PARTNERSHIP POWER TO DISSOLVE PARTNERSHIP

G.R. No. 127405. October 4, 2000 MARJORIE TOCAO and WILLIAM T. BELO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and NENITA A. ANAY, respondents. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: This is a petition for review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 41616,[1] affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 140, in Civil Case No. 88-509.[2] Fresh from her stint as marketing adviser of Technolux in Bangkok, Thailand, private respondent Nenita A. Anay met petitioner William T. Belo, then the vice-president for operations of Ultra Clean Water Purifier, through her former employer in Bangkok. Belo introduced Anay to petitioner Marjorie Tocao, who conveyed her desire to enter into a joint venture with her for the importation and local distribution of kitchen cookwares. Belo volunteered to finance the joint venture and assigned to Anay the job of marketing the product considering her experience and established relationship with West Bend Company, a manufacturer of kitchen wares in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Under the joint venture, Belo acted as capitalist, Tocao as president and general manager, and Anay as head of the marketing department and later, vice-president for sales. Anay organized the administrative staff and sales force while Tocao hired and fired employees, determined commissions and/or salaries of the employees, and assigned them to different branches. The parties agreed that Belos name should not appear in any documents relating to their transactions with West Bend Company. Instead, they agreed to use Anays name in securing distributorship of cookware from that company. The parties agreed further that Anay would be entitled to: (1) ten percent (10%) of the annual net profits of the business; (2) overriding commission of six percent (6%) of the overall weekly production; (3) thirty percent (30%) of the sales she would make; and (4) two percent (2%) for her demonstration services. The agreement was not reduced to writing on the stre ngth of Belos assurances that he was sincere, dependable and honest when it came to financial commitments. Anay having secured the distributorship of cookware products from the West Bend Company and organized the administrative staff and the sales force, the cookware business took off successfully. They operated under the name of Geminesse Enterprise, a sole proprietorship registered in Marjorie Tocaos name, with office at 712 Rufino Building, Ayala Avenue, Makati City. Belo made good his monetary commitments to Anay. Thereafter, Roger Muencheberg of West Bend Company invited Anay to the distributor/dealer meeting in West Bend, Wisconsin, U.S.A., from July 19 to 21, 1987 and to the southwestern regional convention in Pismo Beach, California, U.S.A., from July 25-26, 1987. Anay accepted the invitation with the consent of Marjorie Tocao who, as president and general manager of Geminesse Enterprise, even wrote a letter to the Visa Section of the U.S. Embassy in Manila on July 13, 1987. A portion of the letter reads: Ms. Nenita D. Anay (sic), who has been patronizing and supporting West Bend Co. for twenty (20) years now, acquired the distributorship of Royal Queen cookware for Geminesse Enterprise, is the Vice President Sales Marketing and a business partner of our company, will attend in response to the invitation. (Italics supplied.)*3+ Anay arrived from the U.S.A. in mid-August 1987, and immediately undertook the task of saving the business on account of the unsatisfactory sales record in the Makati and Cubao offices. On August 31, 1987, she received a plaque of appreciation from the administrative and sales people through Marjorie Tocao[4] for her excellent job performance. On October 7, 1987, in the presence of Anay, Belo signed a memo[5] entitling her to a thirty-seven

percent (37%) commission for her personal sales "up Dec 31/87. Belo explained to her that said commission was apart from her ten percent (10%) share in the profits. On October 9, 1987, Anay learned that Marjorie Tocao had signed a letter[6] addressed to the Cubao sales office to the effect that she was no longer the vice-president of Geminesse Enterprise. The following day, October 10, she received a note from Lina T. Cruz, marketing manager, that Marjorie Tocao had barred her from holding office and conducting demonstrations in both Makati and Cubao offices.[7] Anay attempted to contact Belo. She wrote him twice to demand her overriding commission for the period of January 8, 1988 to February 5, 1988 and the audit of the company to determine her share in the net profits. When her letters were not answered, Anay consulted her lawyer, who, in turn, wrote Belo a letter. Still, that letter was not answered. Anay still received her five percent (5%) overriding commission up to December 1987. The following year, 1988, she did not receive the same commission although the company netted a gross sales of P13,300,360.00. On April 5, 1988, Nenita A. Anay filed Civil Case No. 88-509, a complaint for sum of money with damages[8] against Marjorie D. Tocao and William Belo before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 140. In her complaint, Anay prayed that defendants be ordered to pay her, jointly and severally, the following: (1) P32,00.00 as unpaid overriding commission from January 8, 1988 to February 5, 1988; (2) P100,000.00 as moral damages, and (3) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. The plaintiff also prayed for an audit of the finances of Geminesse Enterprise from the inception of its business operation until she was illegally dismissed to d etermine her ten percent (10%) share in the net profits. She further prayed that she be paid the five percent (5%) overriding commission on the remaining 150 West Bend cookware sets before her dismissal. In their answer,[9] Marjorie Tocao and Belo asserted that the alleged agreement with Anay that was neither reduced in writing, nor ratified, was either unenforceable or void or inexistent. As far as Belo was concerned, his only role was to introduce Anay to Marjorie Tocao. There could not have been a partnership because, as Anay herself admitted, Geminesse Enterprise was the sole proprietorship of Marjorie Tocao. Because Anay merely acted as marketing demonstrator of Geminesse Enterprise for an agreed remuneration, and her complaint referred to either her compensation or dismissal, such complaint should have been lodged with the Department of Labor and not with the regular court. Petitioners (defendants therein) further alleged that Anay filed the complaint on account of ill -will and resentment because Marjorie Tocao did not allow her to lord it over in the Geminesse Enterprise. Anay had acted like she owned the enterprise because of her experience and expertise. Hence, petitioners were the ones who suffered actual damages including unreturned and unaccounted stocks of Geminesse Enterprise, and serious anxiety, besmirched reputation in the business world, and various damages not less than P500,000.00. They also alleged that, to vindicate their names, they had to hire counsel for a fee of P 23,000.00. At the pre-trial conference, the issues were limited to: (a) whether or not the plaintiff was an employee or partner of Marjorie Tocao and Belo, and (b) whether or not the parties are entitled to damages.[10] In their defense, Belo denied that Anay was supposed to receive a share in the profit of the business. He, however, admitted that the two had agreed that Anay would receive a three to four percent (3-4%) share in the gross sales of the cookware. He denied contributing capital to the business or receiving a share in its profits as he merely served as a guarantor of Marjorie Tocao, who was new in the business. He attended and/or presided over business meetings of the venture in his capacity as a guarantor but he never participated in decision-making. He claimed that he wrote the memo granting the plaintiff thirty-seven percent (37%) commission upon her dismissal from the business venture at the request of Tocao, because Anay had no other income.

For her part, Marjorie Tocao denied having entered into an oral partnership agreement with Anay. However, she admitted that Anay was an expert in the cookware business and hence, they agreed to grant her the following commissions: thirty-seven percent (37%) on personal sales; five percent (5%) on gross sales; two percent (2%) on product demonstrations, and two percent (2%) for recruitment of personnel. Marjorie denied that they agreed on a ten percent (10%) commission on the net profits. Marjorie claimed that she got the capital for the business out of the sale of the sewing machines used in her garments business and from Peter Lo, a Singaporean friend-financier who loaned her the funds with interest. Because she treated Anay as her co -equal, Marjorie received the same amounts of commissions as her. However, Anay failed to account for stocks valued at P200,000.00. On April 22, 1993, the trial court rendered a decision the dispositive part of which is as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Ordering defendants to submit to the Court a formal account as to the partnership affairs for the years 1987 and 1988 pursuant to Art. 1809 of the Civil Code in order to determine the ten percent (10%) share of plaintiff in the net profits of the cookware business; 2. Ordering defendants to pay five percent (5%) overriding commission for the one hundred and fifty (150) cookware sets available for disposition when plaintiff was wrongfully excluded from the partnership by defendants; 3. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiff overriding commission on the total production which for the period covering January 8, 1988 to February 5, 1988 amounted to P32,000.00; 4. Ordering defendants to pay P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and 5. Ordering defendants to pay P50,000.00 as attorneys fees and P20,000.00 as costs of suit. SO ORDERED. The trial court held that there was indeed an oral partnership agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants, based on the following: (a) there was an intention to create a partnership; (b) a common fund was established through contributions consisting of money and industry, and (c) there was a joint interest in the profits. The testimony of Elizabeth Bantilan, Anays cousin and the administrative officer of Gemi nesse Enterprise from August 21, 1986 until it was absorbed by Royal International, Inc., buttressed the fact that a partnership existed between the parties. The letter of Roger Muencheberg of West Bend Company stating that he awarded the distributorship to Anay and Marjorie Tocao because he was convinced that with Marjories financial contribution and Anays experience, the combination of the two would be invaluable to the partnership, also supported that conclusion. Belos claim that he was merely a guarantor has no basis since there was no written evidence thereof as required by Article 2055 of the Civil Code. Moreover, his acts of attending and/or presiding over meetings of Geminesse Enterprise plus his issuance of a memo giving Anay 37% commission on personal sales belied this. On the contrary, it demonstrated his involvement as a partner in the business. The trial court further held that the payment of commissions did not preclude the existence of the partnership inasmuch as such practice is often resorted to in business circles as an impetus to bigger sales volume. It did not matter that the agreement was not in writing because Article 1771 of the Civil Code provides that a partnership may be constituted in any form. The fact that Geminesse Enterprise was registered in Marjorie Tocaos name is not determinative of whether or not the business was managed and operated by a sole proprietor or a partnership. What was registered with the Bureau of Domestic Trade was merely the business name or style of

Geminesse Enterprise. The trial court finally held that a partner who is excluded wrongfully from a partnership is an innocent partner. Hence, the guilty partner must give him his due upon the dissolution of the partnership as well as damages or share in the profits realized from the appropriation of the partnership business and goodwill. An innocent partner thus possesses pecuniary interest in every existing contract that was incomplete and in the trade name of the co-partnership and assets at the time he was wrongfully expelled. Petitioners appeal to the Court of Appeals*11+ was dismissed, but the amount of damages awarded by the trial court were reduced to P50,000.00 for moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. Their Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals for lack of merit.[12] Petitioners Belo and Marjorie Tocao are now before this Court on a petition for review on certiorari, asserting that there was no business partnership between them and herein private respondent Nenita A. Anay who is, therefore, not entitled to the damages awarded to her by the Court of Appeals. Petitioners Tocao and Belo contend that the Court of Appeals erroneously held that a partnership existed between them and private respondent Anay because Geminesse Enterprise came into being exactly a year before the alleged partnership was formed, and that it was very unlikely that petitioner Belo would invest the sum of P2,500,000.00 with petitioner Tocao contributing nothing, without any memorandu m whatsoever regarding the alleged partnership.*13+ The issue of whether or not a partnership exists is a factual matter which are within the exclusive domain of both the trial and appellate courts. This Court cannot set aside factual findings of such courts absent any showing that there is no evidence to support the conclusion drawn by the court a quo.[14] In this case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals are one in ruling that petitioners and private respondent established a business partnership. This Court finds no reason to rule otherwise. To be considered a juridical personality, a partnership must fulfill these requisites: (1) two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (2) intention on the part of the partners to divide the profits among themselves.[15] It may be constituted in any form; a public instrument is necessary only where immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto.[16] This implies that since a contract of partnership is consensual, an oral contract of partnership is as good as a written one. Where no immovable property or real rights are involved, what matters is that the parties have complied with the requisites of a partnership. The fact that there appears to be no record in the Securities and Exchange Commission of a public instrument embodying the partnership agreement pursuant to Article 1772 of the Civil Code[17] did not cause the nullification of the partnership. The pertinent provision of the Civil Code on the matter states: Art. 1768. The partnership has a juridical personality separate and distinct from that of each of the partners, even in case of failure to comply with the requirements of article 1772, first paragraph. Petitioners admit that private respondent had the expertise to engage in the business of distributorship of cookware. Private respondent contributed such expertise to the partnership and hence, under the law, she was the industrial or managing partner. It was through her reputation with the West Bend Company that the partnership was able to open the business of distributorship of that companys cookware products; it was through the same efforts that the business was propelled to financial success. Petitioner Tocao herself admitted private respondents indispensable role in putting up the business when, upon being asked if private respondent held the positions of marketing manager and vice-president for sales, she testified thus: A: No, sir at the start she was the marketing manager because there were no one to sell yet, its only me there

