You are on page 1of 1

1. CONCEPT OF PARTNERSHIP EE.M.

DELACRUZ, DMD
AND ITS CLASSIFICATION
ART. 1775
Held:
1. E.J. SMITH AND RAFAEL REYES, proprietors of the Philippine
Gas Light Company,Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JACINTA LOPEZ (1) Messrs. Smith and Reyes executed the contract in their
AND IGNACIA LOPEZ DE PINEDA,Defendants-Appellants. own individual capacity and not in the name of any partnership.
They acted as coowners of the Philippine Gas Light Company. In
their complaint, they sought to enforce a legitimate right which
Facts: they had as such coowners. Where two or more persons having a
common interest in a certain business or property bring an action
On November 19, 1902, Messrs. Smith and Reyes, as in court it must be presumed that they prosecute the same in their
proprietors of the Philippine Gas Light Company, brought this individual capacity as coowners and not in behalf of a partnership
action against the defendant sisters, Jacinta and Ignacia Lopez de which does not exist juridically.
Pineda, to recover from them the sum of 3,270 pesos (Mexican
currency)for work performed in connection with the installation of The plaintiffs were not seeking to enforce a right
a water system, urinals, closets, shower baths, and drain pipes in pertaining to a legal entity. They were not obliged to register in the
the house at No. 142 Calle Dulumbayan, district of Santa Cruz, Mercantile Registry. They were merely merchants having a
the same being the property of the defendants. The plaintiffs common interest in the business. They were under no obligation
alleged that they had complied with the agreement made with the to register.
father of the defendants, Nicasio Lopez, the administrator of the
property, and that the labor performed and the material used were (2) Even assuming that the defendants did not expressly
reasonably worth the sum of 4,020 pesos (Mexican currency). ratify or approve the action of their father, Nicasio Lopez, the fact
remains that the house was improved by said work, and, for this
Attorney Gregorio Pineda appeared in behalf of the reason, the owners of the premises are liable for the obligations
defendants, denied all the facts set out in the complaint, and incurred by their agent, Lopez, for their benefit and
alleged that it did not appear from the pleadings that plaintiffs had advantage. Where a person undertakes to act as agent for
ever entered into a mercantile partnership under the aforesaid another, in conformity with the provisions of the civil law,
name and style, or that any such partnership legally existed; that reciprocal obligations are created between such person and the
Nicasio Lopez was not the administrator nor was he empowered owner of the property to which the agency relates, even where the
by the defendants to make any contract for repairs and owner has not previously given his consent thereto, by virtue of a
improvements to and in the said house and prayed for the quasi-contract.
dismissal of the case.
Issue:
(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs are suing under a
partnership?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement of
the costs borne out of the repairs on the ground that
the same was executed not with the land owners?