend to
arouse the suspicion that such relations warp or bias his judgment, or prevent his
impartial attitude of mind in the administration of his judicial duties. ...
WE are not, however, unmindful of the fact that respondent Judge and his wife had withdrawn on
January 31, 1967 from the aforesaid corporation and sold their respective shares to third parties,
and it appears also that the aforesaid corporation did not in anyway benefit in any case filed by or
against it in court as there was no case filed in the different branches of the Court of First Instance of
Leyte from the time of the drafting of the Articles of Incorporation of the corporation on March 12,
1966, up to its incorporation on January 9, 1967, and the eventual withdrawal of respondent on
January 31, 1967 from said corporation. Such disposal or sale by respondent and his wife of their
shares in the corporation only 22 days after the incorporation of the corporation, indicates that
respondent realized that early that their interest in the corporation contravenes the aforesaid Canon
25. Respondent Judge and his wife therefore deserve the commendation for their immediate
withdrawal from the firm after its incorporation and before it became involved in any court litigation
III
With respect to the third and fourth causes of action, complainant alleged that respondent was guilty
of coddling an impostor and acted in disregard of judicial decorum, and that there was culpable
defiance of the law and utter disregard for ethics. WE agree, however, with the recommendation of
the Investigating Justice that respondent Judge be exonerated because the aforesaid causes of
action are groundless, and WE quote the pertinent portion of her report which reads as follows:

The basis for complainant's third cause of action is the claim that respondent
associated and closely fraternized with Dominador Arigpa Tan who openly and
publicly advertised himself as a practising attorney (see Exhs. I, I-1 and J) when in
truth and in fact said Dominador Arigpa Tan does not appear in the Roll of Attorneys
and is not a member of the Philippine Bar as certified to in Exh. K.
The "respondent denies knowing that Dominador Arigpa Tan was an "impostor" and
claims that all the time he believed that the latter was a bona fide member of the bar.
I see no reason for disbelieving this assertion of respondent. It has been shown by
complainant that Dominador Arigpa Tan represented himself publicly as an attorneyat-law to the extent of putting up a signboard with his name and the words "Attorneyat Law" (Exh. I and 1- 1) to indicate his office, and it was but natural for respondent
and any person for that matter to have accepted that statement on its face value.
"Now with respect to the allegation of complainant that respondent is guilty of
fraternizing with Dominador Arigpa Tan to the extent of permitting his wife to be a
godmother of Mr. Tan's child at baptism (Exh. M & M-1), that fact even if true did not
render respondent guilty of violating any canon of judicial ethics as long as his
friendly relations with Dominador A. Tan and family did not influence his official
actuations as a judge where said persons were concerned. There is no tangible
convincing proof that herein respondent gave any undue privileges in his court to
Dominador Arigpa Tan or that the latter benefitted in his practice of law from his
personal relations with respondent, or that he used his influence, if he had any, on
the Judges of the other branches of the Court to favor said Dominador Tan.
Of course it is highly desirable for a member of the judiciary to refrain as much as
possible from maintaining close friendly relations with practising attorneys and
litigants in his court so as to avoid suspicion 'that his social or business relations or
friendship constitute an element in determining his judicial course" (par. 30, Canons
of Judicial Ethics), but if a Judge does have social relations, that in itself would not
constitute a ground for disciplinary action unless it be clearly shown that his social
relations be clouded his official actuations with bias and partiality in favor of his
friends (pp. 403-405, rec.).
In conclusion, while respondent Judge Asuncion, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, did
not violate any law in acquiring by purchase a parcel of land which was in litigation in his court and in
engaging in business by joining a private corporation during his incumbency as judge of the Court of
First Instance of Leyte, he should be reminded to be more discreet in his private and business
activities, because his conduct as a member of the Judiciary must not only be characterized with
propriety but must always be above suspicion.
WHEREFORE, THE RESPONDENT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS
HEREBY REMINDED TO BE MORE DISCREET IN HIS PRIVATE AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 126881

October 3, 2000

HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, petitioners,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and BENGUET LUMBER COMPANY, represented by its President TAN
ENG LAY,respondents.
DE LEON, JR., J.:
In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners pray for the reversal of the Decision 1 dated March
13, 1996 of the former Fifth Division2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47937, the
dispositive portion of which states:
THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the appealed decision is hereby set aside, and the
complaint dismissed.
The facts are:
Following the death of Tan Eng Kee on September 13, 1984, Matilde Abubo, the common-law
spouse of the decedent, joined by their children Teresita, Nena, Clarita, Carlos, Corazon and Elpidio,
collectively known as herein petitioners HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, filed suit against the decedent's
brother TAN ENG LAY on February 19, 1990. The complaint,3 docketed as Civil Case No. 1983-R in
the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City was for accounting, liquidation and winding up of the alleged
partnership formed after World War II between Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay. On March 18, 1991,
the petitioners filed an amended complaint4 impleading private respondent herein BENGUET
LUMBER COMPANY, as represented by Tan Eng Lay. The amended complaint was admitted by the
trial court in its Order dated May 3, 1991.5
The amended complaint principally alleged that after the second World War, Tan Eng Kee and Tan
Eng Lay, pooling their resources and industry together, entered into a partnership engaged in the
business of selling lumber and hardware and construction supplies. They named their enterprise
"Benguet Lumber" which they jointly managed until Tan Eng Kee's death. Petitioners herein averred
that the business prospered due to the hard work and thrift of the alleged partners. However, they
claimed that in 1981, Tan Eng Lay and his children caused the conversion of the partnership
"Benguet Lumber" into a corporation called "Benguet Lumber Company." The incorporation was
purportedly a ruse to deprive Tan Eng Kee and his heirs of their rightful participation in the profits of
the business. Petitioners prayed for accounting of the partnership assets, and the dissolution,
winding up and liquidation thereof, and the equal division of the net assets of Benguet Lumber.
After trial, Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 7 rendered judgment 6 on April 12, 1995, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
a) Declaring that Benguet Lumber is a joint venture which is akin to a particular partnership;
b) Declaring that the deceased Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay are joint adventurers and/or
partners in a business venture and/or particular partnership called Benguet Lumber and as
such should share in the profits and/or losses of the business venture or particular
partnership;