then her and then two (2) people, so about four (4). Now, after that when she recruited already Oscar Abella and Lina Torda-Cruz these two (2) people were given the designation of marketing managers of which definitely Nita as superior to them would be the Vice President.*18+ By the set-up of the business, third persons were made to believe that a partnership had indeed been forged between petitioners and private respondents. Thus, the communication dated June 4, 1986 of Missy Jagler of West Bend Company to Roger Muencheberg of the same company states: Marge Tocao is president of Geminesse Enterprises. Geminesse will finance the operations. Marge does not have cookware experience. Nita Anay has started to gather former managers, Lina Torda and Dory Vista. She has also gathered former demonstrators, Betty Bantilan, Eloisa Lamela, Menchu Javier. They will continue to gather other key people and build up the organization. All they need is the finance and the products to sell.*19+ On the other hand, petitioner Belos denial that he financed the partnership rings hollow in the face of the established fact that he presided over meetings regarding matters affecting the operation of the business. Moreover, his having authorized in writing on October 7, 1987, on a stationery of his own business firm, Wilcon Builders Supply, that private respondent should receive thirty-seven (37%) of the proceeds of her personal sales, could not be interpreted otherwise than that he had a proprietary interest in the business. His claim that he was merely a guarantor is belied by that personal act of proprietorship in the business. Moreover, if he was indeed a guarantor of future debts of petitioner Tocao under Article 2053 of the Civil Code,[20] he should have presented documentary evidence therefor. While Article 2055 of the Civil Code simply provides that guaranty must be express, Article 1403, the Statute of Frauds, requires that a special promise to answer for t he debt, default or miscarriage of another be in writing.*21+ Petitioner Tocao, a former ramp model,[22] was also a capitalist in the partnership. She claimed that she herself financed the business. Her and petitioner Belos roles as both capitalists to the partnership with private respondent are buttressed by petitioner Tocaos admissions that petitioner Belo was her boyfriend and that the partnership was not their only business venture together. They also established a firm that they called Wiji, the combination of petitioner Belos first name, William, and her nickname, Jiji.*23+ The special relationship between them dovetails with petitioner Belos claim that he was acting in behalf of petitioner Tocao. Significantly, in the early stage of the business operation, petitioners requested West Bend Company to allow them to utilize their banking and trading facilities in Singapore in the matter of importation and payment of the cookware products.[24] The inevitable conclusion, therefore, was that petitioners merged their respective capital and infused the amount into the partnership of distributing cookware with private respondent as the managing partner. The business venture operated under Geminesse Enterprise did not result in an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and private respondent. While it is true that the receipt of a percentage of net profits constitutes only prima facie evidence that the recipient is a partner in the business,[25] the evidence in the case at bar controverts an employer-employee relationship between the parties. In the first place, private respondent had a voice in the management of the affairs of the cookware distributorship,[26] including selection of people who would constitute the administrative staff and the sales force. Secondly, petitioner Tocaos admissions militate against an employer-employee relationship. She admitted that, like her who owned Geminesse Enterprise,[27] private respondent received only commissions and transportation and representation allowances[28] and not a fixed salary.[29] Petitioner Tocao testified: Q: Of course. Now, I am showing to you certain documents already marked as Exhs. X and Y. Please go over this. Exh. Y is denominated `Cubao overrides 8-21-87 with ending August 21, 1987, will you please go over this and tell the Honorable Court whether you ever came across this document and know of your own knowledge the

amount --A: Yes, sir this is what I am talking about earlier. Thats the one I am telling you earlier a certa in percentage for promotions, advertising, incentive. Q: I see. Now, this promotion, advertising, incentive, there is a figure here and words which I quote: Overrides Marjorie Ann Tocao P21,410.50 this means that you have received this amount? A: Oh yes, sir. Q: I see. And, by way of amplification this is what you are saying as one representing commission, representation, advertising and promotion? A: Yes, sir. Q: I see. Below your name is the words and figure and I quote Nita D. Anay P21,410.50, w hat is this? A: Thats her overriding commission. Q: Overriding commission, I see. Of course, you are telling this Honorable Court that there being the same P21,410.50 is merely by coincidence? A: No, sir, I made it a point that we were equal because the way I look at her kasi, you know in a sense because of her expertise in the business she is vital to my business. So, as part of the incentive I offer her the same thing. Q: So, in short you are saying that this you have shared together, I mean having gotten from the company P21,140.50 is your way of indicating that you were treating her as an equal? A: As an equal. Q: As an equal, I see. You were treating her as an equal? A: Yes, sir. Q: I am calling again your attention to Exh. Y Overrides Makat i the other one is --A: That is the same thing, sir. Q: With ending August 21, words and figure Overrides Marjorie Ann Tocao P15,314.25 the amount there you will acknowledge you have received that? A: Yes, sir. Q: Again in concept of commission, representation, promotion, etc.? A: Yes, sir. Q: Okey. Below your name is the name of Nita Anay P15,314.25 that is also an indication that she received the same amount?

A: Yes, sir. Q: And, as in your previous statement it is not by coincidence that these two (2) are the same? A: No, sir. Q: It is again in concept of you treating Miss Anay as your equal? A: Yes, sir. (Italics supplied.)*30+ If indeed petitioner Tocao was private respondents employer, it is difficult to believe that they shall receiv e the same income in the business. In a partnership, each partner must share in the profits and losses of the venture, except that the industrial partner shall not be liable for the losses.[31] As an industrial partner, private respondent had the right to demand for a formal accounting of the business and to receive her share in the net profit.[32] The fact that the cookware distributorship was operated under the name of Geminesse Enterprise, a sole proprietorship, is of no moment. What was registered with the Bureau of Domestic Trade on August 19, 1987 was merely the name of that enterprise.[33] While it is true that in her undated application for renewal of registration of that firm name, petitioner Tocao indicated that it would be engaged in retail of k itchenwares, cookwares, utensils, skillet,*34+ she also admitted that the enterprise was only 60% to 70% for the cookware business, while 20% to 30% of its business activity was devoted to the sale of water sterilizer or purifier.[35] Indubitably then, the business name Geminesse Enterprise was used only for practical reasons - it was utilized as the common name for petitioner Tocaos various business activities, which included the distributorship of cookware. Petitioners underscore the fact that the Court of Appeals did not return the unaccounted and unremitted stocks of Geminesse Enterprise amounting to P208,250.00.*36+ Obviously a ploy to offset the damages awarded to private respondent, that claim, more than anything else, proves the existence of a partnership between them. In Idos v. Court of Appeals, this Court said: The best evidence of the existence of the partnership, which was not yet terminated (though in the winding up stage), were the unsold goods and uncollected receivables, which were presented to the trial court. Since the partnership has not been terminated, the petitioner and private complainant remained as co-partners. x x x.*37+ It is not surprising then that, even after private respondent had been unceremoniously booted out of the partnership in October 1987, she still received her overriding commission until December 1987. Undoubtedly, petitioner Tocao unilaterally excluded private respondent from the partnership to reap for herself and/or for petitioner Belo financial gains resulting from private respondents efforts to make the business venture a success. Thus, as petitioner Tocao became adept in the business operation, she started to assert herself to the extent that she would even shout at private respondent in front of other people.[38] Her instruction to Lina Torda Cruz, marketing manager, not to allow private respondent to hold office in both the Makati and Cubao sales offices concretely spoke of her perception that private respondent was no longer necessary in the business operation,[39] and resulted in a falling out between the two. However, a mere falling out or misunderstanding between partners does not convert the partnership into a sham organization.[40] The partnership exists until dissolved under the law. Since the partnership created by petitioners and private respondent has no fixed term and is therefore a partnership at will predicated on their mutual desire and consent, it may be dissolved by the will of a partner. Thus:

x x x. The right to choose with whom a person wishes to associate himself is the very foundation and essence of that partnership. Its continued existence is, in turn, dependent on the constancy of that mutual resolve, along with each partners capability to give it, and the absence of cause for d issolution provided by the law itself. Verily, any one of the partners may, at his sole pleasure, dictate a dissolution of the partnership at will. He must, however, act in good faith, not that the attendance of bad faith can prevent the dissolution of the partnership but that it can result in a liability for damages.*41+ An unjustified dissolution by a partner can subject him to action for damages because by the mutual agency that arises in a partnership, the doctrine of delectus personae allows the partners to have the power, although not necessarily the right to dissolve the partnership.[42] In this case, petitioner Tocaos unilateral exclusion of private respondent from the partnership is shown by her memo to the Cubao office plainly stating that private respondent was, as of October 9, 1987, no longer the vicepresident for sales of Geminesse Enterprise.[43] By that memo, petitioner Tocao effected her own withdrawal from the partnership and considered herself as having ceased to be associated with the partnership in the carrying on of the business. Nevertheless, the partnership was not terminated thereby; it continues until the winding up of the business.[44] The winding up of partnership affairs has not yet been undertaken by the partnership. This is manifest in petitioners claim for stocks that had been entrusted to private respondent in the pursuit of the partnership business. The determination of the amount of damages commensurate with the factual findings upon which it is based is primarily the task of the trial court.[45] The Court of Appeals may modify that amount only when its factual findings are diametrically opposed to that of the lower court,[46] or the award is palpably or scandalously and unreasonably excessive.[47] However, exemplary damages that are awarded by way of example or correction for the public good,*48+ should be reduced to P50,000.00, the amount correctly awarded by the Court of Appeals. Concomitantly, the award of moral damages of P100,000.00 was excessive and should be likewise reduced to P50,000.00. Similarly, attorneys fees that should be granted on account of the award of exemplary damages and petitioners evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy private respondents plainly valid, just and demandable claims,[49] appear to have been excessively granted by the trial court and should therefore be reduced to P25,000.00. WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The partnership among petitioners and private respondent is ordered dissolved, and the parties are ordered to effect the winding up and liquidation of the partnership pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code. This case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court for proper proceedings relative to said dissolution. The appealed decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, as follows --1. Petitioners are ordered to submit to the Regional Trial Court a formal account of the partnership affairs for the years 1987 and 1988, pursuant to Article 1809 of the Civil Code, in order to determine private respondents ten percent (10%) share in the net profits of the partnership; 2. Petitioners are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay private respondent five percent (5%) overriding commission for the one hundred and fifty (150) cookware sets available for disposition since the time private respondent was wrongfully excluded from the partnership by petitioners; 3. Petitioners are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay private respondent overriding commission on the total production which, for the period covering January 8, 1988 to February 5, 1988, amounted to P32,000.00;

4. Petitioners are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay private respondent moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and attorneys fees in the amount of P25,000.00. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Existence of Partnership Dispute

G.R. No. 126881

October 3, 2000

HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and BENGUET LUMBER COMPANY, represented by its President TAN ENG LAY, respondents. DE LEON, JR., J.:

