[ G.R. No.

228356, March 09, 2020 ]

MERIAN B. SANTIAGO, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES EDNA L. GARCIA AND BAYANI GARCIA,
RESPONDENTS.

A partnership, a simple contract of loan, and an investment contract carry peculiar definitions and
are governed by pertinent laws. The existence of a partnership, simple loan, or an investment
contract should not, therefore, be inferred lightly, especially where any of its requisite elements are
lacking.

January 13, 2016

G.R. No. 206147

MICHAEL C. GUY, Petitioner,

vs.
ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT, Respondent.

Article 1824. All partners are liable solidarily with the partnership for everything chargeable to the
partnership under Articles 1822 and 1823.

In essence, these provisions articulate that it is the act of a partner which caused loss or injury to a
third person that makes all other partners solidarily liable with the partnership because of the
words "any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business,"
"one partner acting within the scope of his apparent authority" and "misapplied by any
partner while it is in the custody of the partnership." The obligation is solidary because the law
protects the third person, who in good faith relied upon the authority of a partner, whether such
authority is real or apparent.
40

[ G.R. No. 200555, January 20, 2021 ]

PEDRO D. DUSOL AND MARICEL M. DUSOL, PETITIONERS, VS. EMMARCK A. LAZO, AS

OWNER OF RALCO BEACH, RESPONDENT.

Article 1767 of the Civil Code states that in a contract of partnership two or more persons bind
themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing
the profits among themselves. Not one of these circumstances is present in this case. No written
agreement exists to prove the partnership between the parties. Private respondent did not contribute
money, property or industry for the purpose of engaging in the supposed business. There is no proof
that he was receiving a share in the profits as a matter of course, during the period when the
trucking business was under operation. Neither is there any proof that he had actively participated in
the management, administration and adoption of policies of the business. Thus, the NLRC and the
CA did not err in reversing the finding of the Labor Arbiter that private respondent was an industrial
partner from 1958 to 1994
 August 16, 2017

G.R. No. 217777

PRISCILLA Z. ORBE, Petitioner,

vs.
LEONORA O. MIARAL,, Respondent.

Thus, even assuming that a contract of partnership was indeed entered into by and between the
parties, we have ruled that when money or property [had] been received by a partner for a
specific purpose (such as that obtaining in the instant case) and he later misappropriated it,
such partner is guilty of estafa.

[ G.R. No. 230934, December 02, 2020 ]

HEIRS OF THE LATE APOLINARIO CABURNAY, NAMELY, LYDIA CABURNAY, LETECIA

NAVARRO, EVANGELINE CRUZ, JERRY CABURNAY, ZENAIDA C. ANCHETA, LIWAYWAY C.
WATAN, GLORIA GUSILAN, APOLINARIO CABURNAY, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF
TEODULO SISON,* NAMELY, ROSARIO SISON, OFELIA SISON, TEODULO SISON, JR.,
BLESILDA** SISON, ARMIDA SISON, CYNTHIA SISON, JESUS SISON AND PERLA*** SISON,
RESPONDENTS.

In many instances, however, the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse do not
liquidate the conjugal properties and they keep them undivided. In such case, a co-ownership is
deemed established for the management, control and enjoyment of the common property. Since the
conjugal partnership no longer subsists, the fruits of the common property are divided according to
the law on co-ownership; that is, in proportion to the share or interest of each party. 37 That share or
part of the co-heir in the co-ownership prior to partition is pro indiviso, undivided or abstract, not
specific, delineated or demarcated by metes and bounds.

G.R. No. 164201 December 10, 2012

EFREN PANA, Petitioner,

vs.
HEIRS OF JOSE JUANITE, SR. and JOSE JUANITE, JR., Respondents.

Art. 122. The payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife before or during the
marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal properties partnership except insofar as they
redounded to the benefit of the family.

Neither shall the fines and pecuniary indemnities imposed upon them be charged to the partnership.
However, the payment of personal debts contracted by either spouse before the marriage, that of
fines and indemnities imposed upon them, as well as the support of illegitimate children of either
spouse, may be enforced against the partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in the
preceding Article have been covered, if the spouse who is bound should have no exclusive property
or if it should be insufficient; but at the time of the liquidation of the partnership, such spouse shall be
charged for what has been paid for the purpose above-mentioned.

[ G.R. No. 246445, March 02, 2021 ]

SPOUSES EULALIO CUENO AND FLORA BONIFACIO CUENO, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES
EPIFANIO AND VERONICA BAUTISTA, SPOUSES RIZALDO AND ANACITA BAUTISTA,
SPOUSES DIONILO AND MARY ROSE BAUTISTA, SPOUSES ROEL AND JESSIBEL B.
SANSON, AND SPOUSES CALIXTO AND MERCEDITA B. FERNANDO, RESPONDENTS.