c) Declaring that the assets of Benguet Lumber are the same assets turned over to Benguet
Lumber Co. Inc. and as such the heirs or legal representatives of the deceased Tan Eng Kee
have a legal right to share in said assets;
d) Declaring that all the rights and obligations of Tan Eng Kee as joint adventurer and/or as
partner in a particular partnership have descended to the plaintiffs who are his legal heirs.
e) Ordering the defendant Tan Eng Lay and/or the President and/or General Manager of
Benguet Lumber Company Inc. to render an accounting of all the assets of Benguet Lumber
Company, Inc. so the plaintiffs know their proper share in the business;
f) Ordering the appointment of a receiver to preserve and/or administer the assets of
Benguet Lumber Company, Inc. until such time that said corporation is finally liquidated are
directed to submit the name of any person they want to be appointed as receiver failing in
which this Court will appoint the Branch Clerk of Court or another one who is qualified to act
as such.
g) Denying the award of damages to the plaintiffs for lack of proof except the expenses in
filing the instant case.
h) Dismissing the counter-claim of the defendant for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Private respondent sought relief before the Court of Appeals which, on March 13, 1996, rendered the
assailed decision reversing the judgment of the trial court. Petitioners' motion for
reconsideration7 was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution8 dated October 11, 1996.
Hence, the present petition.
As a side-bar to the proceedings, petitioners filed Criminal Case No. 78856 against Tan Eng Lay and
Wilborn Tan for the use of allegedly falsified documents in a judicial proceeding. Petitioners
complained that Exhibits "4" to "4-U" offered by the defendants before the trial court, consisting of
payrolls indicating that Tan Eng Kee was a mere employee of Benguet Lumber, were fake, based on
the discrepancy in the signatures of Tan Eng Kee. They also filed Criminal Cases Nos. 78857-78870
against Gloria, Julia, Juliano, Willie, Wilfredo, Jean, Mary and Willy, all surnamed Tan, for alleged
falsification of commercial documents by a private individual. On March 20, 1999, the Municipal Trial
Court of Baguio City, Branch 1, wherein the charges were filed, rendered judgment 9 dismissing the
cases for insufficiency of evidence.
In their assignment of errors, petitioners claim that:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO
PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE LATE TAN ENG KEE AND HIS BROTHER TAN ENG LAY
BECAUSE: (A) THERE WAS NO FIRM ACCOUNT; (B) THERE WAS NO FIRM
LETTERHEADS SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE; (C) THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF

PARTNERSHIP; (D) THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT AS TO PROFITS AND LOSSES; AND

(E) THERE WAS NO TIME FIXED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP (PAGE
13, DECISION).
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RELYING SOLELY ON THE SELFSERVING TESTIMONY OF RESPONDENT TAN ENG LAY THAT BENGUET LUMBER WAS
A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP AND THAT TAN ENG KEE WAS ONLY AN EMPLOYEE
THEREOF.
III
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE FOLLOWING
FACTS WHICH WERE DULY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF BOTH PARTIES DO NOT
SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTNERSHIP JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS NO
ARTICLES OF PARTNERSHIP DULY RECORDED BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION:
a. THAT THE FAMILIES OF TAN ENG KEE AND TAN ENG LAY WERE ALL LIVING
AT THE BENGUET LUMBER COMPOUND;
b. THAT BOTH TAN ENG LAY AND TAN ENG KEE WERE COMMANDING THE
EMPLOYEES OF BENGUET LUMBER;
c. THAT BOTH TAN ENG KEE AND TAN ENG LAY WERE SUPERVISING THE
EMPLOYEES THEREIN;
d. THAT TAN ENG KEE AND TAN ENG LAY WERE THE ONES DETERMINING
THE PRICES OF STOCKS TO BE SOLD TO THE PUBLIC; AND
e. THAT TAN ENG LAY AND TAN ENG KEE WERE THE ONES MAKING ORDERS
TO THE SUPPLIERS (PAGE 18, DECISION).
IV
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO
PARTNERSHIP JUST BECAUSE THE CHILDREN OF THE LATE TAN ENG KEE: ELPIDIO
TAN AND VERONICA CHOI, TOGETHER WITH THEIR WITNESS BEATRIZ TANDOC,
ADMITTED THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WHEN THE ESTABLISHMENT KNOWN IN
BAGUIO CITY AS BENGUET LUMBER WAS STARTED AS A PARTNERSHIP (PAGE 16-17,
DECISION).
V
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO
PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE LATE TAN ENG KEE AND HIS BROTHER TAN ENG LAY
BECAUSE THE PRESENT CAPITAL OR ASSETS OF BENGUET LUMBER IS DEFINITELY

