Partnership (https://www.scribd.

com/doc/229751996/PAT-Digests-1st-Set)
1. J.M. Tuazon& Co., Inc. v. Bolanos 95 SCRA 106

J.M. TUASON & CO. vs. BOLANOS 95 Phil 106, G.R. No. L-4935, May 28, 1954, Reyes,J.:p
FACTS:Plaintiff-appellee JM Tuason & Co., Inc. is a partnership. Thru its managing partner, Gregorio
Araneta, Inc., it originally brought this suit with QC CFI to recover possession of registered land situated in
Tatalon, QC. Defendant-appellant Quirino BOLAOS, on the other hand, is an adverse owner of the same
land by alleged acquisitive prescription thru open, continuous, exclusive, public and notorious possession of
land in dispute under claim of ownership, adverse to the entire world time immemorial. The complaint was
amended three times with respect to the description of the land sought to be recovered. Originally, it was 13
hectares reduced to 6 hectares and then back to 13. Meanwhile, BOLAOS had prayed for the dismissal of
the case against him by alleging his prior, adverse possession of the disputed land and alleging that
TUASONs registration of the land in dispute was obtained thru fraud or error and without knowledge of his
and/or predecessors interest therein. CFI rendered judgment in favor of TUASON, declaring BOLAOS to be
without any right to the land in question and ordering him to restore possession thereof to TUASON and to
pay the latter a monthly rent and also to pay the costs. BOLAOS appealed directly to the SC because of the
value of the property involved.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Gregorio Araneta, Inc. (a corporation) be a partner of another corporation?
HELD:
BOLAOS petition is without merit. The CFI decision is AFFIRMED. It is true that the complaint also states
that the TUASON is being represented by its Managing Partner Gregorio Araneta, Inc., another corporation.
There is nothing against one corporation being represented by another person, natural or juridical, in a suit
in court. The contention that Gregorio Araneta, Inc. cannot act as managing partner for TUASON on the
theory that it is illegal for two corporations to enter into a partnership is without merit for the true rule is
that "though a corporation has no power to enter into a partnership, it may nevertheless enter into a
joint venture with another where the nature of that venture is in line with the business authorized by
its charter.(citing Wyoming-Indiana Oil Gas Co. vs. Weston, 80 A. L.R., 1043). There is nothing in the record
to indicate that the venture in which TUASON is represented by Gregorio Araneta, Inc. as "its managing
partner" is not in line with the corporate business of either of them.

2. Heirs of Tan EngKee v. CA 341SCRA 740

HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE vs.CA
341 SCRA 740, G.R. No. 126881, October 3, 2000, De Leon, Jr.:p
FACTS:
The complaint alleged that after the second World War, Tan EngKee and Tan Eng Lay, pooling their resources
and industry together, entered into a partnership engaged in the business of selling lumber and hardware
and construction supplies. They named their enterprise "Benguet Lumber" which they jointly managed until
Tan EngKee's death. Petitioners claimed that Tan Eng Lay and his children caused the conversion of the
partnership "Benguet Lumber" into a corporation called "Benguet Lumber Company" allegedly to deprive Tan
Eng Kee and his heirs of their rightful participation in the profits of the business. After Tang Eng Kees death
petitioners prayed for accounting of the partnership assets, and the dissolution, winding up and liquidation
thereof, and the equal division of the net assets of Benguet Lumber. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners,
declaring that Benguet Lumber is a joint venture which is akin to a particular partnership. The Court of
Appeals rendered the assailed decision reversing the judgment of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay were partners in Benguet Lumber.
HELD:
NO. The trial court determined that Tan EngKee and Tan Eng Lay had entered into a joint venture, which it
said is akin to a particular partnership. A particular partnership is distinguished from a joint adventure, to
wit:(a) A joint adventure (an American concept similar to our joint accounts) is a sort of informal partnership,
with no firm name and no legal personality. In a joint account, the participating merchants can transact
business under their own name, and can be individually liable therefor.(b) Usually, but not necessarily a joint
adventure is limited to a SINGLE TRANSACTION, although the business of pursuing to a successful
termination may continue for a number of years; a partnership generally relates to a continuing business of
various transactions of a certain kind. A joint venture "presupposes generally a parity of standing between the
joint co-ventures or partners, in which each party has an equal proprietary interest in the capital or property
contributed, and where each party exercises equal rights in the conduct of the business
.
The evidence presented by petitioners falls short of the quantum of proof required to establish a partnership.
In the absence of evidence, we cannot accept as an established fact that Tan Eng Kee allegedly contributed
his resources to a common fund for the purpose of establishing a partnership. Besides, it is indeed odd, if not
unnatural, that despite the forty years the partnership was allegedly in existence, Tan Eng Kee never asked
for an accounting. The essence of a partnership is that the partners share in the profits and losses. Each has
the right to demand an accounting as long as the partnership exists. A demand for periodic accounting is
evidence of a partnership. During his lifetime, Tan Eng Kee appeared never to have made any such demand
for accounting from hisbrother, Tang Eng Lay. We conclude that Tan Eng Kee was only an employee, not a
partner since they did not present and offer evidence that would show that Tan Eng Kee received amounts of
money allegedly representing his share in the profits of the enterprise. There being no partnership, it follows
that there is no dissolution, winding up or liquidation to speak of. Hence, the petition must fail.