FACTS: Benguet Lumber has been around even before World War II but during the war, its stocks were confiscated by the Japanese. After the war, the brothers Tan Eng Lay and Tan Eng Kee pooled their resources in order to revive the business. In 1981, Tan Eng Lay caused the conversion of Benguet Lumber into a corporation called Benguet Lumber and Hardware Company, with him and his family as the incorporators. In 1983, Tan Eng Kee died. Thereafter, the heirs of Tan Eng Kee demanded for an accounting and the liquidation of the partnership. Tan Eng Lay denied that there was a partnership between him and his brother. He said that Tan Eng Kee was merely an employee of Benguet Lumber. He showed evidence consisting of Tan Eng Kees payroll; his SSS as an employee and Benguet Lumber being the employee. As a result of the presentation of said evidence, the heirs of Tan Eng Kee filed a criminal case against Tan Eng Lay for allegedly fabricating those evidence. Said criminal case was however dismissed for lack of evidence. ISSUE: Whether or not Tan Eng Kee is a partner. HELD: No. There was no certificate of partnership between the brothers. The heirs were not able to show what was the agreement between the brothers as to the sharing of profits. All they presented were circumstantial evidence which in no way proved partnership. It is obvious that there was no partnership whatsoever. Except for a firm name, there was no firm account, no firm letterheads submitted as evidence, no certificate of partnership, no agreement as to profits and losses, and no time fixed for the duration of the partnership. There was even no attempt to submit an accounting corresponding to the period after the war until Kees death in 1984. It had no business book, no written account nor any memorandum for that matter and no license mentioning the existence of a partnership. In fact, Tan Eng Lay was able to show evidence that Benguet Lumber is a sole proprietorship. He registered the same as such in 1954; that Kee was just an employee based on the latters payroll and SSS coverage, and other

records indicating Tan Eng Lay as the proprietor. Also, the business definitely amounted to more P3,000.00 hence if there was a partnership, it should have been made in a public instrument. But the business was started after the war (1945) prior to the publication of the New Civil Code in 1950? Even so, nothing prevented the parties from complying with this requirement. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that for 40 years, 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. Even if it can be speculated that a scenario wherein if excellent relations exist among the partners at the start of the business and all the partners are more interested in seeing the firm grow rather than get immediate returns, a deferment of sharing in the profits is perfectly plausible. But in the situation in the case at bar, the deferment, if any, had gone on too long to be plausible. A person is presumed to take ordinary care of his concerns. A demand for periodic accounting is evidence of a partnership which Kee never did. The Supreme Court also noted: 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 copossessors 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 which the returns are derived; (4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is 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 installment 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.

Co-ownership or Co-possession

G.R. No. L-19342 May 25, 1972 LORENZO T. OA and HEIRS OF JULIA BUALES, namely: RODOLFO B. OA, MARIANO B. OA, LUZ B. OA, VIRGINIA B. OA and LORENZO B. OA, JR., petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. Orlando Velasco for petitioners.

Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete, and Special Attorney Purificacion Ureta for respondent.

BARREDO, J.:p Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 617, similarly entitled as above, holding that petitioners have constituted an unregistered partnership and are, therefore, subject to the payment of the deficiency corporate income taxes assessed against them by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the years 1955 and 1956 in the total sum of P21,891.00, plus 5% surcharge and 1% monthly interest from December 15, 1958, subject to the provisions of Section 51 (e) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 2343 and the costs of the suit, 1 as well as the resolution of said court denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of said decision. The facts are stated in the decision of the Tax Court as follows: Julia Buales died on March 23, 1944, leaving as heirs her surviving spouse, Lorenzo T. Oa and her five children. In 1948, Civil Case No. 4519 was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the settlement of her estate. Later, Lorenzo T. Oa the surviving spouse was appointed administrator of the estate of said deceased (Exhibit 3, pp. 34-41, BIR rec.). On April 14, 1949, the administrator submitted the project of partition, which was approved by the Court on May 16, 1949 (See Exhibit K). Because three of the heirs, namely Luz, Virginia and Lorenzo, Jr., all surnamed Oa, were still minors when the project of partition was approved, Lorenzo T. Oa, their father and administrator of the estate, filed a petition in Civil Case No. 9637 of the Court of First Instance of Manila for appointment as guardian of said minors. On November 14, 1949, the Court appointed him guardian of the persons and property of the aforenamed minors (See p. 3, BIR rec.). The project of partition (Exhibit K; see also pp. 77-70, BIR rec.) shows that the heirs have undivided one-half (1/2) interest in ten parcels of land with a total assessed value of P87,860.00, six houses with a total assessed value of P17,590.00 and an undetermined amount to be collected from the War Damage Commission. Later, they received from said Commission the amount of P50,000.00, more or less. This amount was not divided among them but was used in the rehabilitation of properties owned by them in common (t.s.n., p. 46). Of the ten parcels of land aforementioned, two were acquired after the death of the decedent with money borrowed from the Philippine Trust Company in the amount of P72,173.00 (t.s.n., p. 24; Exhibit 3, pp. 31-34 BIR rec.). The project of partition also shows that the estate shares equally with Lorenzo T. Oa, the administrator thereof, in the obligation of P94,973.00, consisting of loans contracted by the latter with the approval of the Court (see p. 3 of Exhibit K; or see p. 74, BIR rec.). Although the project of partition was approved by the Court on May 16, 1949, no attempt was made to divide the properties therein listed. Instead, the properties remained under the management of Lorenzo T. Oa who used said properties in business by leasing or selling them and investing the income derived therefrom and the proceeds from the sales thereof in real properties and securities. As a result, petitioners' properties and investments gradually increased from P105,450.00 in 1949 to P480,005.20 in 1956 as can be gleaned from the following yearend balances:

From said investments and properties petitioners derived such incomes as profits from installment sales of subdivided lots, profits from sales of stocks, dividends, rentals and interests (see p. 3 of Exhibit 3; p. 32, BIR rec.;

t.s.n., pp. 37-38). The said incomes are recorded in the books of account kept by Lorenzo T. Oa where the corresponding shares of the petitioners in the net income for the year are also known. Every year, petitioners returned for income tax purposes their shares in the net income derived from said properties and securities and/or from transactions involving them (Exhibit 3, supra; t.s.n., pp. 25-26). However, petitioners did not actually receive their shares in the yearly income. (t.s.n., pp. 25-26, 40, 98, 100). The income was always left in the hands of Lorenzo T. Oa who, as heretofore pointed out, invested them in real properties and securities. (See Exhibit 3, t.s.n., pp. 50, 102-104). On the basis of the foregoing facts, respondent (Commissioner of Internal Revenue) decided that petitioners formed an unregistered partnership and therefore, subject to the corporate income tax, pursuant to Section 24, in relation to Section 84(b), of the Tax Code. Accordingly, he assessed against the petitioners the amounts of P8,092.00 and P13,899.00 as corporate income taxes for 1955 and 1956, respectively. (See Exhibit 5, amended by Exhibit 17, pp. 50 and 86, BIR rec.). Petitioners protested against the assessment and asked for reconsideration of the ruling of respondent that they have formed an unregistered partnership. Finding no merit in petitioners' request, respondent denied it (See Exhibit 17, p. 86, BIR rec.). (See pp. 1-4, Memorandum for Respondent, June 12, 1961). The original assessment was as follows: 1955 Net income as per investigation ................ P40,209.89 Income tax due thereon ............................... 8,042.00 25% surcharge .............................................. 2,010.50 Compromise for non-filing .......................... 50.00 Total ............................................................... P10,102.50 1956 Net income as per investigation ................ P69,245.23 Income tax due thereon ............................... 13,849.00 25% surcharge .............................................. 3,462.25 Compromise for non-filing .......................... 50.00 Total ............................................................... P17,361.25 (See Exhibit 13, page 50, BIR records) Upon further consideration of the case, the 25% surcharge was eliminated in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Collector v. Batangas Transportation Co., G.R. No. L-9692, Jan. 6, 1958, so that the questioned assessment refers solely to the income tax proper for the years 1955 and 1956 and the "Compromise for non-filing," the latter item obviously referring to the compromise in lieu of the criminal liability for failure of petitioners to file the corporate income tax returns for said years. (See Exh. 17, page 86, BIR records). (Pp. 1-3, Annex C to Petition) Petitioners have assigned the following as alleged errors of the Tax Court: I.

THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS FORMED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP; II. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES INHERITED AND (THE) PROFITS DERIVED FROM TRANSACTIONS THEREFROM (sic); III. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS WERE LIABLE FOR CORPORATE INCOME TAXES FOR 1955 AND 1956 AS AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP; IV. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PETITIONERS CONSTITUTED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP TO THE EXTENT ONLY THAT THEY INVESTED THE PROFITS FROM THE PROPERTIES OWNED IN COMMON AND THE LOANS RECEIVED USING THE INHERITED PROPERTIES AS COLLATERALS; V. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DEDUCTING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS PAID BY THE PETITIONERS AS INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX ON THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES OF THE PROFITS ACCRUING FROM THE PROPERTIES OWNED IN COMMON, FROM THE DEFICIENCY TAX OF THE UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP. In other words, petitioners pose for our resolution the following questions: (1) Under the facts found by the Court of Tax Appeals, should petitioners be considered as co-owners of the properties inherited by them from the deceased Julia Buales and the profits derived from transactions involving the same, or, must they be deemed to have formed an unregistered partnership subject to tax under Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code? (2) Assuming they have formed an unregistered partnership, should this not be only in the sense that they invested as a common fund the profits earned by the properties owned by them in common and the loans granted to them upon the security of the said properties, with the result that as far as their respective shares in the inheritance are concerned, the total income thereof should be considered as that of co-owners and not of the unregistered partnership? And (3) assuming again that they are taxable as an unregistered partnership, should not the various amounts already paid by them for the same years 1955 and 1956 as individual income taxes on their respective shares of the profits accruing from the properties they owned in common be deducted from the deficiency corporate taxes, herein involved, assessed against such unregistered partnership by the respondent Commissioner? Pondering on these questions, the first thing that has struck the Court is that whereas petitioners' predecessor in interest died way back on March 23, 1944 and the project of partition of her estate was judicially approved as early as May 16, 1949, and presumably petitioners have been holding their respective shares in their inheritance since those dates admittedly under the administration or management of the head of the family, the widower and father Lorenzo T. Oa, the assessment in question refers to the later years 1955 and 1956. We believe this point to be important because, apparently, at the start, or in the years 1944 to 1954, the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue did treat petitioners as co-owners, not liable to corporate tax, and it was only from 1955 that he considered them as having formed an unregistered partnership. At least, there is nothing in the record indicating