MORE THAN P3,000.00 AND AS SUCH THE EXECUTION OF A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT

CREATING A PARTNERSHIP SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AND NO SUCH PUBLIC
INSTRUMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLEES (PAGE 17, DECISION).
As a premise, we reiterate the oft-repeated rule that findings of facts of the Court of Appeals will not
be disturbed on appeal if such are supported by the evidence.10 Our jurisdiction, it must be
emphasized, does not include review of factual issues. Thus:
Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a
judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme
Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law
which must be distinctly set forth.11 [emphasis supplied]
Admitted exceptions have been recognized, though, and when present, may compel us to analyze
the evidentiary basis on which the lower court rendered judgment. Review of factual issues is
therefore warranted:
(1) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;
(2) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
(3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly
mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
(4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
(5) when the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the case, and
such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(6) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts;
(7) when the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly
considered, will justify a different conclusion;
(8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;
(9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on
which they are based; and
(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of
evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record. 12
In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals ruled, to wit:
We note that the Court a quo over extended the issue because while the plaintiffs mentioned
only the existence of a partnership, the Court in turn went beyond that by justifying the
existence of a joint venture.

When mention is made of a joint venture, it would presuppose parity of standing between the
parties, equal proprietary interest and the exercise by the parties equally of the conduct of
the business, thus:
xxx

xxx

xxx

We have the admission that the father of the plaintiffs was not a partner of the Benguet
Lumber before the war. The appellees however argued that (Rollo, p. 104; Brief, p. 6) this is
because during the war, the entire stocks of the pre-war Benguet Lumber were confiscated if
not burned by the Japanese. After the war, because of the absence of capital to start a
lumber and hardware business, Lay and Kee pooled the proceeds of their individual
businesses earned from buying and selling military supplies, so that the common fund would
be enough to form a partnership, both in the lumber and hardware business. That Lay and
Kee actually established the Benguet Lumber in Baguio City, was even testified to by
witnesses. Because of the pooling of resources, the post-war Benguet Lumber was
eventually established. That the father of the plaintiffs and Lay were partners, is obvious from
the fact that: (1) they conducted the affairs of the business during Kee's lifetime, jointly, (2)
they were the ones giving orders to the employees, (3) they were the ones preparing orders
from the suppliers, (4) their families stayed together at the Benguet Lumber compound, and
(5) all their children were employed in the business in different capacities.
xxx

xxx

xxx

It is obvious that there was no partnership whatsoever. Except for a firm name, there was no
firm account, no firm letterheads submitted as evidence, no certificate of partnership, no
agreement as to profits and losses, and no time fixed for the duration of the partnership.
There was even no attempt to submit an accounting corresponding to the period after the
war until Kee's death in 1984. It had no business book, no written account nor any
memorandum for that matter and no license mentioning the existence of a partnership
[citation omitted].
Also, the exhibits support the establishment of only a proprietorship. The certification dated
March 4, 1971, Exhibit "2", mentioned co-defendant Lay as the only registered owner of the
Benguet Lumber and Hardware. His application for registration, effective 1954, in fact
mentioned that his business started in 1945 until 1985 (thereafter, the incorporation). The
deceased, Kee, on the other hand, was merely an employee of the Benguet Lumber
Company, on the basis of his SSS coverage effective 1958, Exhibit "3". In the Payrolls,
Exhibits "4" to "4-U", inclusive, for the years 1982 to 1983, Kee was similarly listed only as an
employee; precisely, he was on the payroll listing. In the Termination Notice, Exhibit "5", Lay
was mentioned also as the proprietor.
xxx

xxx

xxx

We would like to refer to Arts. 771 and 772, NCC, that a partner [sic] may be constituted in
any form, but when an immovable is constituted, the execution of a public instrument
becomes necessary. This is equally true if the capitalization exceeds P3,000.00, in which
case a public instrument is also necessary, and which is to be recorded with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. In this case at bar, we can easily assume that the business
establishment, which from the language of the appellees, prospered (pars. 5 & 9,

Complaint), definitely exceeded P3,000.00, in addition to the accumulation of real properties