3. Campos Rueda & Co v. Pacific Commercial 44 Phil. 916

4. Vargas & Co. v. Chan Hang Chiu 29 Phil. 446

5. Ngo TianTek& Ngo Hay v. Phil. Education Co., Inc. 78 Phil. 275

6. Tai Tong Chuache& Co. v. Insurance Commission 158 SCRA 336

7. Pascual v. CIR 166 SCRA 560
PASCUAL v. Commissioner of InternalRevenue #10 BUSORG

G.R. No. 78133 October 18, 1988

GANCAYCO, J.:

FACTS:
On June 22, 1965, petitioners bought two (2)parcels of land from Santiago Bernardino, et al.and on May 28,
1966, they bought anotherthree (3) parcels of land from Juan Roque. Thefirst two parcels of land were sold by
petitionersin 1968 to Marenir Development Corporation,while the three parcels of land were sold bypetitioners
to Erlinda Reyes and Maria Samsonon March 19,1970. Petitioner realized a netprofit in the sale made in 1968
in the amount of P165, 224.70, while they realized a net profit of P60,000 in the sale made in 1970.
Thecorresponding capital gains taxes were paid bypetitioners in 1973 and 1974 .Respondent Commissioner
informed petitionersthat in the years 1968 and 1970, petitioners asco-owners in the real estate transactions
formedan unregistered partnership or joint venturetaxable as a corporation under Section 20(b)and its income
was subject to the taxesprescribed under Section 24, both of theNational Internal Revenue Code; that
theunregistered partnership was subject tocorporate income tax as distinguished fromprofits derived from the
partnership by themwhich is subject to individual income tax.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioners formed an unregisteredpartnership subject to corporate income tax(partnership vs. co-
ownership)
RULING:
Article 1769 of the new Civil Code lays down the rule for determining when a transaction shouldbe deemed a
partnership or a co-ownership. Said article paragraphs 2 and 3, provides:(2) Co-ownership or co-possession
does not itself establish a partnership, whether such co-ownersor co-possessors do or do not share any
profitsmade by the use of the property; (3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a
partnership, whether or not thepersons sharing them have a joint or commonright or interest in any property
from which thereturns are derived;The sharing of returns does not in itself establish a partnership whether or
not thepersons sharing therein have a joint or common right or interest in the property. There must bea clear
intent to form a partnership, theexistence of a juridical personality different fromthe individual partners, and
the freedom of eachparty to transfer or assign the whole property.In the present case, there is clear evidence
of co-ownership between the petitioners. There is no adequate basis to support the proposition that they
thereby formed an unregistered partnership. The two isolated transactionswhereby they purchased properties
and sold the same a few years thereafter did not therebymake them partners. They shared in the grossprofits
as co- owners and paid their capital gains taxes on their net profits and availed of the taxamnesty thereby.
Under the circumstances, theycannot be considered to have formed anunregistered partnership which is
thereby liable for corporate income tax, as the respondentcommissioner proposes. And even assuming for the
sake of argument that such unregistered partnership appears tohave been formed, since there is no
suchexisting unregistered partnership with a distinctpersonality nor with assets that can be heldliable for
said deficiency corporate income tax,then petitioners can be held individually liable aspartners for this unpaid
obligation of the partnership.