that an earlier assessment had already been made. Such being the case, and We see no reason how it could be otherwise, it is easily understandable why petitioners' position that they are co-owners and not unregistered copartners, for the purposes of the impugned assessment, cannot be upheld. Truth to tell, petitioners should find comfort in the fact that they were not similarly assessed earlier by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The Tax Court found that instead of actually distributing the estate of the deceased among themselves pursuant to the project of partition approved in 1949, "the properties remained under the management of Lorenzo T. Oa who used said properties in business by leasing or selling them and investing the income derived therefrom and the proceed from the sales thereof in real properties and securities," as a result of which said properties and investments steadily increased yearly from P87,860.00 in "land account" and P17,590.00 in "building account" in 1949 to P175,028.68 in "investment account," P135.714.68 in "land account" and P169,262.52 in "building account" in 1956. And all these became possible because, admittedly, petitioners never actually received any share of the income or profits from Lorenzo T. Oa and instead, they allowed him to continue using said shares as part of the common fund for their ventures, even as they paid the corresponding income taxes on the basis of their respective shares of the profits of their common business as reported by the said Lorenzo T. Oa. It is thus incontrovertible that petitioners did not, contrary to their contention, merely limit themselves to holding the properties inherited by them. Indeed, it is admitted that during the material years herein involved, some of the said properties were sold at considerable profit, and that with said profit, petitioners engaged, thru Lorenzo T. Oa, in the purchase and sale of corporate securities. It is likewise admitted that all the profits from these ventures were divided among petitioners proportionately in accordance with their respective shares in the inheritance. In these circumstances, it is Our considered view that from the moment petitioners allowed not only the incomes from their respective shares of the inheritance but even the inherited properties themselves to be used by Lorenzo T. Oa as a common fund in undertaking several transactions or in business, with the intention of deriving profit to be shared by them proportionally, such act was tantamonut to actually contributing such incomes to a common fund and, in effect, they thereby formed an unregistered partnership within the purview of the above-mentioned provisions of the Tax Code. It is but logical that in cases of inheritance, there should be a period when the heirs can be considered as coowners rather than unregistered co-partners within the contemplation of our corporate tax laws aforementioned. Before the partition and distribution of the estate of the deceased, all the income thereof does belong commonly to all the heirs, obviously, without them becoming thereby unregistered co-partners, but it does not necessarily follow that such status as co-owners continues until the inheritance is actually and physically distributed among the heirs, for it is easily conceivable that after knowing their respective shares in the partition, they might decide to continue holding said shares under the common management of the administrator or executor or of anyone chosen by them and engage in business on that basis. Withal, if this were to be allowed, it would be the easiest thing for heirs in any inheritance to circumvent and render meaningless Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code. It is true that in Evangelista vs. Collector, 102 Phil. 140, it was stated, among the reasons for holding the appellants therein to be unregistered co-partners for tax purposes, that their common fund "was not something they found already in existence" and that "it was not a property inherited by them pro indiviso," but it is certainly far fetched to argue therefrom, as petitioners are doing here, that ergo, in all instances where an inheritance is not actually divided, there can be no unregistered co-partnership. As already indicated, for tax purposes, the co-ownership of inherited properties is automatically converted into an unregistered partnership the moment the said common properties and/or the incomes derived therefrom are used as a common fund with intent to produce profits for the heirs in proportion to their respective shares in the inheritance as determined in a project partition either duly executed in an extrajudicial settlement or approved by the court in the corresponding testate or intestate proceeding. The reason for this is simple. From the moment of such partition, the heirs are entitled already to their

respective definite shares of the estate and the incomes thereof, for each of them to manage and dispose of as exclusively his own without the intervention of the other heirs, and, accordingly he becomes liable individually for all taxes in connection therewith. If after such partition, he allows his share to be held in common with his co-heirs under a single management to be used with the intent of making profit thereby in proportion to his share, there can be no doubt that, even if no document or instrument were executed for the purpose, for tax purposes, at least, an unregistered partnership is formed. This is exactly what happened to petitioners in this case. In this connection, petitioners' reliance on Article 1769, paragraph (3), of the Civil Code, providing that: "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," and, for that matter, on any other provision of said code on partnerships is unavailing. In Evangelista, supra, this Court clearly differentiated the concept of partnerships under the Civil Code from that of unregistered partnerships which are considered as "corporations" under Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Justice Roberto Concepcion, now Chief Justice, elucidated on this point thus: To begin with, the tax in question is one imposed upon "corporations", which, strictly speaking, are distinct and different from "partnerships". When our Internal Revenue Code includes "partnerships" among the entities subject to the tax on "corporations", said Code must allude, therefore, to organizations which are not necessarily "partnerships", in the technical sense of the term. Thus, for instance, section 24 of said Code exempts from the aforementioned tax "duly registered general partnerships," which constitute precisely one of the most typical forms of partnerships in this jurisdiction. Likewise, as defined in section 84(b) of said Code, "the term corporation includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized." This qualifying expression clearly indicates that a joint venture need not be undertaken in any of the standard forms, or in confirmity with the usual requirements of the law on partnerships, in order that one could be deemed constituted for purposes of the tax on corporation. Again, pursuant to said section 84(b),the term "corporation" includes, among others, "joint accounts,(cuentas en participacion)" and "associations", none of which has a legal personality of its own, independent of that of its members. Accordingly, the lawmaker could not have regarded that personality as a condition essential to the existence of the partnerships therein referred to. In fact, as above stated, "duly registered general copartnerships" which are possessed of the aforementioned personality have been expressly excluded by law (sections 24 and 84[b]) from the connotation of the term "corporation." .... xxx xxx xxx Similarly, the American Law ... provides its own concept of a partnership. Under the term "partnership" it includes not only a partnership as known in common law but, as well, a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization which carries on any business, financial operation, or venture, and which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust, estate, or a corporation. ... . (7A Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 789; emphasis ours.) The term "partnership" includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on. ... . (8 Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 562 Note 63; emphasis ours.) For purposes of the tax on corporations, our National Internal Revenue Code includes these partnerships with the exception only of duly registered general copartnerships within the purview of the term "corporation." It is, therefore, clear to our mind that petitioners herein constitute a partnership, insofar as said Code is concerned, and are subject to the income tax for corporations.

We reiterated this view, thru Mr. Justice Fernando, in Reyes vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G. R. Nos. L24020-21, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 198, wherein the Court ruled against a theory of co-ownership pursued by appellants therein. As regards the second question raised by petitioners about the segregation, for the purposes of the corporate taxes in question, of their inherited properties from those acquired by them subsequently, We consider as justified the following ratiocination of the Tax Court in denying their motion for reconsideration: In connection with the second ground, it is alleged that, if there was an unregistered partnership, the holding should be limited to the business engaged in apart from the properties inherited by petitioners. In other words, the taxable income of the partnership should be limited to the income derived from the acquisition and sale of real properties and corporate securities and should not include the income derived from the inherited properties. It is admitted that the inherited properties and the income derived therefrom were used in the business of buying and selling other real properties and corporate securities. Accordingly, the partnership income must include not only the income derived from the purchase and sale of other properties but also the income of the inherited properties. Besides, as already observed earlier, the income derived from inherited properties may be considered as individual income of the respective heirs only so long as the inheritance or estate is not distributed or, at least, partitioned, but the moment their respective known shares are used as part of the common assets of the heirs to be used in making profits, it is but proper that the income of such shares should be considered as the part of the taxable income of an unregistered partnership. This, We hold, is the clear intent of the law. Likewise, the third question of petitioners appears to have been adequately resolved by the Tax Court in the aforementioned resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the decision of said court. Pertinently, the court ruled this wise: In support of the third ground, counsel for petitioners alleges: Even if we were to yield to the decision of this Honorable Court that the herein petitioners have formed an unregistered partnership and, therefore, have to be taxed as such, it might be recalled that the petitioners in their individual income tax returns reported their shares of the profits of the unregistered partnership. We think it only fair and equitable that the various amounts paid by the individual petitioners as income tax on their respective shares of the unregistered partnership should be deducted from the deficiency income tax found by this Honorable Court against the unregistered partnership. (page 7, Memorandum for the Petitioner in Support of Their Motion for Reconsideration, Oct. 28, 1961.) In other words, it is the position of petitioners that the taxable income of the partnership must be reduced by the amounts of income tax paid by each petitioner on his share of partnership profits. This is not correct; rather, it should be the other way around. The partnership profits distributable to the partners (petitioners herein) should be reduced by the amounts of income tax assessed against the partnership. Consequently, each of the petitioners in his individual capacity overpaid his income tax for the years in question, but the income tax due from the partnership has been correctly assessed. Since the individual income tax liabilities of petitioners are not in issue in this proceeding, it is not proper for the Court to pass upon the same. Petitioners insist that it was error for the Tax Court to so rule that whatever excess they might have paid as individual income tax cannot be credited as part payment of the taxes herein in question. It is argued that to sanction the view of the Tax Court is to oblige petitioners to pay double income tax on the same income, and, worse, considering the time that has lapsed since they paid their individual income taxes, they may already be barred by prescription from recovering their overpayments in a separate action. We do not agree. As We see it,

the case of petitioners as regards the point under discussion is simply that of a taxpayer who has paid the wrong tax, assuming that the failure to pay the corporate taxes in question was not deliberate. Of course, such taxpayer has the right to be reimbursed what he has erroneously paid, but the law is very clear that the claim and action for such reimbursement are subject to the bar of prescription. And since the period for the recovery of the excess income taxes in the case of herein petitioners has already lapsed, it would not seem right to virtually disregard prescription merely upon the ground that the reason for the delay is precisely because the taxpayers failed to make the proper return and payment of the corporate taxes legally due from them. In principle, it is but proper not to allow any relaxation of the tax laws in favor of persons who are not exactly above suspicion in their conduct visa-vis their tax obligation to the State. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals appealed from is affirm with costs against petitioners. Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Makasiar and Antonio, JJ., concur. Reyes, J.B.L. and Teehankee, JJ., concur in the result. Castro, J., took no

G.R. No. L-45425

April 29, 1939

JOSE GATCHALIAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, defendant-appellee. Guillermo B. Reyes for appellants. Office of the Solicitor-General Tuason for appellee. IMPERIAL, J.:

Facts: Plaintiffs purchased, in the ordinary course of business, from one of the duly authorized agents of the National Charity Sweepstakes Office one ticket for the sum of two pesos (P2), said ticket was registered in the name of Jose Gatchalian and Company. The ticket won one of the third-prizes in the amount of P50,000. Jose Gatchalian was required to file the corresponding income tax return covering the prize won. Defendant-Collector made an assessment against Jose Gatchalian and Co. requesting the payment of the sum of P1,499.94 to the deputy provincial treasurer of Pulilan, Bulacan. Plaintiffs, however through counsel made a request for exemption. It was denied. Plaintiffs failed to pay the amount due, hence a warrant of distraint and levy was issued. Plaintiffs paid under protest a part of the tax and penalties to avoid the effects of the warrant. A request that the balance be paid by plaintiffs in installments was made. This was granted on the condition that a bond be filed. Plaintiffs failed in their installment payments. Hence a request for execution of the warrant of distraint and levy was made. Plaintiffs paid under protest to avoid the execution.

A claim for refund was made by the plaintiffs, which was dismissed, hence the appeal.

Issue: Whether the plaintiffs formed a partnership hence liable for income tax.

Held: Yes. According to the stipulation facts the plaintiffs organized a partnership of a civil nature because each of them put up money to buy a sweepstakes ticket for the sole purpose of dividing equally the prize which they may win, as they did in fact in the amount of P50,000. The partnership was not only formed, but upon the organization thereof and the winning of the prize, Jose Gatchalian personally appeared in the office of the Philippines Charity Sweepstakes, in his capacity as co-partner, as such collection the prize, the office issued the check for P50,000 in favor of Jose Gatchalian and company, and the said partner, in the same capacity, collected the said check. All these circumstances repel the idea that the plaintiffs organized and formed a community of property only.

