15.

TAI TONG CHUACHE & CO., petitioner,

vs.
THE INSURANCE COMMISSION and TRAVELLERS MULTI-INDEMNITY
CORPORATION, respondents.

G.R. No. L-55397

February 29, 1988

Facts:

Spouses Pedro and Azucena Palomo are the owners of a parcel of land and a building. Azucena
Palomo obtained a loan from Tai Tong Chuache & Co in the amount of 100,000.00. To secure the
loan, a mortgage was executed over the land and building in favor of Tai Tong Chuache & Co.

Arsenio Chua, representative of Tai Tong Chuache & Co. insured the building and its contents for
100,000.00 with Travellers Multi-indemnity Insurance which the policy was issued in the name of
Azucena Palomo to indicate that she owns the insured premises.

On July 31, 1975, the building and the contents were totally razed by fire.

Spouses Palomo demanded from Travellers Multi-indemnity Insurance for its share in the loss but
the latter refused. Tai Tong Chuache & Co filed a complaint in intervention claiming the proceeds of
the fire insurance issued by Travellers Multi-indemnity Insurance.

Travellers Multi-indemnity Insurance, on its part, admitted the issuance of the policy in favor of
Arsenio Chua, and not Tai Tong Chuache & Co. It alleges that the intervenor is not entitled to
indemnity for lack of insurable interest over the property.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the proceeds of the fire insurance policy?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner being a partnership may sue and be sued in its name or
by its duly authorized representative. The fact that Arsenio is the representative of the petitioner and
that he acts as the managing partner of the partnership, he may execute all acts of administration
including the right to sue debtors of the partnership in case of their failure to pay their obligations
when it became due and demandable. Moreover, Chua, being a partner of the petitioner is an agent
of the partnership, being an agent, it is understood that he acted for and in behalf of the firm.

Considering that respondent insurance company issued a policy in favor of the petitioner which
policy was of legal force and effect at the time of the fire, they must be held liable.
30.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
SEVERO EUGENIO LO, ET AL., defendants.
SEVERIO EUGENIO LO, NG KHEY LING and YEP SENG, appellants

G.R. No. L-26937            

October 5, 1927

Facts:

Severo Eugenio Lo, Ng Khey Ling, JA Say Lian Ping, Ko Tiao Hun, On Yem Ke Lam, and Co Sieng
Peng formed a commercial partnership under the name of Tai Sing & Co which was registered in the
mercantile register of the Province of Iloilo.

JA Say Lian Ping was appointed as general manager of the partnership with powers specified in the
articles of copartnership.

On June 4, 1917, General Manager JA Say Lian Ping executed a power of attorney in favor of On
Yem Ke Lam, authorizing him to act in his stead as manager and administrator of Tai Sing & Co. and
to obtain a loan from the plaintiff bank and as a security, he mortgaged certain personal property of
Tai Sing & Co.

On April 20, 1920, Yap Seng, Severo Eugenio Lo, On Yem Ke Lam and Ng Khey Ling executed a
power of attorney in favor of Sy Tit representing Tai Sing & Co and obtained a credit from plaintiff
bank executing a chattel mortgage on certain personal property of Tai Sing & Co.

When the plaintiff bank claimed for the debt against the partnership. Defendant Severo Eugenio Lo
raised as general defense that Tai Sing & Co. was not a general partnership and the commercial
credit obtained from the plaintiff bank was unauthorized by the board of directors of the company nor
was the person who subscribed said contract authorized to make the same under the articles of
copartnership.

Issue:

Whether or not the defense raised by the defendants was untenable?

Ruling:

Yes, the defense raised by the defendants was untenable. The partnership is liable to the plaintiff
bank because On Yem Ke Lam was a partner who contracted in the name of the partnership,
without any objections of the other partners and because the appointment of Sy Tit as manager is
valid and shall bind the partnership.

The association formed by the defendants is a general partnership as registered in the mercantile
register of the Province of Iloilo. Regardless of the firm name used by the partnership, such
anomalous adoption of the firm name does not affect the liability of the general partners to third
parties.