8. Obillos v. CIR, et al 135 SCRA 436

9. Fortis v. Gutierrez Hermanos 6 Phil. 160

10. Tocao v. CA 342 SCRA 20

11. Leung v. IAC G.R. No. 70926 January 31, 1989

12. CIR v. Suter 27 SCRA 152

13. Moran v. CA 133 SCRA 88

14. See Po YengCheo v. Lim Ka Yam 44 Phil. 172

15. Litton v. Hill and Ceron 67 Phil. 509

16. Pang Lim and Galvez v. Lo Seng 42 Phil. 283

17. Pabalan v. Velez 22 Phil. 29

18. Ramnani v. CA 196 SCRA 731

19. Catalan v. Gatchalian 105 Phil. 1270

20. Fue Leung v. IAC 169 SCRA 746

21. Evangelista v. Abad Santos 51 SCRA 416

22. Island Sales Inc. v. United Pioneers Gen. Construction 64 SCRA 554

23. CompaniaMaritima v. Munoz 9 Phil 326

24. Goquiolay v. Sycip 105 Phil. 984

25. Liwanag and Reyes v. Workmens Compensation Commission 105 Phil. 741
26. Viuda de Chan v. Peng, 53 Phil. 906
27. Aguila Jr. v. CA et al G.R. No. 127347 November 25, 1999
28. Testate Intestate of Mota v. Serre 47 Phil 464
29. Ortega et al v. CA 62 SCAD 255
30. Yu v. NLRC 224 SCRA 75
31. Afisco v. CA 302 SCRA 75
32. Sy v. CA 313 SCRA 328
33. Lim Tong Lim v. Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, Inc. 317 SCRA 728
34. Tocao v. CA 342 SCRA 20

