Leung V IAC & Yiu

You might also like

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 3

Category: Essential elements of a partnership

DOCTRINE:

TITLE FACTS ISSUE(S) RULING(S)


G.R. No. 70926 January 31, Yiu files a case at the CFI, asking it to rule Did the IAC err in affirming the NO. The elements of partnership have been established. Yiu’s action was
1989 that he is a partner of Leung in the panciteria CFI that Yiu is a partner of to demand an accounting, and its prescription only starts at the dissolution
business and that he has a right to 22% of Leung? of the partnership; the right to demand an accounting stands as long as
DAN FUE LEUNG, petitioner, the profits. the partnership exists.
vs. The private respondent is a partner of the petitioner in Sun Wah
CFI rules in favor of Yiu. IAC affirms the CFI.
HON. INTERMEDIATE Panciteria. The requisites of a partnership which are — 1) two or more
APPELLATE COURT and persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a
Hence, this petition.
LEUNG YIU, respondents common fund; and 2) intention on the part of the partners to divide the
profits among themselves (Article 1767, Civil Code; Yulo v. Yang Chiao
The Sun Wah Panciteria, a restaurant, Cheng, 106 Phil. 110)-have been established.
located at Florentino Torres Street, Sta. Cruz,
TOPIC: Manila, was established sometime in It is Article 1842 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Articles 1144 and
October, 1955. It was registered as a single 1155 which is applicable. Article 1842 states:
What constitute partnership? proprietorship and its licenses and permits
were issued to and in favor of petitioner Dan The right to an account of his interest shall accrue to any partner, or his
Fue Leung as the sole proprietor. legal representative as against the winding up partners or the surviving
partners or the person or partnership continuing the business, at the date
Respondent Leung Yiu adduced evidence
of dissolution, in the absence or any agreement to the contrary.
during the trial of the case to show that Sun
Wah Panciteria was actually a partnership Regarding the prescriptive period within which the private respondent may
and that he was one of the partners having demand an accounting, Articles 1806, 1807, and 1809 show that the right
contributed P4,000.00 to its initial to demand an accounting exists as long as the partnership exists.
establishment. Prescription begins to run only upon the dissolution of the partnership
when the final accounting is done.
He also presented evidence that Leung paid
GER WORDS/ KEYWORD(S):
him a check for his share in the profits in
1974.

Leung’s contention:
He did not receive any contribution at the
time he started the Sun Wah Panciteria. To
bolster his contention that he was the sole
owner of the restaurant, the petitioner
presented various government licenses and
permits showing the Sun Wah Panciteria was
and still is a single proprietorship solely
owned and operated by himself alone. Fue
Leung also flatly denied having issued to Yiu
the receipt for his P4,000 contribution and the
check in the amount of P12,000.00 as his
share in the panciteria’s profits.

As between the conflicting evidence of the


parties, the trial court gave credence to that
of Yiu and his witnesses and documentary
evidence. Hence, the court ruled in favor of
Yiu.

Leung also contends that Yiu’s action has


prescribed. Art. 1144. The following actions
must be brought within ten years from the
time the right of action accrues:
(1) Upon a written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment.

He claims that since Yiu (1) did not file an


action until 1978 (2) did not make
extrajudicial demand, and (3) Leung did not
acknowledge any indebtedness to him, there
was nothing to interrupt the period of
prescription (Art. 1155).

Leung further says that Yiu never


claimed to be a partner in the action
he filed at the CFI. His pleading just
said that he extended 'financial
assistance' to Leung at the time of the
establishment of the Sun Wah
Panciteria, in return of which Yiu
allegedly will receive a share in the
profits of the restaurant. The same
complaint did not claim that Yiu is a
partner of the business.

You might also like