LEYTE

SAMAR SALES CO. v. CEA

7
Date: May 20, 1953 GR No. L-5963 J. Bengzon
Ellyssa Timones
Pe11oners: Leyte-Samar Sales Co. and Raymundo Respondents: Sulpicio v. Cea, Judge of CFI Leyte and
Tomassi Olegario Lastrilla

Doctrine: The partner of a partnership is not a creditor of such partnership for the amount of
his share.
Facts:
1. Leyte-Samar Sales and Tomassi filed a suit for damages against Far Eastern Lumber &
Commercial Co. (partnership), and the partners—Arnold Hall, Fred Brown, and Jean
Roxas.
2. CFI Leyte rendered judgment against defendants and held them to be jointly and
severally liable.
3. Court of Appeals confirmed the award. The decision became final.
4. The sheriff sold at auc]on “all the rights, interests, ]tles and par]cipa]on” of the
defendants in certain buildings and proper]es belonging to the partnership and the
partners. (The buyers were Robert Dorfe and Pepito Asturias.)
5. Lastrilla filed a mo]on, claiming that he is the owner by purchase of all the “shares and
interests” of Fred Brown in the partnership.
6. Judge granted Lastrilla’s mo]on, and ordered the sheriff to retain 17% of the money
“for delivery to the assignee, administrator or receiver” of the partnership.
7. The court modified its order of delivery and merely declared that Lastrilla was en]tled
to 17% of the proper]es sold.
Issue/s: Ruling:
W/N Lastrilla has any proper claim to the proceeds of the sale? NO
(assuming that sale to Lastrilla was valid)

Ra1o:
• Lastrilla does not have any proper claim to the proceeds of the sale because when the sale
of the proper1es to Dorfe and Asturias was effected, Lastrilla was already a partner.
- The partner of a partnership is not a creditor of such partnership for the amount of his
shares
• Even assuming that the auc]on sale did not include the shares of Lastrilla, s]ll no right to
demand any part of the proceeds
- resul]ng situa]on: the buyers will have to recognize dominion of Lastrilla over 17% of
proper]es awarded to them
- no right to demand any part of the money paid by buyers to the sheriff because his shares
were not auc]oned off
• Suppose Lastrilla’s shares were actually but unlawfully sold by the sheriff, s]ll no right to
demand any part of the proceeds
- his remedy is to claim the property, not the proceeds of the sale
- owner of property wrongfully sold cannot claim part of the proceeds because the sale was
made for the judgment creditor, and not for anybody else.