Agency
1. Philpotts v. Phil. Manufacturing Co. et al 40 Phil 471; Rallos v. Felix Go Chan 18 SCRA 251
2. Yu Eng Cho v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. 328 SCRA 717
3. Mendoza v. De Guzman 33 Off. Gazette 1505
4. Victorias Milling Co. Inc. v. CA 333 SCRA 663
5. Thomas v. Pineda 89 Phil. 312
6. Africa v. Caltex 16 SCRA 448; Shell Co. v. Firemans Insurance L-5169 (1957)
7. Ker v. Lingad 38 SCRA 524
8. Veloso v. CA 73 SCAD 303
9. Phil. Aluminum Wheels, Inc. v FASGI Enterprises, Inc. 342 SCRA 722
10. Bicol Savings Bank and Loan Association v. CA G.R. No 85302 March 3, 1989
11. National Bank v. Tan OngSze 53 Phil 451
12. Kuenzle and Streff v. Collector of Customs 31 Phil 646
13. Barretto v. Tuazon 59 Phil 845
14. City-lite Realty Corporation v. CA 325 SCRA 385
15. Rodriguez v. CA 29 SCRA 419
16. Reyes and Lanuza v. del Leon 20 SCRA 369
17. Domingo v. Domingo 42 SCRA 131
18. Guzman v. CA 99 Phil 703
19. People v. Chowdry 325 SCRA 572
20. Tan TiongTeck v. La Comisioni de Valores, et al 69 Phil. 425
21. Baron v. Leyte Asphalt 46 Phil. 938
22. Gutierrez Hermanos v. OriaHermanos and Co. 30 Phil 491
23. Areola v. CA 236 SCRA 643
24. PNB v. Bagamaspad and Ferrer 89 Phil 365
25. Gutierrez v. Orense 28 Phil. 571
26. Vicente v. Geraldez 52 SCRA 210
27. Buason et al v. Panuyas 105 Phil 795
28. Rural Bank of Milaor (Camarines Sur) v. Ocfemia 325 SCRA 99
29. Cuison v. CA G.R. No. 88539 October 26, 1993
30. Phil. Bank of Commerce v. Aruego January 31, 1981
31. China Airlines v. CA G.R. No. 45985 May 18, 1990; PAL v. CA G.R. No. 46038 May 18, 1990; NFA v. IAC April
5, 1990
32. Yu Eng Cho v. Pan American World Airways Inc. 328 SCRA 717; Bordador v. Luz 89 SCAD 880, 283 SCRA
374
33. Bonnevie v. CA 125 SCRA 122
34. CMS Logging Inc. v. CA and Aguinaldo Corp. G.R. No. L-41420 July 10, 1992; Reyes v. Mosqueda 53 Off. Gaz.
2158
35. Infante v. Cunanan 49 Off. Gaz. 3320
36. DyBuncio v. Ong Guan Can 60 Phil. 696
37. Del Rosario v. Abad and Abad 104 SCRA 648
38. Rallos v. Felix Go Chan 81 SCRA 251
39. Safic Alcan and Cie v. Imperial Vegetable Oil Inc. G.R. No. 126751 March 28, 2001; Dizon v. CA 302 SCRA
288
40. Cervantes v. CA 304 SCRA 25
41. Uy v. CA 314 SCRA 69
42. Pacific Com. Co. v. Yatco Off. Gaz. Aug. 2, 1941; Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Nolting and Garcia 35 Phil. 274; CIR v.
Cadwallader Pacific Co. 18 SCRA 827

Trust
1. Morales et al v. CA G.R. No. 117228 June 19, 1997
2. Gelano v, CA 103 SCRA 90
3. Vda. De Mapa v. CA 154 SCRA 294
4. Secuyavda. De Selma 326 SCRA 244
5. Pangan v. CA 166 SCRA 375
6. Heirs of Candelaria v. Romero 109 Phil. 500
7. Gonzales et al v. IAC G.R. No. 66479 November 21, 1991; Fabian v. Fabian 22 SCRA 213; Caragay-Layno v.
CA 133 SCRA 718
8. Salao v. Salao 70 SCRA 65
9. Laureano v. Stevenson 45 Phil. 252
10. Manangan v. delos Reyes 308 SCRA 139; Heirs of Joaquin Teves v. CA 316 SCRA 632; Villanueva-Mijares v.
CA 330 SCRA 349
11. Development Bank of the Phil. V. CA 331 SCRA 267
12. Adriano v. CA 328 SCRA 738
13. Viloria v. CA 309 SCRA 529
14. Rosario v. CA 310 SCRA 464
15. Heirs of Lorenzo Yap v. CA 312 SCRA 603
16. Saltiga de Romero v. CA 319 SCRA 180; Yuchengco v. Republic 333 SCRA 368
17. Huang v. CA 55 SCAD 289; Vda De Esconde v. CA 67 SCAD 642
18. Heirs of Candelaria v. Romero 109 Phil 500; Olaco et al v. Valentin Co Cho Chit G.R. No. 58010 March 31,
1993
19. Caladiao v. Santos vda de Blas 10 SCRA 691; Enriquez v. CA 104 SCRA 656; Heirs of Maria del Cruz v. CA
182 SCRA 638
20. Laguna v. Levantino 71 Phil. 556; Valdez v. Olorga 51 SCRA 71
21. Salvatierra v. CA 73 SCAD 586
22. De Buencamino v. De Matias 16 SCRA 849