Failure to Return Partnership Money Received

Carmen Liwanag v. CA and People G.R. No. 114398 October 24, 1997 Romero, J. Facts: Liwanag asked Isidora Rosales to join her and Thelma Tagbilaran in the business of buyingand selling cigarettes. Under their agreement, Rosales would give the money needed tob u y t h e c i g a r e t t e s w h i l e L i w a n a g a n d T a b l i g a n w o u l d a c t a s h e r a g e n t s , w i t h a corresponding 40% commission to her if the goods are sold; otherwise the money wouldbe returned to Rosales. Rosales gave several cash advances amounting to 633,650. Money was misappropriated. Rosales files a complaint of estafa against them. Issue: 1. WON the parties entered into a partnership agreement; 2. if in the negative, WONthe transaction is a simple loan Held: 1. No. Even assuming that a contract of partnership was indeed entered into by andbetween the parties, when money or property have been received by a partner for a specificpurpose and he later misappropriated it, such partner is guilty of estafa.2. No. In a contract of loan once the money is received by the debtor, ownership over thesame is transferred. Being the owner, the borrower can dispose of it for whatever purposehe may deem proper

CARMEN LIWANAG, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Solicitor General,respondents. DECISION ROMERO, J.:

Petitioner was charged with the crime of estafa before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 93, Quezon City, in an information which reads as follows: That on or between the month of May 19, 1988 and August, 1988 in Quezon City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of thi s Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent of gain, with unfaithfulness, and abuse of confidence, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one ISIDORA ROSALES, in the following manner, to wit: on the date and in the place aforementioned, said accused received in trust from the offended party cash money amounting to P536,650.00, Philippine Currency, with the express obligation involving the duty to act as complainants agent in purchasing local cigarettes (Philip Morris and Marlboro cigarettes), to resell them to several stores, to give her commission corresponding to 40% of the profits; and to return the aforesaid amount of offended party, but said accused, far from complying her aforesaid obligation, and once in possession thereof, misapplied, misappropriated and converted the same to her personal use and benefit, despite repeated demands made upon her, accused failed and refused and still fails and refuses to deliver and/or return the same to the damage and prejudice of the said ISIDORA ROSALES, in the aforementioned amount and in such other amount as may be awarded under the provision of the Civil Code. CONTRARY TO LAW. The antecedent facts are as follows: Petitioner Carmen Liwanag (Liwanag) and a certain Thelma Tabligan went to the house of complainant Isidora Rosales (Rosales) and asked her to join them in the business of buying and selling cigarettes. Convinced of the feasibility of the venture, Rosales readily agreed. Under their agreement, Rosales would give the money needed to buy the cigarettes while Liwanag and Tabligan would act as her agents, with a corresponding 40% commission to her if the goods are sold; otherwise the money would be returned to Rosales. Consequently, Rosales gave several cash advances to Liwanag and Tabligan amounting to P633,650.00. During the first two months, Liwanag and Tabligan made periodic visits to Rosales to report on the progress of the transactions. The visits, however, suddenly stopped, and all efforts by Rosales to obtain information regarding their business proved futile. Alarmed by this development and believing that the amounts she advanced were being misappropriated, Rosales filed a case of estafa against Liwanag. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a decision dated January 9, 1991, finding Liwanag guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads thus: WHEREFORE, the Court holds, that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, imposes upon the accused, Carmen Liwanag, an Indeterminate Penalty of SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS OF PRISION CORRECCIONAL TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS OF PRISION MAYOR AS MAXIMUM, AND TO PAY THE COSTS. The accused is likewise ordered to reimburse the private complainant the sum of P526,650.00, without subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency. SO ORDERED. Said decision was affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals in a decision dated November 29, 1993, the decretal portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with the correction of the nomenclature of the penalty which should be: SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS of prision mayor, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In all other respects, the decision is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

Her motion for reconsideration having been denied in the resolution of March 16, 1994, Liwanag filed the instant petition, submitting the following assignment of errors: 1. RESPONDENT APPELLATE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED-PETITIONER FOR THE CRIME OF ESTAFA, WHEN CLEARLY THE CONTRACT THAT EXIST (sic) BETWEEN THE ACCUSED-PETITIONER AND COMPLAINANT IS EITHER THAT OF A SIMPLE LOAN OR THAT OF A PARTNERSHIP OR JOINT VENTURE HENCE THE NON RETURN OF THE MONEY OF THE COMPLAINANT IS PURELY CIVIL IN NATURE AND NOT CRIMINAL. 2. RESPONDENT APPELLATE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-PETITIONER ON GROUNDS OF REASONABLE DOUBT BY APPLYING THE EQUIPOISE RULE. Liwanag advances the theory that the intention of the parties was to enter into a contract of partnership, wherein Rosales [1] would contribute the funds while she would buy and sell the cigarettes, and later divide the profits between them. She also argues that the transaction can also be interpreted as a simple loan, with Rosales lending to her the amount stated on an [2] installment basis. The Court of Appeals correctly rejected these pretenses. While factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by the Supreme Court, and [3] carry more weight when these affirm the factual findings of the trial court, we deem it more expedient to resolve the instant petition on its merits. Estafa is a crime committed by a person who defrauds another causing him to suffer damages, by means of unfaithfulness [4] or abuse of confidence, or of false pretenses of fraudulent acts. From the foregoing, the elements of estafa are present, as follows: (1) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third [5] party, and it is essential that there be a fiduciary relation between them either in the form of a trust, commission or [6] administration. The receipt signed by Liwanag states thus: May 19, 1988 Quezon City

Received from Mrs. Isidora P. Rosales the sum of FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY SIX THOUSAND AND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P526,650.00) Philippine Currency, to purchase cigarrets (sic) (Philip & Marlboro) to be sold to customers. In the event the said cigarrets (sic) are not sold, the proceeds of the sale or the said products (shall) be returned to said Mrs. Isidora P. Rosales the said amount of P526,650.00 or the said items on or before August 30, 1988. (SGD & Thumbedmarked) (sic) CARMEN LIWANAG 26 H. Kaliraya St. Quezon City Signed in the presence of: (Sgd) Illegible (Sgd) Doming Z. Baligad

The language of the receipt could not be any clearer. It indicates that the money delivered to Liwanag was for a specific purpose, that is, for the purchase of cigarettes, and in the event the cigarettes cannot be sold, the money must be returned to Rosales. 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 have been received by a partner for a specific purpose (such as that obtaining in the instant case) [7] and he later misappropriated it, such partner is guilty of estafa.

Neither can the transaction be considered a loan, since in a contract of loan once the money is received by the debtor, [8] ownership over the same is transferred. Being the owner, the borrower can dispose of it for whatever purpose he may deem proper. In the instant petition, however, it is evident that Liwanag could not dispose of the money as she pleased because it was only delivered to her for a single purpose, namely, for the purchase of cigarettes, and if this was not possible then to return the money to Rosales. Since in this case there was no transfer of ownership of the money delivered, Liwanag is liable for conversion under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1993, is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

Prohibition Against Engaging in Business/ Formal Accounting

G.R. No. L-31684 June 28, 1973 EVANGELISTA & CO., DOMINGO C. EVANGELISTA, JR., CONCHITA B. NAVARRO and LEONARDA ATIENZA ABAD SABTOS, petitioners, vs. ESTRELLA ABAD SANTOS, respondent. Leonardo Abola for petitioners. Baisas, Alberto & Associates for respondent. MAKALINTAL, J.: On October 9, 1954 a co-partnership was formed under the name of "Evangelista & Co." On June 7, 1955 the Articles of Copartnership was amended as to include herein respondent, Estrella Abad Santos, as industrial partner, with herein petitioners Domingo C. Evangelista, Jr., Leonardo Atienza Abad Santos and Conchita P. Navarro, the original capitalist partners, remaining in that capacity, with a contribution of P17,500 each. The amended Articles provided, inter alia, that "the contribution of Estrella Abad Santos consists of her industry being an industrial partner", and that the profits and losses "shall be divided and distributed among the partners ... in the proportion of 70% for the first three partners, Domingo C. Evangelista, Jr., Conchita P. Navarro and Leonardo Atienza Abad Santos to be divided among them equally; and 30% for the fourth partner Estrella Abad Santos." On December 17, 1963 herein respondent filed suit against the three other partners in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging that the partnership, which was also made a party-defendant, had been paying dividends to the partners except to her; and that notwithstanding her demands the defendants had refused and continued to refuse and let her examine the partnership books or to give her information regarding the partnership affairs to pay her any share in the dividends declared by the partnership. She therefore prayed that the defendants be ordered to render accounting to her of the partnership business and to pay her corresponding share in the partnership profits after such accounting, plus attorney's fees and costs. The defendants, in their answer, denied ever having declared dividends or distributed profits of the partnership; denied likewise that the plaintiff ever demanded that she be allowed to examine the partnership books; and byway of affirmative defense alleged that the amended Articles of Co-partnership did not express the true agreement of the parties, which was that the plaintiff was not an industrial partner; that she did not in fact contribute industry to the partnership; and that her share of 30% was to be based on the profits which might be realized by the partnership only until full payment of the loan which it had obtained in December, 1955 from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation in the sum of P30,000, for which the plaintiff had signed a promisory note as co-maker and mortgaged her property as security.

The parties are in agreement that the main issue in this case is "whether the plaintiff-appellee (respondent here) is an industrial partner as claimed by her or merely a profit sharer entitled to 30% of the net profits that may be realized by the partnership from June 7, 1955 until the mortgage loan from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation shall be fully paid, as claimed by appellants (herein petitioners)." On that issue the Court of First Instance found for the plaintiff and rendered judgement "declaring her an industrial partner of Evangelista & Co.; ordering the defendants to render an accounting of the business operations of the (said) partnership ... from June 7, 1955; to pay the plaintiff such amounts as may be due as her share in the partnership profits and/or dividends after such an accounting has been properly made; to pay plaintiff attorney's fees in the sum of P2,000.00 and the costs of this suit." The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which thereafter affirmed judgments of the court a quo. In the petition before Us the petitioners have assigned the following errors: I. The Court of Appeals erred in the finding that the respondent is an industrial partner of Evangelista & Co., notwithstanding the admitted fact that since 1954 and until after promulgation of the decision of the appellate court the said respondent was one of the judges of the City Court of Manila, and despite its findings that respondent had been paid for services allegedly contributed by her to the partnership. In this connection the Court of Appeals erred: (A) In finding that the "amended Articles of Co-partnership," Exhibit "A" is conclusive evidence that respondent was in fact made an industrial partner of Evangelista & Co. (B) In not finding that a portion of respondent's testimony quoted in the decision proves that said respondent did not bind herself to contribute her industry, and she could not, and in fact did not, because she was one of the judges of the City Court of Manila since 1954. (C) In finding that respondent did not in fact contribute her industry, despite the appellate court's own finding that she has been paid for the services allegedly rendered by her, as well as for the loans of money made by her to the partnership. II. The lower court erred in not finding that in any event the respondent was lawfully excluded from, and deprived of, her alleged share, interests and participation, as an alleged industrial partner, in the partnership Evangelista & Co., and its profits or net income. III. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming in toto the decision of the trial court whereby respondent was declared an industrial partner of the petitioner, and petitioners were ordered to render an accounting of the business operation of the partnership from June 7, 1955, and to pay the respondent her alleged share in the net profits of the partnership plus the sum of P2,000.00 as attorney's fees and the costs of the suit, instead of dismissing respondent's complaint, with costs, against the respondent. It is quite obvious that the questions raised in the first assigned errors refer to the facts as found by the Court of Appeals. The evidence presented by the parties as the trial in support of their respective positions on the issue of whether or not the respondent was an industrial partner was thoroughly analyzed by the Court of Appeals on its decision, to the extent of reproducing verbatim therein the lengthy testimony of the witnesses. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been commited by the lower court. It should be observed, in this regard, that the Court of Appeals did not hold that the Articles of Co-partnership, identified in the record as Exhibit "A", was conclusive evidence that the respondent was an industrial partner of the said company, but considered it together with other factors, consisting of both testimonial and documentary evidences, in arriving at the factual conclusion expressed in the decision. The findings of the Court of Appeals on the various points raised in the first assignment of error are hereunder reproduced if only to demonstrate that the same were made after a through analysis of then evidence, and hence are beyond this Court's power of review.