and to the fact that it is now a compound. The execution of a public instrument, on the other
hand, was never established by the appellees.
And then in 1981, the business was incorporated and the incorporators were only Lay and
the members of his family. There is no proof either that the capital assets of the partnership,
assuming them to be in existence, were maliciously assigned or transferred by Lay,
supposedly to the corporation and since then have been treated as a part of the latter's
capital assets, contrary to the allegations in pars. 6, 7 and 8 of the complaint.
These are not evidences supporting the existence of a partnership:
1) That Kee was living in a bunk house just across the lumber store, and then in a room in
the bunk house in Trinidad, but within the compound of the lumber establishment, as testified
to by Tandoc; 2) that both Lay and Kee were seated on a table and were "commanding
people" as testified to by the son, Elpidio Tan; 3) that both were supervising the laborers, as
testified to by Victoria Choi; and 4) that Dionisio Peralta was supposedly being told by Kee
that the proceeds of the 80 pieces of the G.I. sheets were added to the business.
Partnership presupposes the following elements [citation omitted]: 1) a contract, either oral
or written. However, if it involves real property or where the capital is P3,000.00 or more, the
execution of a contract is necessary; 2) the capacity of the parties to execute the contract; 3)
money property or industry contribution; 4) community of funds and interest, mentioning
equality of the partners or one having a proportionate share in the benefits; and 5) intention
to divide the profits, being the true test of the partnership. The intention to join in the
business venture for the purpose of obtaining profits thereafter to be divided, must be
established. We cannot see these elements from the testimonial evidence of the appellees.
As can be seen, the appellate court disputed and differed from the trial court which had adjudged
that TAN ENG KEE and TAN ENG LAY had allegedly entered into a joint venture. In this connection,
we have held that whether a partnership exists is a factual matter; consequently, since the appeal is
brought to us under Rule 45, we cannot entertain inquiries relative to the correctness of the
assessment of the evidence by the court a quo.13 Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals and the trial
court had reached conflicting conclusions, perforce we must examine the record to determine if the
reversal was justified.
The primordial issue here is whether Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay were partners in Benguet
Lumber. A contract of partnership is defined by law as one where:
. . . two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common
fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.
Two or more persons may also form a partnership for the exercise of a profession. 14
Thus, in order to constitute a partnership, it must be established that (1) two or more persons
bound themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, and (2) they
intend to divide the profits among themselves.15 The agreement need not be formally
reduced into writing, since statute allows the oral constitution of a partnership, save in two
instances: (1) when immovable property or real rights are contributed, 16 and (2) when the

partnership has a capital of three thousand pesos or more.17 In both cases, a public
instrument is required.18 An inventory to be signed by the parties and attached to the public
instrument is also indispensable to the validity of the partnership whenever immovable
property is contributed to the partnership.19
The trial court determined that Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay had entered into a joint venture, which
it said is akin to a particular partnership.20 A particular partnership is distinguished from a joint
adventure, to wit:
(a) A joint adventure (an American concept similar to our joint accounts) is a sort of informal
partnership, with no firm name and no legal personality. In a joint account, the participating
merchants can transact business under their own name, and can be individually liable
therefor.
(b) Usually, but not necessarily a joint adventure is limited to a SINGLE TRANSACTION,
although the business of pursuing to a successful termination may continue for a number of
years; a partnership generally relates to a continuing business of various transactions of a
certain kind.21
A joint venture "presupposes generally a parity of standing between the joint co-ventures or partners,
in which each party has an equal proprietary interest in the capital or property contributed, and
where each party exercises equal rights in the conduct of the business." 22 Nonetheless, in Aurbach,
et. al. v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation, et. al.,23 we expressed the view that a joint
venture may be likened to a particular partnership, thus:
The legal concept of a joint venture is of common law origin. It has no precise legal
definition, but it has been generally understood to mean an organization formed for some
temporary purpose. (Gates v. Megargel, 266 Fed. 811 [1920]) It is hardly distinguishable
from the partnership, since their elements are similar community of interest in the
business, sharing of profits and losses, and a mutual right of control. (Blackner v. McDermott,
176 F. 2d. 498, [1949]; Carboneau v. Peterson, 95 P.2d., 1043 [1939]; Buckley v. Chadwick,
45 Cal. 2d. 183, 288 P.2d. 12 289 P.2d. 242 [1955]). The main distinction cited by most
opinions in common law jurisdiction is that the partnership contemplates a general business
with some degree of continuity, while the joint venture is formed for the execution of a single
transaction, and is thus of a temporary nature. (Tufts v. Mann. 116 Cal. App. 170, 2 P. 2d.
500 [1931]; Harmon v. Martin, 395 Ill. 595, 71 NE 2d. 74 [1947]; Gates v. Megargel 266 Fed.
811 [1920]). This observation is not entirely accurate in this jurisdiction, since under the Civil
Code, a partnership may be particular or universal, and a particular partnership may have for
its object a specific undertaking. (Art. 1783, Civil Code). It would seem therefore that under
Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of partnership and should thus be governed by the
law of partnerships. The Supreme Court has however recognized a distinction between
these two business forms, and has held that although a corporation cannot enter into a
partnership contract, it may however engage in a joint venture with others. (At p. 12, Tuazon
v. Bolaos, 95 Phil. 906 [1954]) (Campos and Lopez-Campos Comments, Notes and
Selected Cases, Corporation Code 1981).
Undoubtedly, the best evidence would have been the contract of partnership itself, or the articles of
partnership but there is none. The alleged partnership, though, was never formally organized. In
addition, petitioners point out that the New Civil Code was not yet in effect when the partnership was

