PARTNERSHIP G.R. No.

172690, March 3, 2010 HEIRS OF JOSE LIM, represented by ELENITO LIM, Petitioners, - versus JULIET VILLA LIM, Respondent.

FACTS: Jose gave Elfledo P50,000.00 as the latter's capital in an informal

partnership with Jimmy and Norberto. When Elfledo and respondent got married in 1981, the partnership only had one truck; but through the efforts of Elfledo, the business flourished. Other than this trucking business, Elfledo, together with respondent, engaged in other business ventures. Thus, they were able to buy real properties and to put up their own car assembly and repair business. When Norberto was ambushed and killed on July 16, 1993, the

trucking business started to falter. When Elfledo died on May 18, 1995 due to a heart attack, respondent talked to Jimmy and to the heirs of Norberto, as she could no longer run the business. Jimmy suggested that three out of the nine trucks be given to him as his share, while the other three trucks be given to the heirs of Norberto. However, Norberto's wife, Paquita Uy, was not interested in the vehicles. Thus, she sold the same to respondent, who paid for them in installments. Petitioners insists that Jose Lim was the

partner of Norberto and Jimmy and not

Elfledo(late husband of respondent) and

therefore all the properties acquired byElfledo and respondent form part of t heestate of Jose, having been derived from the alleged partnership.

ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the partnership exist being informally organized? 2. Whether or not Elfledo is a partner of the said trucking company?

HELD : Petition denied: 1. A partnership exists when two or more persons agree to place their money, effects, labor, and skill in lawful commerce or business, with the understanding that there shall be a proportionate sharing of the profits and losses among them. A contract of partnership is defined by

the Civil Code as one where 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. 2. The court applying 1769 of the CivilCode held that Elfledo is a partner. 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 andNorberto: 1) Cresencia testified that Jose gave Elfledo P50,000.00, as share in the partnership, on a date that coincided with the payment of the initial capital in the partnership;(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. (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; and (5) none of the petitioners, as heirs of Jose, the alleged partner, demanded periodic accounting from Elfledo during his lifetime.

Question: Jose ,give his eldest son Elfledo 50 , 000.00 pesos for the latter to contribute of the propose trucking informal partnership with Norberto and Jimmy. Years later, business flourished, the property was registered in the name of Elfledo including the nine (9) trucks. However , Elfledo died and the widow Cresencia , took over the partnership. Upon the death, all properties were distributed to other partner through installments. The wife continue running the business. Joses heir claimed that the property own by Elfledo where the properties of the partnership. Thus , as legal heirs it forms part of Joses Estate. The heirs of Jose file for the partition and liquidation of the assets of the partnership. A. Is there Answer: Yes, A partnership exists when two or more persons agree to place their money, effects, labor, and skill in lawful commerce or business, with the understanding that there shall be a proportionate sharing of the profits and losses among them. A contract of partnership is defined by the Civil Code as one where 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 B. If you where the judge, would you grant the petition?Who is considered partner in the partnership Jose or Elfledo? Answer: No , I will deny the petition for partition, liquidation of the assets. The partition , liquidation and winding up of the partnership assets presupposes that existence of the partnership relation of the petitioner. This right is intended under the Civil Code in order to share the fruits of the partnership to its partners in the case of death of the partner. Elfledo is the partner. 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. partnership exist?

[G.R. No. 193840 : June 15, 2011] ALEXANDER S. GAISANO, PETITIONER, VS. BENJAMIN C. AKOL, RESPONDENT. (COMPROMISE AGREEMENT) FACTS: Benjamin Akol , claimant for Civil Case No. 2006-010 for recovery of shares of stock and damages against Alexander Gaisano and which case was dismissed by the Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City on June 204, 2008. Subequently upon the dismissal , within the period , Ako elevated to the appellate court , hereby granted the petition for the shares of stock on November 24, 2009 Decision and August 23, 2010. Gaisano filed a petition for review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court assailing the appellate court decision. During the pendency of the Petition for Certiorari on review, both parties agreed to terminate action based on the compromise agreement voluntarily agreed by them and both of them bear their cost and expenses of the litigation. ISSUE: Whether or not the compromise agreement is binding to terminate the action pending with the Supreme Court? HELD: Petition rendered moot and academic on the ground of compromise agreement. A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation, or put an end to one already commenced. Its validity depends on its fulfillment of the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law; its terms and conditions being not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order. The agreement reveals it is a compromise agreement sanctioned under Article 2028 of the Civil Code to wit as follows: A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Its terms and conditions are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order. Hence, judgment can be validly rendered thereon.

Question: Akol, a plaintiff , a shareholder of corporation filed a case against Ben for the recovery of shares of stock. The case was dismissed in the Regional trial court. Subseqently filed in the appellate court and granted the same for the action for recovery of stocks. However damages was not awarded on reason that there was no evidence of the damage in the action. Aggreived by the decision Ben, file an petition for rewiew on certiorari with the Supreme Court. However , while the case is pending both of the parties voluntarily agreed for the compromise agreement to end litigation and to bear their own expenses in the litigation. If you were the judge in the higher court, would you grant the petition for review on certiorari? Answer: The petion will be rendered moot and academic. The agreement reveals it is a compromise agreement sanctioned under Article 2028 of the Civil Code to wit as follows: A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Its terms and conditions are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order. Hence, judgment can be validly rendered thereon.