It bears emphasis that under Article 1413 of the Spanish Civil Code, the wife's consent was not
required for the sale of conjugal property as the husband's right to administer and dispose of the
same was considered "full, absolute and complete." On the other hand, Articles 96 and 124 of the
Family Code unequivocally state that a disposition of community or conjugal property without the
consent of the other spouse is void but shall constitute a "continuing offer on the part of the
consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the
acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either
or both offerors.

G.R. No. 178782 September 21, 2011

JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT, Petitioner,

vs.
PROSENCIO D. JASO and EDEN G. JASO, Respondents.

Generally understood to mean an organization formed for some temporary purpose, a joint venture
is likened to a particular partnership or one which "has for its object determinate things, their use or
fruits, or a specific undertaking, or the exercise of a profession or vocation."
 March 6, 2019

G.R. No. 187225

MELINDA M. MALABANAN, Petitioner vs. FRANCISCO MALABANAN, JR., SPOUSES RAMON

AND PRESCILA MALABANAN, and SPOUSES DOMINADOR III AND GUIA MONTANO,
Respondents

The necessity to strike down the contract . . . as a whole, not merely as to the share of the wife, is
not without its basis in the common-sense rule. To be underscored here is that upon the provisions
of Articles 161, 162 and 163 of the Civil Code, the conjugal partnership is liable for many obligations
while the conjugal partnership exists. Not only that. The conjugal property is even subject to the
payment of debts contracted by either spouse before the marriage, as those for the payment of fines
and indemnities imposed upon them after the responsibilities in Article 161 have been covered
(Article 163, par. 3), if it turns out that the spouse who is bound thereby, "should have no exclusive
property or if it should be insufficient." These are considerations that go beyond the mere equitable
share of the wife in the property. These are reasons enough for the husband to be stopped from
disposing of the conjugal property without the consent of the wife. Even more fundamental is the fact
that the nullity is decreed by the Code not on the basis of prejudice but lack of consent of an
indispensable party to the contract under Article 166.

OCTOBER 9, 2017

G.R. No. 210612

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
ERVIN Y. MATEO, EVELYN E. MATEO, CARMELITA B. GALVEZ, ROMEO L. ESTEBAN,
GALILEO J. SAPORSANTOS and NENITA S. SAPORSANTOS, Accused
ERVIN Y. MATEO, Accused-Appellant

In pursuit of their fraudulent investment scheme, appellant and his partners formed a partnership
which, by its Amended Article of Partnership, had the end in view "to acquire, manage, own, hold,
buy, sell, and/or encumber securities or equity participation of other persons, partnership,
corporation, or any other entities, as permitted or may be authorized by law as well as to [purchase]
or otherwise acquire the whole or any [part] of the property, assets, business and goodwill of any
other persons, firm, corporation or association and to conduct in any lawful measures the business
so acquired and to express all the powers necessary or [convenient] in and about the conduct,
management and carrying on of such business. However, the [partnership] shall not engage in stock
brokerage or dealership of securities."

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 178044 January 19, 2011

ALAIN M. DIÑO , Petitioner,
vs.
MA. CARIDAD L. DIÑO, Respondent.

Article 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively
with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their
wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of
them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be
presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them
in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the
other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the
former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property
acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the
termination of their cohabitation.

When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in
the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver
by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the
respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the
innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.

July 12, 2017

G.R. No. 190590

ROBERTO V. SAN JOSE and DELFIN P. ANGCAO, Petitioners

vs.
JOSE MA. OZAMIZ, Respondent

To determine whether or not a case involves an intra-corporate dispute, two tests are applied - the
relationship test and the nature of the controversy test.

Under the relationship test, there is an intra-corporate controversy when the conflict is (1) between
the corporation, partnership, or association and the public; (2) between the corporation, partnership,
or association and the State insofar as its franchise, permit, or license to operate is concerned; (3)
between the corporation, partnership, or association and its stockholders, partners, members, or
officers; and (4) among the stockholders, partners, or associates themselves

[ G.R. No. 213687, January 08, 2020 ]

 SIMON R. PATERNO, PETITIONER, VS. DINA MARIE LOMONGO PATERNO, RESPONDENT.

Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall
be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is prima
facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in
the acquisition of the property shall be considered as having contributed to the same jointly if said
party's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family household. Efforts in the care and
maintenance of the family and household are regarded as contributions to the acquisition of common
property by one who has no salary or income or work or industry.

August 20, 2018

G.R. No. 193138

ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., Petitioner

vs.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent

The law, in its wisdom, recognized the possibility that partners in a partnership may decide to place
a limit on their individual accountability. Consequently, to protect third persons dealing with the
partnership, the law provides a rule, embodied in Article 1816 of the Civil Code, which states:

Art. 1816. All partners, including industrial ones, shall be liable pro rata with all their property and
after all the partnership assets have been exhausted, for the contracts which may be entered into in
the name and for the account of the partnership, under its signature and by a person authorized to
act for the partnership. However, any partner may enter into a separate obligation to perform a
partnership contract.