allegedly formed sometime in 1945, although the contrary may well be argued that nothing
prevented the parties from complying with the provisions of the New Civil Code when it took effect
on August 30, 1950. But all that is in the past. The net effect, however, is that we are asked to
determine whether a partnership existed based purely on circumstantial evidence. A review of the
record persuades us that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the decision of the trial court. The
evidence presented by petitioners falls short of the quantum of proof required to establish a
partnership.
Unfortunately for petitioners, Tan Eng Kee has passed away. Only he, aside from Tan Eng Lay, could
have expounded on the precise nature of the business relationship between them. In the absence of
evidence, we cannot accept as an established fact that Tan Eng Kee allegedly contributed his
resources to a common fund for the purpose of establishing a partnership. The testimonies to that
effect of petitioners' witnesses is directly controverted by Tan Eng Lay. It should be noted that it is not
with the number of witnesses wherein preponderance lies;24 the quality of their testimonies is to be
considered. None of petitioners' witnesses could suitably account for the beginnings of Benguet
Lumber Company, except perhaps for Dionisio Peralta whose deceased wife was related to Matilde
Abubo.25 He stated that when he met Tan Eng Kee after the liberation, the latter asked the former to
accompany him to get 80 pieces of G.I. sheets supposedly owned by both brothers. 26 Tan Eng Lay,
however, denied knowledge of this meeting or of the conversation between Peralta and his
brother.27 Tan Eng Lay consistently testified that he had his business and his brother had his, that it
was only later on that his said brother, Tan Eng Kee, came to work for him. Be that as it may, coownership or co-possession (specifically here, of the G.I. sheets) is not an indicium of the existence
of a partnership.28
Besides, it is indeed odd, if not unnatural, that despite the forty years the partnership was allegedly
in existence, Tan Eng Kee never asked for an accounting. The essence of a partnership is that the
partners share in the profits and losses.29 Each has the right to demand an accounting as long as the
partnership exists.30 We have allowed a scenario wherein "[i]f excellent relations exist among the
partners at the start of the business and all the partners are more interested in seeing the firm grow
rather than get immediate returns, a deferment of sharing in the profits is perfectly plausible." 31 But in
the situation in the case at bar, the deferment, if any, had gone on too long to be plausible. A person
is presumed to take ordinary care of his concerns.32 As we explained in another case:
In the first place, plaintiff did not furnish the supposed P20,000.00 capital. In the second
place, she did not furnish any help or intervention in the management of the theatre. In the
third place, it does not appear that she has even demanded from defendant any accounting
of the expenses and earnings of the business. Were she really a partner, her first concern
should have been to find out how the business was progressing, whether the expenses were
legitimate, whether the earnings were correct, etc. She was absolutely silent with respect to
any of the acts that a partner should have done; all that she did was to receive her share of
P3,000.00 a month, which cannot be interpreted in any manner than a payment for the use
of the premises which she had leased from the owners. Clearly, plaintiff had always acted in
accordance with the original letter of defendant of June 17, 1945 (Exh. "A"), which shows
that both parties considered this offer as the real contract between them. 33 [emphasis
supplied]
A demand for periodic accounting is evidence of a partnership.34 During his lifetime, Tan Eng Kee
appeared never to have made any such demand for accounting from his brother, Tang Eng Lay.

This brings us to the matter of Exhibits "4" to "4-U" for private respondents, consisting of payrolls
purporting to show that Tan Eng Kee was an ordinary employee of Benguet Lumber, as it was then
called. The authenticity of these documents was questioned by petitioners, to the extent that they
filed criminal charges against Tan Eng Lay and his wife and children. As aforesaid, the criminal
cases were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Exhibits "4" to "4-U" in fact shows that Tan Eng
Kee received sums as wages of an employee. In connection therewith, Article 1769 of the Civil Code
provides:
In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply:
(1) Except as provided by Article 1825, persons who are not partners as to each other are
not partners as to third persons;
(2) Co-ownership or 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 which the
returns are derived;
(4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is a prima facie evidence
that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were
received in payment:
(a) As a debt by installment or otherwise;
(b) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord;
(c) As an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner;
(d) As interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the
business;
(e) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by
installments or otherwise.
In the light of the aforequoted legal provision, we conclude that Tan Eng Kee was only an employee,
not a partner. Even if the payrolls as evidence were discarded, petitioners would still be back to
square one, so to speak, since they did not present and offer evidence that would show that Tan Eng
Kee received amounts of money allegedly representing his share in the profits of the enterprise.
Petitioners failed to show how much their father, Tan Eng Kee, received, if any, as his share in the
profits of Benguet Lumber Company for any particular period. Hence, they failed to prove that Tan
Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay intended to divide the profits of the business between themselves, which
is one of the essential features of a partnership.
Nevertheless, petitioners would still want us to infer or believe the alleged existence of a partnership
from this set of circumstances: that Tan Eng Lay and Tan Eng Kee were commanding the
employees; that both were supervising the employees; that both were the ones who determined the