The aforequoted findings of the lower Court are assailed under Appellants' first assigned error, wherein it is pointed out that "Appellee's documentary evidence does not conclusively prove that appellee was in fact admitted by appellants as industrial partner of Evangelista & Co." and that "The grounds relied upon by the lower Court are untenable" (Pages 21 and 26, Appellant's Brief). The first point refers to Exhibit A, B, C, K, K-1, J, N and S, appellants' complaint being that "In finding that the appellee is an industrial partner of appellant Evangelista & Co., herein referred to as the partnership the lower court relied mainly on the appellee's documentary evidence, entirely disregarding facts and circumstances established by appellants" evidence which contradict the said finding' (Page 21, Appellants' Brief). The lower court could not have done otherwise but rely on the exhibits just mentioned, first, because appellants have admitted their genuineness and due execution, hence they were admitted without objection by the lower court when appellee rested her case and, secondly the said exhibits indubitably show the appellee is an industrial partner of appellant company. Appellants are virtually estopped from attempting to detract from the probative force of the said exhibits because they all bear the imprint of their knowledge and consent, and there is no credible showing that they ever protested against or opposed their contents prior of the filing of their answer to appellee's complaint. As a matter of fact, all the appellant Evangelista, Jr., would have us believe as against the cumulative force of appellee's aforesaid documentary evidence is the appellee's Exhibit "A", as confirmed and corroborated by the other exhibits already mentioned, does not express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto, the real understanding between them being the appellee would be merely a profit sharer entitled to 30% of the net profits that may be realized between the partners from June 7, 1955, until the mortgage loan of P30,000.00 to be obtained from the RFC shall have been fully paid. This version, however, is discredited not only by the aforesaid documentary evidence brought forward by the appellee, but also by the fact that from June 7, 1955 up to the filing of their answer to the complaint on February 8, 1964 or a period of over eight (8) years appellants did nothing to correct the alleged false agreement of the parties contained in Exhibit "A". It is thus reasonable to suppose that, had appellee not filed the present action, appellants would not have advanced this obvious afterthought that Exhibit "A" does not express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. At pages 32-33 of appellants' brief, they also make much of the argument that 'there is an overriding fact which proves that the parties to the Amended Articles of Partnership, Exhibit "A", did not contemplate to make the appellee Estrella Abad Santos, an industrial partner of Evangelista & Co. It is an admitted fact that since before the execution of the amended articles of partnership, Exhibit "A", the appellee Estrella Abad Santos has been, and up to the present time still is, one of the judges of the City Court of Manila, devoting all her time to the performance of the duties of her public office. This fact proves beyond peradventure that it was never contemplated between the parties, for she could not lawfully contribute her full time and industry which is the obligation of an industrial partner pursuant to Art. 1789 of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals then proceeded to consider appellee's testimony on this point, quoting it in the decision, and then concluded as follows: One cannot read appellee's testimony just quoted without gaining the very definite impression that, even as she was and still is a Judge of the City Court of Manila, she has rendered services for appellants without which they would not have had the wherewithal to operate the business for which appellant company was organized. Article 1767 of the New Civil Code which provides that "By 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, 'does not specify the kind of industry that a partner may thus contribute, hence the said services may legitimately be considered as appellee's contribution to the common fund. Another article of the same Code relied upon appellants reads: 'ART. 1789. An industrial partner cannot engage in business for himself, unless the partnership expressly permits him to do so; and if he should do so, the capitalist partners may either exclude him from the firm or avail themselves of the benefits which he may have obtained in violation of this provision, with a right to damages in either case.'

It is not disputed that the provision against the industrial partner engaging in business for himself seeks to prevent any conflict of interest between the industrial partner and the partnership, and to insure faithful compliance by said partner with this prestation. There is no pretense, however, even on the part of the appellee is engaged in any business antagonistic to that of appellant company, since being a Judge of one of the branches of the City Court of Manila can hardly be characterized as a business. That appellee has faithfully complied with her prestation with respect to appellants is clearly shown by the fact that it was only after filing of the complaint in this case and the answer thereto appellants exercised their right of exclusion under the codal art just mentioned by alleging in their Supplemental Answer dated June 29, 1964 or after around nine (9) years from June 7, 1955 subsequent to the filing of defendants' answer to the complaint, defendants reached an agreement whereby the herein plaintiff been excluded from, and deprived of, her alleged share, interests or participation, as an alleged industrial partner, in the defendant partnership and/or in its net profits or income, on the ground plaintiff has never contributed her industry to the partnership, instead she has been and still is a judge of the City Court (formerly Municipal Court) of the City of Manila, devoting her time to performance of her duties as such judge and enjoying the privilege and emoluments appertaining to the said office, aside from teaching in law school in Manila, without the express consent of the herein defendants' (Record On Appeal, pp. 24-25). Having always knows as a appellee as a City judge even before she joined appellant company on June 7, 1955 as an industrial partner, why did it take appellants many yearn before excluding her from said company as aforequoted allegations? And how can they reconcile such exclusive with their main theory that appellee has never been such a partner because "The real agreement evidenced by Exhibit "A" was to grant the appellee a share of 30% of the net profits which the appellant partnership may realize from June 7, 1955, until the mortgage of P30,000.00 obtained from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporal shall have been fully paid." (Appellants Brief, p. 38). What has gone before persuades us to hold with the lower Court that appellee is an industrial partner of appellant company, with the right to demand for a formal accounting and to receive her share in the net profit that may result from such an accounting, which right appellants take exception under their second assigned error. Our said holding is based on the following article of the New Civil Code: 'ART. 1899. Any partner shall have the right to a formal account as to partnership affairs: (1) If he is wrongfully excluded from the partnership business or possession of its property by his copartners; (2) If the right exists under the terms of any agreement; (3) As provided by article 1807; (4) Whenever other circumstance render it just and reasonable. We find no reason in this case to depart from the rule which limits this Court's appellate jurisdiction to reviewing only errors of law, accepting as conclusive the factual findings of the lower court upon its own assessment of the evidence. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs. Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., concur.

Distribution of Profits and Losses G.R. No. 85494 May 7, 1991 CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI AND/OR NIRMLA V. RAMNANI and MOTI G. RAMNANI, petitioners, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES ISHWAR JETHMAL RAMNANI, SONYA JETHMAL RAMNANI and OVERSEAS HOLDING CO., LTD., respondents. G.R. No. 85496 May 7, 1991 SPOUSES ISHWAR JETHMAL RAMNANI AND SONYA JET RAMNANI, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ORTIGAS & CO., LTD. PARTNERSHIP, and OVERSEAS HOLDING CO., LTD., respondents. Quasha, Asperilla Ancheta, Pea and Nolasco for petitioners Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani & Sonya Ramnani. Salonga, Andres, Hernandez & Allado for Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla Ramnani & Moti Ramnani. Rama Law Office for private respondents in collaboration with Salonga, Andres, Hernandez & Allado. Eulogio R. Rodriguez for Ortigas & Co., Ltd. GANCAYCO, J.:p This case involves the bitter quarrel of two brothers over two (2) parcels of land and its improvements now worth a fortune. The bone of contention is the apparently conflicting factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court, the resolution of which will materially affect the result of the contest. The following facts are not disputed. Ishwar, Choithram and Navalrai, all surnamed Jethmal Ramnani, are brothers of the full blood. Ishwar and his spouse Sonya had their main business based in New York. Realizing the difficulty of managing their investments in the Philippines they executed a general power of attorney on January 24, 1966 appointing Navalrai and Choithram as attorneys-in-fact, empowering them to 1 manage and conduct their business concern in the Philippines. On February 1, 1966 and on May 16, 1966, Choithram, in his capacity as aforesaid attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, entered into two agreements for the purchase of two parcels of land located in Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, from Ortigas & Company, Ltd. 2 Partnership (Ortigas for short) with a total area of approximately 10,048 square meters. Per agreement, Choithram paid the down payment and installments on the lot with his personal checks. A building was constructed thereon by Choithram in 1966 and this was occupied and rented by Jethmal Industries and a wardrobe shop called Eppie's Creation. Three other buildings were built thereon by Choithram through a loan of P100,000.00 obtained from the Merchants Bank as well as the income derived from the first building. The buildings were leased out by Choithram as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. Two of these buildings were later burned. Sometime in 1970 Ishwar asked Choithram to account for the income and expenses relative to these properties during the period 1967 to 1970. Choithram failed and refused to render such accounting. As a consequence, on February 4, 1971, Ishwar revoked the general power of attorney. Choithram and Ortigas were duly notified of such revocation on April 1, 1971 and May 3 4 24, 1971, respectively. Said notice was also registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 1971 and 5 was published in the April 2, 1971 issue of The Manila Times for the information of the general public. Nevertheless, Choithram as such attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, transferred all rights and interests of Ishwar and Sonya in favor of his daughter-in-law, Nirmla Ramnani, on February 19, 1973. Her husband is Moti, son of Choithram. Upon complete payment of 6 the lots, Ortigas executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Nirmla. Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 403150 and 403152 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal were issued in her favor. Thus, on October 6, 1982, Ishwar and Sonya (spouses Ishwar for short) filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Choithram and/or spouses Nirmla and Moti (Choithram et al. for brevity) and Ortigas for reconveyance of said properties or payment of its value and damages. An amended complaint for damages was thereafter filed by said spouses. After the issues were joined and the trial on the merits, a decision was rendered by the trial court on December 3, 1985 dismissing the complaint and counterclaim. A motion for reconsideration thereof filed by spouses Ishwar was denied on March 3, 1986. An appeal therefrom was interposed by spouses Ishwar to the Court of Appeals wherein in due course a decision was promulgated on March 14, 1988, the dispositive part of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered reversing and setting aside the appealed decision of the lower court dated December 3, 1985 and the Order dated March 3, 1986 which denied plaintiffs-appellants' Motion for Reconsideration from aforesaid decision. A new decision is hereby rendered sentencing defendants- appellees Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti C. Ramnani, and Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiffs-appellants the following: 1. Actual or compensatory damages to the extent of the fair market value of the properties in question and all improvements thereon covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 403150 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 403152 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal, prevailing at the time of the satisfaction of the judgment but in no case shall such damages be less than the value of said properties as appraised by Asian Appraisal, Inc. in its Appraisal Report dated August 1985 (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive). 2. All rental incomes paid or ought to be paid for the use and occupancy of the properties in question and all improvements thereon consisting of buildings, and to be computed as follows:

