Bearneza v.

Dequilla
[G.R. No. 17024. March 24, 1922. ]
J. Romualdez
DIGEST BY: Mac Duguiang Jr.
PETITIONER: Domingo Berneaz
RESPONDENT: Balbino Dequilla
TOPIC: Rights of Assignee
SUMMARY:
Perpetua and Balbino are partners in the exploitation of a fishpond. When Perpetua died, she
assigned her rights in the pond to Domingo. Domingo demanded from Balbino the delivery of
the part of the pond and the profits derived therefrom. However, Balbino refused arguing that
Domingo did not contribute in the expenses for the pond.
The Court ruled that Domingo had no rights to the pond the partnership already dissolved upon
Perpetua’s death. The Court ruled that the partnership was in the form of particular partnership
as defined under the Civil Code. Hence what applied was the Civil Code and not the Code of
Commerce. The Civil Code states that partnership dissolves upon death. Absent any agreement
that the partnership would continue to exist after the death of Perpetua, Domingo does not
have any right to the same.
DOCTRINE:
When, in the organization of a partnership, none of the mercantile forms has been adopted
and, therefore, the provisions of the Code of Commerce are not applicable to it, said
partnership is dissolved by the death of any of the members, as provided in subsection 3 of
article 1700 of the Civil Code, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, pursuant to the
provisions of article 1704 of the same Code.
FACTS:

 Balbino Dequilla and Perpetua Bearneza formed a partnership for the purpose of
exploiting a fish pond.
 They agreed that they would divide the profits between themselves.

 In 1912, Perpetua died

 In her will, she appointed Domingo Bearneza as her heir to succeed to all her rights and
interests in the fish pond.

 Later on, Domingo Bearneza demanded from Balbino the delivery of the part of the fish
pond belonging to his decedent, Perpetua.
  However, Balbino refused
 Hence, in 1920, Domingo Bearneza brought an action to recover said part of the fish
pond and one-half of the profits received from the fish pond for the years 1913-1919.

 In his answer, Balbino alleged that:

o The formation of the supposed partnership between Domingo and Balbino was
not carried into effect, on account of the refusal of Domingo to defray the
expenses of reconstruction and exploitation of said fish pond.
o Domingo’s action had already prescribed.

 The lower court declared Domingo as owner of one-half of the fish pond and ordered
Balbino to pay the costs.

 Balbino filed an appeal.

ISSUE:
(text in blue is a note by the digester so don’t take it as jurisprudence)
1. W/N Domingo has a right to one-half of the pond and the profits therefrom --- NO
 The partnership was dissolved upon the death of Perpetua, the original partner.
 Hence, the assignee had no rights to the same.

On whether Code of Commerce or the Civil Code applies:

 The partnership formed by Perpetua Bearneza and Balbino Dequilla was particular
partnership, defined under Article 1678 of the Civil Code. (now Art. 1783)
o Because it has for its subject-matter a specified thing, to wit, the exploitation of
the aforementioned fish pond.

 The conclusion is that the partnership was not organized in the form of a mercantile
partnership.
o Hence, provisions of the Code of Commerce is not applicable thereto (not
provided and not available online but based on the context, such provision
provides for the continuity of partnership)
o What applies is the Civil Code
o A provision in the Civil Code states that death of a partner dissolves the
partnership applies.
o The partnership being dissolved, no right to the same can be transferred to the
assignee.
 Furthermore, the partnership did not continue to exist after the death of Perpetua as it
does not appear that any stipulation to that effect has ever been made by her and
Balbino.

On ownership of the land

 It has also not been proven that Perpetua Bearneza participated in the ownership of the
land on which the fishpond was built.
o In fact, evidence shows that only Balbino has been paying, as exclusive owner of
the fish pond, the land tax thereon.
o Therefore, the land on which the fish pond was constructed did not constitute a
part of the subject-matter of the aforesaid partnership.
o This further corroborates the conclusion that the partnership was not of
mercantile nature

On what rights the successor had:

 The partnership having been dissolved by the death of Perpetua Bearneza, its
subsequent legal status was that of a partnership in liquidation.
o The only rights inherited by her testamentary heir were those resulting from the
liquidation in favor of the deceased partner.
o Until this liquidation is made, it is impossible to determine what rights or
interests, if any, the deceased had.

o TLDR: it cannot be known whether the deceased still had any interest in the
partnership property which could have been transmitted by will to the Domingo.

On argument that Balbino asked from Domingo payment for expense implying that there is
partnership:

 It is true that the latter’s act in requiring the heirs of Perpetua to contribute to the
payment of the expenses for the pond was an attempt to continue the partnership
o But neither the heirs nor the assignee, Domingo, took any action in response to
that requirement, nor new contract of partnership existed.

RULING:
We find that the plaintiff has not sufficiently shown his right of action.
The judgment appealed from is modified, the same being affirmed insofar as it denies the
plaintiff’s claim for damages, and reversed insofar as it declares the said plaintiff owner of
one-half of the fish pond, "Alimango" and "Dalusan," here in dispute.

No special finding as to costs is made. So ordered.