price at which the stocks were to be sold; and that both placed orders to the suppliers of the Benguet
Lumber Company. They also point out that the families of the brothers Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng
Lay lived at the Benguet Lumber Company compound, a privilege not extended to its ordinary
employees.
However, private respondent counters that:
Petitioners seem to have missed the point in asserting that the above enumerated powers
and privileges granted in favor of Tan Eng Kee, were indicative of his being a partner in
Benguet Lumber for the following reasons:
(i) even a mere supervisor in a company, factory or store gives orders and directions to his
subordinates. So long, therefore, that an employee's position is higher in rank, it is not
unusual that he orders around those lower in rank.
(ii) even a messenger or other trusted employee, over whom confidence is reposed by the
owner, can order materials from suppliers for and in behalf of Benguet Lumber. Furthermore,
even a partner does not necessarily have to perform this particular task. It is, thus, not an
indication that Tan Eng Kee was a partner.
(iii) although Tan Eng Kee, together with his family, lived in the lumber compound and this
privilege was not accorded to other employees, the undisputed fact remains that Tan Eng
Kee is the brother of Tan Eng Lay. Naturally, close personal relations existed between them.
Whatever privileges Tan Eng Lay gave his brother, and which were not given the other
employees, only proves the kindness and generosity of Tan Eng Lay towards a blood
relative.
(iv) and even if it is assumed that Tan Eng Kee was quarreling with Tan Eng Lay in
connection with the pricing of stocks, this does not adequately prove the existence of a
partnership relation between them. Even highly confidential employees and the owners of a
company sometimes argue with respect to certain matters which, in no way indicates that
they are partners as to each other.35
In the instant case, we find private respondent's arguments to be well-taken. Where circumstances
taken singly may be inadequate to prove the intent to form a partnership, nevertheless, the collective
effect of these circumstances may be such as to support a finding of the existence of the parties'
intent.36 Yet, in the case at bench, even the aforesaid circumstances when taken together are not
persuasive indicia of a partnership. They only tend to show that Tan Eng Kee was involved in the
operations of Benguet Lumber, but in what capacity is unclear. We cannot discount the likelihood
that as a member of the family, he occupied a niche above the rank-and-file employees. He would
have enjoyed liberties otherwise unavailable were he not kin, such as his residence in the Benguet
Lumber Company compound. He would have moral, if not actual, superiority over his fellow
employees, thereby entitling him to exercise powers of supervision. It may even be that among his
duties is to place orders with suppliers. Again, the circumstances proffered by petitioners do not
provide a logical nexus to the conclusion desired; these are not inconsistent with the powers and
duties of a manager, even in a business organized and run as informally as Benguet Lumber
Company.

There being no partnership, it follows that there is no dissolution, winding up or liquidation to speak
of. Hence, the petition must fail.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby denied, and the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is
herebyAFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ ., concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-13255

September 29, 1960

COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,

vs.
JOSE COJUANGCO, respondent.
Office of the Solicitor General Edilberto Barot, Solicitor C.T. Limcaoco and Atty. C.L. Kierulf for
petitioner.
F. Sumulong and Associates for respondent.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
From the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals (in CTA Case No. 74) reversing his decision of
January 27, 1955, which holds respondent Jose Cojuangco liable for deficiency sales taxes,
petitioner Collector of Internal Revenue interposed the present petition for review.
The case was submitted for decision of the Tax court on the basis of a "Stipulation of Facts" which
incorporated, as annexes, certain records of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The material facts may
be briefly stated as follows:
At a public bidding held by the Surplus Property Commission on April 22, 1948, Fernando VillaAbrille was the successful bidder for the purchase of all movable goods (except some items
specified) found at CMD-3 Area, Samar Naval Base, Guiuan, Samar, priced at P94,500.00. The
award of the bid was duly approved by the Government Enterprise Control Committee, and its terms
and conditions were set forth in SPC-Invoice No. 7770, dated May 28, 1948 (Annex D). Villa-Abrille
deposited the amount of P10,000 under Manager's Check No. 13040 (Philippine Bank of
Commerce) to cover the required deposit of 5% of the purchase price, for which Official Receipt No.
689017, dated April 22, 1948, (Annex A), was issued. Not having the necessary funds to cover the
balance of the purchase price, the 5% compensating tax and the necessary expenses for labor and
materials for the reconditioning of said goods for use or sale, he invited Cojuangco to provide said
funds. The latter accepted the offer and on May 28, 1948, he and Villa-Abrille entered into an
agreement (Annex B), which reads:
AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into at the City of Manila, Philippines, this 28th day of
May, 1948, by and between:
FERNANDO F. VILLA-ABRILLE, Filipino of legal age, single, and a resident of and with
postal address at Tarlac, Tarlac, Philippines, hereinafter to be known as the FIRST PART,
and
JOSE COJUANGCO, Filipino, of legal age, married to Demetria S. Cojuangco, and a
resident of, and with postal address at 1959 Roberts, Rizal City, Philippines, hereinafter to be
known as the SECOND PART.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the First Part has been awarded the bid for the purchase of all the surplus
properties situated at CMD-3 Area, Samar Naval Base, Guiuan, Samar, in the sum of Ninety
Thousand Pesos (P90,000.00) plus (5%) compensating tax, or a total of Ninety Four
Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P94,500.00);
WHEREAS, the First Part will also spend as a starting capital in repairing and putting to good
condition all the surplus properties in the mentioned area, in the estimated sum of Fifteen
Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Pesos (P15,450.00) before sales could be made from the
same;
WHEREAS, the First Part is in need of capital as he can only furnish Thirty-Eight Thousand
Four Hundred Eighty-two and Fifty Centavos (P38,482.50) or thirty-five (35%) percent of the
purchase price plus the 5% compensating tax, and the further sum of Fifteen Thousand Four
Hundred and Fifty (P15,450.00) as starting expenses of operations;
WHEREAS, the First Part has invited the Second Part to furnish sixty-five percent (65%) of
the total capital required or the sum of Seventy-One Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Seven
Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P71,467.50);
WHEREAS, the Second Part has agreed to the offer of the First Part;
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, the parties hereto have agreed
as follows:
1. That the First Part acknowledges, by signing of these presents, the receipts from
the Second Part of the sum of SEVENTY ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED
SIXTY-SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS (P71,467.50) as the Second Part's
capital contribution to this particular business;
2. That the First Part manifests by the signing of these presents the payment by him
of his capital contribution which is in the sum of THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND
HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS (P38,482.50);
3. That the First Part, after the signing of these presents, undertakes to pay to the
Surplus Property Commission, Manila, the total sum of Ninety FOUR THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (94,500.00) in full payment of the surplus properties
situated in the base hereinbefore mentioned;