G.R. No. 195580 April 21, 2014

NARRA NICKEL MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., TESORO MINING AND DEVELOPMENT,
INC., and MCARTHUR MINING, INC., Petitioners,
vs.
REDMONT CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP., Respondent.

Partnerships vs. joint venture agreements

Petitioners claim that the CA erred in applying Sec. 29, Rule 130 of the Rules by stating that "by
entering into a joint venture, MBMI have a joint interest" with Narra, Tesoro and McArthur. They
challenged the conclusion of the CA which pertains to the close characteristics of

"partnerships" and "joint venture agreements." Further, they asserted that before this particular
partnership can be formed, it should have been formally reduced into writing since the capital
involved is more than three thousand pesos (PhP 3,000). Being that there is no evidence of written
agreement to form a partnership between petitioners and MBMI, no partnership was created.
G.R. No 176556 July 4, 2012

BRIGIDO B. QUIAO, Petitioner,

vs.
RITA C. QUIAO, KITCHIE C. QUIAO, LOTIS C. QUIAO, PETCHIE C. QUIAO, represented by
their mother RITA QUIAO, Respondents.

When a couple enters into a regime of absolute community, the husband and the wife becomes
joint owners of all the properties of the marriage. Whatever property each spouse brings into the
marriage, and those acquired during the marriage (except those excluded under Article 92 of the
Family Code) form the common mass of the couple's properties. And when the couple's marriage or
community is dissolved, that common mass is divided between the spouses, or their respective
heirs, equally or in the proportion the parties have established, irrespective of the value each one
may have originally owned

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 172690 March 3, 2010

HEIRS OF JOSE LIM, represented by ELENITO LIM, Petitioners,

vs.
JULIET VILLA LIM, Respondent.

Art. 1769. In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply:

(1) Except as provided by Article 1825, persons who are not partners as to each other are
not partners as to third persons;

(2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such
co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property;

(3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the
persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the
returns are derived;

(4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is a prima facie evidence
that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were
received in payment:

(a) As a debt by installments or otherwise;

(b) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord;

(c) As an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner;

 (d) As interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the
business;

(e) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by
installments or otherwise.

Applying the legal provision to the facts of this case, the following circumstances tend to prove that
Elfledo was himself the partner of Jimmy and Norberto: 1) Cresencia testified that Jose gave Elfledo
₱50,000.00, as share in the partnership, on a date that coincided with the payment of the initial
capital in the partnership;15 (2) Elfledo ran the affairs of the partnership, wielding absolute control,
power and authority, without any intervention or opposition whatsoever from any of petitioners
herein;16 (3) all of the properties, particularly the nine trucks of the partnership, were registered in the
name of Elfledo; (4) Jimmy testified that Elfledo did not receive wages or salaries from the
partnership, indicating that what he actually received were shares of the profits of the business; 17 and
(5) none of the petitioners, as heirs of Jose, the alleged partner, demanded periodic accounting from
Elfledo during his lifetime. As repeatedly stressed in Heirs of Tan Eng Kee, 18 a demand for periodic
accounting is evidence of a partnership.

G.R. No. 157537 September 7, 2011

THE HEIRS OF PROTACIO GO, SR. and MARTA BAROLA, namely: LEONOR, SIMPLICIO,
PROTACIO, JR., ANTONIO, BEVERLY ANN LORRAINNE, TITA, CONSOLACION, LEONORA
and ASUNCION, all surnamed GO, represented by LEONORA B. GO, Petitioners,
vs.
ESTER L. SERVACIO and RITO B. GO, Respondents.

It is clear that conjugal partnership of gains established before and after the effectivity of the Family
Code are governed by the rules found in Chapter 4 (Conjugal Partnership of Gains) of Title IV
(Property Relations Between Husband And Wife) of the Family Code. Hence, any disposition of the
conjugal property after the dissolution of the conjugal partnership must be made only after the
liquidation; otherwise, the disposition is void.

Before applying such rules, however, the conjugal partnership of gains must be subsisting at the
time of the effectivity of the Family Code. There being no dispute that Protacio, Sr. and Marta were
married prior to the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, their property relation was
properly characterized as one of conjugal partnership governed by the Civil Code. Upon Marta’s
death in 1987, the conjugal partnership was dissolved, pursuant to Article 175 (1) of the Civil
Code,15 and an implied ordinary co-ownership ensued among Protacio, Sr. and the other heirs of
Marta with respect to her share in the assets of the conjugal partnership pending a liquidation
following its liquidation.16 The ensuing implied ordinary co-ownership was governed by Article 493 of
the Civil Code,

[ G.R. No. 233365, March 24, 2021 ]

NICXON L. PEREZ, JR.,• PETITIONER, VS. AVEGAIL PEREZ-SENERPIDA, ASSISTED BY HER

HUSBAND MR. SENERPIDA, RESPONDENT.