a) On Building C occupied by Eppie's Creation and Jethmal Industries from 1967 to 1973, inclusive, based on the 1967 to 1973 monthly rentals paid by Eppie's Creation; b) Also on Building C above, occupied by Jethmal Industries and Lavine from 1974 to 1978, the rental incomes based on then rates prevailing as shown under Exhibit "P"; and from 1979 to 1981, based on then prevailing rates as indicated under Exhibit "Q"; c) On Building A occupied by Transworld Knitting Mills from 1972 to 1978, the rental incomes based upon then prevailing rates shown under Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1981, based on prevailing rates per Exhibit "Q"; d) On the two Bays Buildings occupied by Sigma-Mariwasa from 1972 to 1978, the rentals based on the Lease Contract, Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1980, the rentals based on the Lease Contract, Exhibit "Q", and thereafter commencing 1982, to account for and turn over the rental incomes paid or ought to be paid for the use and occupancy of the properties and all improvements totalling 10,048 sq. m based on the rate per square meter prevailing in 1981 as indicated annually cumulative up to 1984. Then, commencing 1985 and up to the satisfaction of the judgment, rentals shall be computed at ten percent (10%) annually of the fair market values of the properties as appraised by the Asian Appraisal, Inc. in August 1985 (Exhibits T to T14, inclusive.) 3. Moral damages in the sum of P200,000.00; 4. Exemplary damages in the sum of P100,000.00; 5. Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the award herein made; 6. Legal interest on the total amount awarded computed from first demand in 1967 and until the full amount is paid and satisfied; and 7 7. The cost of suit. Acting on a motion for reconsideration filed by Choithram, et al. and Ortigas, the appellate court promulgated an amended decision on October 17, 1988 granting the motion for reconsideration of Ortigas by affirming the dismissal of the case by the 8 lower court as against Ortigas but denying the motion for reconsideration of Choithram, et al. Choithram, et al. thereafter filed a petition for review of said judgment of the appellate court alleging the following grounds: 1. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in making a factual finding not supported by and contrary, to the evidence presented at the Trial Court. 2. The Court of Appeals acted in excess of jurisdiction in awarding damages based on the value of the real properties in question where the cause of action of private respondents is recovery of a sum of money. ARGUMENTS I THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN GRAVE ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION IN MAKING A FACTUAL FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT ISHWAR REMITTED THE AMOUNT OF US $150,000.00 TO PETITIONER CHOITHRAM IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF SUCH REMITTANCE. II THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND MANIFEST PARTIALITY IN DISREGARDING THE TRIAL COURTS FINDINGS BASED ON THE DIRECT DOCUMENTARY AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY CHOITHRAM IN THE TRIAL COURT ESTABLISHING THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED WITH PERSONAL FUNDS OF PETITIONER CHOITHRAM AND NOT WITH MONEY ALLEGEDLY REMITTED BY RESPONDENT ISHWAR. III THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN AWARDING DAMAGES BASED ON THE VALUE 9 OF THE PROPERTIES AND THE FRUITS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THEREON. Similarly, spouses Ishwar filed a petition for review of said amended decision of the appellate court exculpating Ortigas of liability based on the following assigned errors I THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR AND HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT A) IN PROMULGATING THE QUESTIONED AMENDED DECISION (ANNEX "A") RELIEVING RESPONDENT ORTIGAS FROM LIABILITY AND DISMISSING PETITIONERS' AMENDED COMPLAINT IN CIVIL CASE NO. 534-P, AS AGAINST SAID RESPONDENT ORTIGAS; B) IN HOLDING IN SAID AMENDED DECISION THAT AT ANY RATE NO ONE EVER TESTIFIED THAT ORTIGAS WAS A SUBSCRIBER TO THE MANILA TIMES PUBLICATION OR THAT ANY OF ITS OFFICERS READ THE NOTICE AS PUBLISHED IN THE MANILA TIMES, THEREBY ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDING THAT FOR RESPONDENT ORTIGAS TO BE CONSTRUCTIVELY

BOUND BY THE PUBLISHED NOTICE OF REVOCATION, ORTIGAS AND/OR ANY OF ITS OFFICERS MUST BE A SUBSCRIBER AND/OR THAT ANY OF ITS OFFICERS SHOULD READ THE NOTICE AS ACTUALLY PUBLISHED; C) IN HOLDING IN SAID AMENDED DECISION THAT ORTIGAS COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY WITH THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CHOITHRAM, MOTI AND NIRMLA RAMNANI, AS ORTIGAS RELIED ON THE WORD OF CHOITHRAM THAT ALL ALONG HE WAS ACTING FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HIS BROTHER ISHWAR WHEN IT TRANSFERRED THE RIGHTS OF THE LATTER TO NIRMLA V. RAMNANI; D) IN IGNORING THE EVIDENCE DULY PRESENTED AND ADMITTED DURING THE TRIAL THAT ORTIGAS WAS PROPERLY NOTIFIED OF THE NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN TO CHOITHRAM, EVIDENCED BY THE PUBLICATION IN THE MANILA TIMES ISSUE OF APRIL 2, 1971 (EXH. F) WHICH CONSTITUTES NOTICE TO THE WHOLE WORLD; THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF SUCH REVOCATION WHICH WAS SENT TO ORTIGAS ON MAY 22, 1971 BY ATTY. MARIANO P. MARCOS AND RECEIVED BY ORTIGAS ON MAY 24, 1971 (EXH. G) AND THE FILING OF THE NOTICE WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON MARCH 29,1971 (EXH. H); E) IN DISCARDING ITS FINDINGS CONTAINED IN ITS DECISION OF 14 MARCH 1988 (ANNEX B) THAT ORTIGAS WAS DULY NOTIFIED OF THE REVOCATION OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF CHOITHRAM, HENCE ORTIGAS ACTED IN BAD FAITH IN EXECUTING THE DEED OF SALE TO THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION IN FAVOR OF NIRMLA V. RAMNANI; F) IN SUSTAINING RESPONDENT ORTIGAS VACUOUS REHASHED ARGUMENTS IN ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THAT IT WOULD NOT GAIN ONE CENTAVO MORE FROM CHOITHRAM FOR THE SALE OF SAID LOTS AND THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF THE SAME TO THE MATTER'S DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, AND THAT IT WAS IN GOOD FAITH WHEN IT TRANSFERRED ISHWAR'S RIGHTS TO THE LOTS IN QUESTION. II THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SO FAR DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDING WHEN IT HELD IN THE QUESTIONED AMENDED DECISION OF 17 NOVEMBER 1988 (ANNEX A) THAT RESPONDENT ORTIGAS & CO., LTD., IS NOT JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CHOITHRAM, MOTI AND NIRMLA RAMNANI IN SPITE OF ITS ORIGINAL DECISION OF 14 MARCH 1988 THAT ORTIGAS WAS DULY NOTIFIED OF THE REVOCATION OF THE 10 POWER OF ATTORNEY OF CHOITHRAM RAMNANI. The center of controversy is the testimony of Ishwar that during the latter part of 1965, he sent the amount of US $150,000.00 to Choithram in two bank drafts of US$65,000.00 and US$85,000.00 for the purpose of investing the same in real estate in the Philippines. The trial court considered this lone testimony unworthy of faith and credit. On the other hand, the appellate court found that the trial court misapprehended the facts in complete disregard of the evidence, documentary and testimonial. Another crucial issue is the claim of Choithram that because he was then a British citizen, as a temporary arrangement, he arranged the purchase of the properties in the name of Ishwar who was an American citizen and who was then qualified to purchase property in the Philippines under the then Parity Amendment. The trial court believed this account but it was debunked by the appellate court. As to the issue of whether of not spouses Ishwar actually sent US$150,000.00 to Choithram precisely to be used in the real estate business, the trial court made the following disquisition After a careful, considered and conscientious examination of the evidence adduced in the case at bar, plaintiff Ishwar Jethmal Ramanani's main evidence, which centers on the alleged payment by sending through registered mail from New York two (2) US$ drafts of $85,000.00 and $65,000.00 in the latter part of 1965 (TSN 28 Feb. 1984, p. 10-11). The sending of these moneys were before the execution of that General Power of Attorney, which was dated in New York, on January 24, 1966. Because of these alleged remittances of US $150,000.00 and the subsequent acquisition of the properties in question, plaintiffs averred that they constituted a trust in favor of defendant Choithram Jethmal Ramnani. This Court can be in full agreement if the plaintiffs were only able to prove preponderantly these remittances. The entire record of this case is bereft of even a shred of proof to that effect. It is completely barren. His uncorroborated testimony that he remitted these amounts in the "later part of 1965" does not engender enough faith and credence. Inadequacy of details of such remittance on the two (2) US dollar drafts in such big amounts is completely not positive, credible, probable and entirely not in accord with human experience. This is a classic situation, plaintiffs not exhibiting any commercial document or any document and/or paper as regard to these alleged remittances. Plaintiff Ishwar Ramnani is not an ordinary businessman in the strict sense of the word. Remember his main business is based in New York, and he should know better how to

send these alleged remittances. Worst, plaintiffs did not present even a scum of proof, that defendant Choithram Ramnani received the alleged two US dollar drafts. Significantly, he does not know even the bank where these two (2) US dollar drafts were purchased. Indeed, plaintiff Ishwar Ramnani's lone testimony is unworthy of faith and credit and, therefore, deserves scant consideration, and since the plaintiffs' theory is built or based on such testimony, their cause of action collapses or falls with it. Further, the rate of exchange that time in 1966 was P4.00 to $1.00. The alleged two US dollar drafts amounted to $150,000.00 or about P600,000.00. Assuming the cash price of the two (2) lots was only P530,000.00 (ALTHOUGH he said: "Based on my knowledge I have no evidence," when asked if he even knows the cash price of the two lots). If he were really the true and bonafide investor and purchaser for profit as he asserted, he could have paid the price in full in cash directly and obtained the title in his name and not thru "Contracts To Sell" in installments paying interest and thru an attorney-in fact (TSN of May 2, 1984, pp. 10-11) and, again, plaintiff Ishwar Ramnani told this Courtthat he does not know whether or not his late father-in-law borrowed the two US dollar drafts from the Swiss Bank or whether or not his late 11 father-in-law had any debit memo from the Swiss Bank (TSN of May 2, 1984, pp. 9-10). On the other hand, the appellate court, in giving credence to the version of Ishwar, had this to say While it is true, that generally the findings of fact of the trial court are binding upon the appellate courts, said rule admits of exceptions such as when (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inferences made is manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts and when the court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee (Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 63 SCRA 33; Philippine American Life Assurance Co. vs. Santamaria, 31 SCRA 798; Aldaba vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 189). The evidence on record shows that the t court acted under a misapprehension of facts and the inferences made on the evidence palpably a mistake. The trial court's observation that "the entire records of the case is bereft of even a shred of proof" that plaintiff-appellants have remitted to defendant-appellee Choithram Ramnani the amount of US $ 150,000.00 for investment in real estate in the Philippines, is not borne by the evidence on record and shows the trial court's misapprehension of the facts if not a complete disregard of the evidence , both documentary and testimonial. Plaintiff-appellant Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani testifying in his own behalf, declared that during the latter part of 1965, he sent the amount of US $150,000.00 to his brother Choithram in two bank drafts of US $65,000.00 and US $85,000.00 for the purpose of investing the same in real estate in the Philippines. His testimony is as follows: ATTY. MARAPAO: Mr. Witness, you said that your attorney-in-fact paid in your behalf. Can you tell this Honorable Court where your attorney-in-fact got the money to pay this property? ATTY. CRUZ: Wait. It is now clear it becomes incompetent or hearsay. COURT: Witness can answer. A I paid through my attorney-in-fact. I am the one who gave him the money. ATTY. MARAPAO: Q You gave him the money? A That's right. Q How much money did you give him? A US $ 150,000.00. Q How was it given then? A Through Bank drafts. US $65,000.00 and US $85,000.00 bank drafts. The total amount which is $ 150,000.00 (TSN, 28 February 1984, p. 10; Emphasis supplied.) xxx xxx xxx ATTY. CRUZ: Q The two bank drafts which you sent I assume you bought that from some banks in New York? A No, sir. Q But there is no question those two bank drafts were for the purpose of paying down payment and installment of the two parcels of land? A Down payment, installment and to put up the building.