4. The First Part undertakes to repair and recondition at the earliest possible date, all
the surplus properties in the area and to sell them for profit at the best prevailing
market price;
5. That the First Part or any of his representatives or associates, if any, shall not be
paid any salaries but will only be reimbursed the actual cost of transportation from
Manila to Guiuan, Samar, and from Samar to Manila, as well as all expenses of
board and lodging while in Samar, which expenses shall be paid from the sum of
P15,450.00 hereinabove set aside;
6. That the First Part is authorized to engage employees and laborers in prosecuting
the business herein mentioned, the salaries and wages of whom shall also be taken
from the mentioned sum of P15,450.00;
7. The First Part is likewise authorized to buy spare parts necessary to replace worn
out parts of any of the properties bought from the Surplus Property Commission;
8. That the First Part promises and undertakes to use his best prudence in
economizing expenses and in securing the best selling price possible with a view to
realizing the greatest profit in the business;
9. That in view of the confidence that the Second Part has with the First Part, the
Second Part has agreed to give the First Part full authority to act on the premises,
reserving, however, to himself the right to act on anything whenever necessary; and
in case of conflict, the decision of the Second Part shall prevail;
10. That the Second Part shall be furnished, as soon as practicable, by the First Part
a complete and full inventory of the surplus properties found to be existing in the
base at the time of the transfer of possession from the Surplus Property Commission
to the First Part;
11. That the First Part and the Second Part shall be in frequent consultation
regarding the selling price to be set for any of the properties bought from the Surplus
Property Commission;
12. That the proceeds of the sale, as well as any funds that will not require
immediate disbursements shall be deposited immediately thereafter with the
Philippine Bank of Commerce in an account to be known as Fernando F. de VillaAbrille and/or Jose Cojuangco and/or Demetria S. Cojuangco, and withdrawals from
the said account can be made only under the signatures of Fernando F. Villa-Abrille,
countersigned by Jose Cojuangco and/or Demetria S. Cojuangco;
13. That out of the net profit that will be realized from the business herein mentioned,
the First Part shall receive fifty percent (50%) and the Second Part the remaining fifty
percent (50%).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed these presents at the place and on
the date first hereinabove written.
After the above agreement was signed by respondent and Villa- Abrille, the latter paid to the Surplus
Property Commission the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the surplus goods in the amount

of P84,400.00 which includes the compensating tax in the amount of P4,500.00, payment thereof
being evidenced by Official Receipt No. A-690575 dated May 28, 1948 (Annex B), issued in the
name of Villa-Abrille. Accordingly, SPC-Invoice No. 7770 (Annex C) was issued in the name of VillaAbrille, to cover the sale in question.
Subsequently, Villa-Abrille sold a portion of the surplus goods to Hume Pipe and Asbestos Co. on
August 11, 1949, and the rest to Ellin and Co. on February 2, 1951 and may 28, 1952. In accordance
with the provision of Paragraph 12 of the aforequoted agreement, Villa-Abrille deposited with the
Philippine Bank of Commerce the amount of P145,000.00 under Special Account and/or Trust
Account, in the name of Fernando F. de Villa-Abrille and/or Jose Cojuangco, and/or Demetria S.
Cojuangco. Due to the deficiency tax assessment (to be described later) made by the petitioner on
respondent, the amount of P37, 531.38 was, on June 7, 1955, segregated from said account, and
deposited in the name of petitioner, the disposition of which was made dependent on the final
decision of the case.
1awphl.nt

The aforementioned purchase of the surplus goods from the Surplus Property Commission by VillaAbrille was subsequently investigated by Provincial Revenue Agent H.I. Bernardo, who, on April 1,
1953, submitted his report (Annex E) to petitioner, on the basis of which report, petitioner made the
following assessment, against respondent on January 27, 1955:
Total sales subject to 5%
Sales from August, 1948 to Sept. 6, 1950 (with invoices)
Sales with deed of sales, 1949 ........................................

P133,653.42
27,000.00

Total .......................................................................................
5% on P160, 655.42 ...........................................................

P160,655.42
P8,032.77

Total sales subject to 7%

Sales from Sept. 23, 1950 to March, 1952 (with invoices)
Sales with deed of sales, Feb., 1951 to June 1952 .....

P75,033.33
P300,000.00

Total .......................................................................................
7% on P375,033.33 ............................................................

P375,033.33
P26,252.33

Total taxes due ....................................................................

Less: Compensating Tax paid under
O.R. No. A-690575, dated May 28, 1948 ........................
Tax still due ..........................................................................
25% .......................................................................................
Compromise penalty for violation of the Bookkeeping
Regulations ........................................................................

