NAME: CIELO S.

YUMUL (BSA301)

CASE DIGEST
G.R. NO. 154486
FEDERICO JARANTILLA, JR., Petitioner, Vs. ANTONIETA JARANTILLA, BUENAVENTURA REMOTIGUE,
Substituted by CYNTHIA REMOTIGUE, DOROTEO JARANTILLA AND TOMAS JARANTILLA, Respondents
December 01, 2010

FACTS:
In this case, Antonieta Jaranilla filed a complaint against Buenaventura Remotigue, Cynthia Remotigue,
Federico Jarantilla Jr., Doroteo Jarantilla, and Tomas Jarantilla, for accounting assets and income of the co-
ownership, for its partition and the delivery of her share corresponding to eight percent (8%), and the damages.
Antonieta claimed that in 1946, she had entered into an agreement with the defendants to engage business
through the execution of a document denominated as “Acknowledgement of Participating Capital”. Antonieta
also alleged that she had helped in the management of the business they co-owned without receiving the any
salary.
Antonieta further claimed co-ownership of the certain properties (the subject real properties) in the name
of the defendants since the only way the defendants could have purchased thee properties were through the
partnership as they had no other source of income. The respondents did not deny the existence and validity of
the “Acknowledgement of Participating Capital” and in fact used this evidence to support their claim that
Antonieta” 8% share was limited to the business enumerate therein. The respondents denied using the
partnership’s income to purchase the subject real properties.
During the course of the trial at the RTC, petitioner Federico Jarantilla, Jr., who was one of the original
defendants, entered into a comprise agreement with Antonieta Jarantilla wherein he supported Antonieta’s claims
and asserted that he too entitled to six percent (6%) of the supposed partnership in the same manner as
Antonieta was.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the partnership subject of the Acknowledge of Participating Capital funded the subject real
properties.
RULING:
The court's decision is based on Article 1767 of the Civil Code, which outlines two key elements for a
partnership contract: (a) an agreement to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, and (b) an
intent to share profits among the parties involved. In this case, the first element, involving contributions to a
common fund, is clearly established since all parties agreed to contribute money and property to such a fund.
The main issue revolves around their intent. It is undisputed that they agreed to contribute capital to a
common fund with the expectation of sharing profits later on. This fact was acknowledged, accepted, and
supported by a common documentary piece of evidence, the "Acknowledgement of Participating Capital." The
petitioner himself claims a 6% share, as specified in this document.
However, it's crucial to note that this document explicitly listed the businesses covered by the partnership:
Manila Athletic Supply, Remotigue Trading in Iloilo City, and Remotigue Trading in Cotabato City. As there was
a clear agreement that the capital contributed by the partners was designated for these three businesses, there
is no justification to deviate from this agreement or extend it to include assets beyond what was stipulated in the
document. Consequently, there is no evidence suggesting that the subject real properties were part of the
partnership mentioned in the "Acknowledgement of Participating Capital." Therefore, the petition is denied.