Estanislao JR vs CA

- Petitioner and private respondent are co-owner brother and sister of certain lots in
Quezon City being leased to SHELL Company.
- They agreed to open and operate a gas station with an initial investment of P15,000 to
be taken from advance rentals due them from SHELL, to which they signed a joint affidavit
which stated that the advanced rentals due them was to be used for augmenting their “capital
investment” in the operation of the gas station.
- Further, the parties herein entered into an Additional Cash Pledge Agreement with
Shell which cancelled and superseded the joint affidavit they initially made.
- Petitioner failed to render an accounting on the profits of the business. Thus private
respondents filed a complaint praying that;
1) Petitioner must render a formal accounting of the business operations;
2) To pay plaintiff their lawful shares and participation in its net profits;
3) To execute a public document embodying the provisions of the partnership
- The temporary presiding judge of the trial court dismissed the complaint, but later on
the newly appointed judge granted respondent’s MR and ruled in favor of respondents, thus
prompting petitioner to appeal in the CA, but the decision of the lower court was affirmed in
toot, prompting again the petitioner to come to the supreme court claiming that the trial court
erred in declaring a partnership existed between the parties.

Issue: WON a partnership exists between members of the same family arising from their
joint ownership of certain properties

Ruling: YES. The joint affidavit clearly stipulated that the advance rentals shall augment
their capital investment in operating the gas station.
- The attested testimonies show that petitioner gave private respondent the written
authority to examine and audit the books of their common business.
- There is no doubt that the parties hereto formed a partnership between the parties
when they bound themselves to contribute to a common fund with the intention of dividing
profits among themselves.