P34,285.10

Total tax liability still due ...................................................

P37,531.33

P4,500.00
29,785.102
7,446.23
300.00

As a consequence, Cojuangco filed with the Court of Tax Appeals a petition, which was later
amended, praying that the Collector be ordered to cancel said assessment. To this petition,
petitioner herein (respondent in the Tax Court) filed his answer on July 2, 1955. Based on the facts

already stated, the lower court rendered judgment, dated October 30, 1957, reversing the Collector's
stand, on theory that only Villa-Abrille could be held liable for the deficiency percentage taxes.
Not agreeable with the decision, the Collector of Internal Revenue brought this petition for review.

1awphl.nt

The legal issues in the case may be boiled down to the following: (1) Whether or not liability for the
percentage (sales) taxes under Section 186 of the National Internal Revenue Code arose on
account of the sale made to Villa-Abrille of the surplus goods in question by the Surplus Property
Commission, and (2) whether or not respondent Jose Cojuangco could be held liable by the
Collector for the payment of said taxes, should the same be held assessable.
Anent the first issue, we have already held in Co Cheng Tee vs. Meer, 87 Phil., 18; 47 Off. Gaz.
(Supp. No. 12) 2691 , that a purchaser of certain commodities from the Surplus Property Commission
and the Foreign Liquidation Office is an importer within the purview of the Tax Code.
As such importer, the purchaser may be held liable either for compensating taxes or percentage
(sales) taxes under Section 183 (B) of the Revised Internal Revenue Code in connection with
Section 186 of the same code, depending on whether the things bought were acquired exclusively
for personal use or for mercantile or commercial purposes. In the first case, the importer is liable for
compensating taxes, and in the second, he is liable for percentage or sales tax. In this instance, the
tax liability is for percentage taxes, considering that the acquisition of the surplus goods in question
was for commercial purposes or resale. This fact is not seriously disputed by the parties in this
appeal.
The resolution of the second issue hinges principally on the question of who should be considered
as the importer, and thus be held accountable for the percentage taxes. The Collector urges that the
importation of the surplus goods was made for and in behalf of the association between Jose
Cojuangco and Villa-Abrille, so that anyone of the members thereof may be held liable for the tax,
while Cojuangco maintains that it was Villa-Abrille solely who caused the same. The respondent's
position was sustained by the Court of Tax Appeals.
We find no reversible error in the decision appealed from. There is no provision in the agreement
between Cojuangco and Villa- Abrille (which is the sole reliance of the collector) that indicates any
joint interest in the acquisition of the goods from the Surplus Property Commission. It is not denied
that the bid of Villa-Abrille was accepted (and the contract of sale in his favor thereby perfected) on
April 22, 1948, more than one month before the contract with Cojuangco, and that in SPC Invoice
No. 1770 wherein the conditions of the sale appear, only Villa-Abrille's name mentioned.
Coincidentally, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the agreement with Cojuangco stipulate that "the First Part
(Villa- Abrille) . undertakes to pay the Surplus Property Commission, Manila, the total sum of
P94,500.00 in full payment of the surplus properties", and that "the First Part undertakes to repair
and recondition . all the surplus properties . and to sell them for profit at the best prevailing market
price". Note that the express stipulation is that Villa-Abrille is to repair and sell the same, clearly
implying that Cojuangco acquired no title to or direct interest in the goods themselves, and only VillaAbrille was intended to deal with third persons in connection with the acquisition and disposition of
said goods. The business was only Villa-Abrille's; and Cojuangco undertook no obligation in
connection therewith.
These facts support the conclusion of the Tax Court that, at the most, Cojuangco was a mere
contributor to a joint enterprise with Villa-Abrille, and that the business remained exclusively the
latter's, so that only Villa-Abrille became in law the buyer, importer, and seller of the goods, and the
one liable for sales taxes thereon (V. Aldecoa and Co. vs. Warner Barnes and Co., 30 Phil., 153).

The Collector calls attention to the agreement's provisions that "in case of conflict the decision of the
Second Part (Cojuangco) shall prevail" (paragraph 9); that he was to be furnished an inventory of the
of the goods acquired, and was to be consulted "regarding the sales price" (p. 11); that the proceeds
of the sale were to be deposited in a joint "and/or" bank account, and to be withdrawn by checks
under joint signature (p.12). These conditions, when considered with paragraphs 3 and 4, heretofore
quoted, appear to be mere measures designed to protect the investment of Cojuangco and secure
proper payment of his fifty per cent of the net profit; but they do not establish that he had any joint
interest in the surplus properties themselves, nor in the purchase, reconditioning or sale thereof.
The Collector warns that agreements of this sort could be used to defraud the government of taxes
due it. No such fraud is shown in this case, and the desire to forestall future deceit does not justify
the imposition of a tax on the wrong person. There is no showing that the taxes sought to be
recovered can not be collected from Villa-Abrille. On the other hand, whether Cojuangco's right to
half of the net profit involves prior deduction of all taxes as part of the costs of operation is not in
issue at present and need not be decided.
We agree with the Tax Court that respondent Jose Cojuangco is not personally liable for the sales
taxes now sought to be recovered, and, therefore, affirm the decision under appeal. No costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Gutierrez David,
Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.