Q I thought you said that the buildings were constructed . . . subject to our continuing objection from rentals of first building? ATTY. MARAPAO: Your Honor, that is misleading. COURT; Witness (may) answer. A Yes, the first building was immediately put up after the purchase of the two parcels of land that was in 1966 and the finds were used for the construction of the building from the US $150,000.00 (TSN, 7 March 1984, page 14; Emphasis supplied.) xxx xxx xxx Q These two bank drafts which you mentioned and the use for it you sent them by registered mail, did you send them from New Your? A That is right. Q And the two bank drafts which were put in the registered mail, the registered mail was addressed to whom? A Choithram Ramnani. (TSN, 7 March 1984, pp. 14-15). On cross-examination, the witness reiterated the remittance of the money to his brother Choithram, which was sent to him by his father-in-law, Rochiram L. Mulchandoni from Switzerland, a man of immense wealth, which even defendants-appellees' witness Navalrai Ramnani admits to be so (tsn., p. 16, S. Oct. 13, 1985). Thus, on cross-examination, Ishwar testified as follows: Q How did you receive these two bank drafts from the bank the name of which you cannot remember? A I got it from my father-in-law. Q From where did your father- in-law sent these two bank drafts? A From Switzerland. Q He was in Switzerland. A Probably, they sent out these two drafts from Switzerland. (TSN, 7 March 1984, pp. 16-17; Emphasis supplied.) This positive and affirmative testimony of plaintiff-appellant that he sent the two (2) bank drafts totalling US $ 150,000.00 to his brother, is proof of said remittance. Such positive testimony has greater probative force than defendant-appellee's denial of receipt of said bank drafts, for a witness who testifies affirmatively that something did happen should be believed for it is unlikely that a witness will remember what never happened (Underhill's Cr. Guidance, 5th Ed., Vol. 1, pp. 10-11). That is not all. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff-appellant Ishwar Ramnani executed a General Power of Attorney (Exhibit "A") dated January 24, 1966 appointing his brothers, defendants-appellees Navalrai and Choithram as attorney-in-fact empowering the latter to conduct and manage plaintiffs-appellants'business affairs in the Philippines and specifically No. 14. To acquire, purchase for us, real estates and improvements for the purpose of real estate business anywhere in the Philippines and to develop, subdivide, improve and to resell to buying public (individual, firm or corporation); to enter in any contract of sale in oar behalf and to enter mortgages between the vendees and the herein grantors that may be needed to finance the real estate business being undertaken. Pursuant thereto, on February 1, 1966 and May 16, 1966, Choithram Jethmal Ramnani entered into Agreements (Exhibits "B' and "C") with the other defendant. Ortigas and Company, Ltd., for the purchase of two (2) parcels of land situated at Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, with said defendant-appellee signing the Agreements in his capacity as Attorney-in-fact of Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani. Again, on January 5, 1972, almost seven (7) years after Ishwar sent the US $ 150,000.00 in 1965, Choithram Ramnani, as attorney-in fact of Ishwar entered into a Contract of Lease with Sigma-Mariwasa (Exhibit "P") thereby re-affirming the ownership of Ishwar over the disputed property and the trust relationship between the latter as principal and Choithram as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. All of these facts indicate that if plaintiff-appellant Ishwar had not earlier sent the US $ 150,000.00 to his brother, Choithram, there would be no purpose for him to execute a power of attorney appointing his brothers as s attorney-in-fact in buying real estate in the Philippines. As against Choithram's denial that he did not receive the US $150,000.00 remitted by Ishwar and that the Power of Attorney, as well as the Agreements entered into with Ortigas & Co., were only temporary arrangements, Ishwar's testimony that he did send the bank drafts to Choithram and was received by the latter, is the more credible version since it is natural, reasonable and probable. It is in accord with the common experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men (Gardner vs. Wentors 18 Iowa 533). And

in determining where the superior weight of the evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider the probability or improbability of the testimony of the witness (Sec. 1, Rule 133, Rules of Court). Contrary, therefore, to the trial court's sweeping observation that 'the entire records of the case is bereft of even a shred of proof that Choithram received the alleged bank drafts amounting to US $ 150,000.00, we have not only testimonial evidence but also documentary and circumstantial evidence proving said 12 remittance of the money and the fiduciary relationship between the former and Ishwar. The Court agrees. The environmental circumstances of this case buttress the claim of Ishwar that he did entrust the amount of US $ 150,000.00 to his brother, Choithram, which the latter invested in the real property business subject of this litigation in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. True it is that there is no receipt whatever in the possession of Ishwar to evidence the same, but it is not unusual among brothers and close family members to entrust money and valuables to each other without any formalities or receipt due to the special relationship of trust between them. And another proof thereof is the fact that Ishwar, out of frustration when Choithram failed to account for the realty business despite his demands, revoked the general power of attorney he extended to Choithram and Navalrai. Thereafter, Choithram wrote a letter to Ishwar pleading that the power of attorney be renewed or another authority to the same effect be extended, which reads as follows: June 25,1971 MR. ISHWAR JETHMAL NEW YORK (1) Send power of Atty. immediately, because the case has been postponed for two weeks. The same way as it has been send before in favor of both names. Send it immediately otherwise everything will be lost unnecessarily, and then it will take us in litigation. Now that we have gone ahead with a case and would like to end it immediately otherwise squatters will take the entire land. Therefore, send it immediately. (2) Ortigas also has sued us because we are holding the installments, because they have refused to give a rebate of P5.00 per meter which they have to give us as per contract. They have filed the law suit that since we have not paid the installment they should get back the land. The hearing of this case is in the month of July. Therefore, please send the power immediately. In one case DADA (Elder Brother) will represent and in another one, I shall. (3) In case if you do not want to give power then make one letter in favor of Dada and the other one in my favor showing that in any litigation we can represent you and your wife, and whatever the court decide it will be acceptable by me. You can ask any lawyer, he will be able to prepare these letters. After that you can have these letters ratify before P.I. Consulate. It should be dated April 15, 1971. (4) Try to send the power because it will be more useful. Make it in any manner whatever way you have confident in it. But please send it immediately. You have cancelled the power. Therefore, you have lost your reputation everywhere. What can I further write you about it. I have told everybody that due to certain reasons I have written you to do this that is why you have done this. This way your reputation have been kept intact. Otherwise if I want to do something about it, I can show you that inspite of the power you have cancelled you can not do anything. You can keep this letter because my conscience is clear. I do not have anything in my mind. I should not be writing you this, but because my conscience is clear do you know that if I had predated papers what could you have done? Or do you know that I have many paper signed by you and if had done anything or do then what can you do about it? It is not necessary to write further about this. It does not matter if you have cancelled the power. At that time if I had predated and done something about it what could you have done? You do not know me. I am not after money. I can earn money anytime. It has been ten months since I have not received a single penny for expenses from Dada (elder brother). Why there are no expenses? We can not draw a single penny from knitting (factory). Well I am not going to write you further, nor there is any need for it. This much I am writing you because of the way you have conducted yourself. But remember, whenever I hale the money I will not keep it myself Right now I have not got anything at all. I am not going to write any further. Keep your business clean with Naru. Otherwise he will discontinue because he likes to keep his business 13 very clean. The said letter was in Sindhi language. It was translated to English by the First Secretary of the Embassy of Pakistan, which 14 translation was verified correct by the Chairman, Department of Sindhi, University of Karachi. From the foregoing letter what could be gleaned is that

1. Choithram asked for the issuance of another power of attorney in their favor so they can continue to represent Ishwar as Ortigas has sued them for unpaid installments. It also appears therefrom that Ortigas learned of the revocation of the power of attorney so the request to issue another. 2. Choithram reassured Ishwar to have confidence in him as he was not after money, and that he was not interested in Ishwar's money. 3. To demonstrate that he can be relied upon, he said that he could have ante-dated the sales agreement of the Ortigas lots before the issuance of the powers of attorney and acquired the same in his name, if he wanted to, but he did not do so. 4. He said he had not received a single penny for expenses from Dada (their elder brother Navalrai). Thus, confirming that if he was not given money by Ishwar to buy the Ortigas lots, he could not have consummated the sale. 5. It is important to note that in said letter Choithram never claimed ownership of the property in question. He affirmed the fact that he bought the same as mere agent and in behalf of Ishwar. Neither did he mention the alleged temporary arrangement whereby Ishwar, being an American citizen, shall appear to be the buyer of the said property, but that after Choithram acquires Philippine citizenship, its ownership shall be transferred to Choithram. This brings us to this temporary arrangement theory of Choithram. The appellate court disposed of this matter in this wise Choithram's claim that he purchased the two parcels of land for himself in 1966 but placed it in the name of his younger brother, Ishwar, who is an American citizen, as a temporary arrangement,' because as a British subject he is disqualified under the 1935 Constitution to acquire real property in the Philippines, which is not so with respect to American citizens in view of the Ordinance Appended to the Constitution granting them parity rights, there is nothing in the records showing that Ishwar ever agreed to such a temporary arrangement. During the entire period from 1965, when the US $ 150,000. 00 was transmitted to Choithram, and until Ishwar filed a complaint against him in 1982, or over 16 years, Choithram never mentioned of a temporary arrangement nor can he present any memorandum or writing evidencing such temporary arrangement , prompting plaintiff-appellant to observe: The properties in question which are located in a prime industrial site in Ugong, Pasig, Metro Manila have a present fair market value of no less than P22,364,000.00 (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive), and yet for such valuable pieces of property, Choithram who now belatedly that he purchased the same for himself did not document in writing or in a memorandum the alleged temporary arrangement with Ishwar' (pp. 4-41, Appellant's Brief). Such verbal allegation of a temporary arrangement is simply improbable and inconsistent. It has repeatedly been held that important contracts made without evidence are highly improbable. The improbability of such temporary arrangement is brought to fore when we consider that Choithram has a son (Haresh Jethmal Ramnani) who is an American citizen under whose name the properties in question could be registered, both during the time the contracts to sell were executed and at the time absolute title over the same was to be delivered. At the time the Agreements were entered into with defendant Ortigas & Co. in 1966, Haresh, was already 18 years old and consequently, Choithram could have executed the deeds in trust for his minor son. But, he did not do this. Three (3) years, thereafter, or in 1968 after Haresh had attained the age of 21, Choithram should have terminated the temporary arrangement with Ishwar, which according to him would be effective only pending the acquisition of citizenship papers. Again, he did not do anything. Evidence to be believed, said Vice Chancellor Van Fleet of New Jersey, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itselfsuch as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance. (Daggers vs. Van Dyek 37 M.J. Eq. 130, 132). Another factor that can be counted against the temporary arrangement excuse is that upon the revocation on February 4, 1971 of the Power of attorney dated January 24, 1966 in favor of Navalrai and Choithram by Ishwar, Choithram wrote (tsn, p. 21, S. July 19, 1985) a letter dated June 25, 1971 (Exhibits R, R-1, R-2 and R3) imploring Ishwar to execute a new power of attorney in their favor. That if he did not want to give power, then Ishwar could make a letter in favor of Dada and another in his favor so that in any litigation involving the properties in question, both of them could represent Ishwar and his wife. Choithram tried to convince Ishwar to issue the power of attorney in whatever manner he may want. In said letter no mention was made at all of any temporary arrangement.

On the contrary, said letter recognize(s) the existence of principal and attorney-in-fact relationship between Ishwar and himself. Choithram wrote: . . . do you know that if I had predated papers what could you have done? Or do you know that I have many papers signed by you and if I had done anything or do then what can you do about it?' Choithram was saying that he could have repudiated the trust and ran away with the properties of Ishwar by predating documents and Ishwar would be entirely helpless. He was bitter as a result of Ishwar's revocation of the power of attorney but no mention was made of any temporary arrangement or a claim of ownership over the properties in question nor was he able to present any memorandum or document to prove the existence of such temporary arrangement. Choithram is also estopped in pais or by deed from claiming an interest over the properties in question adverse to that of Ishwar. Section 3(a) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court states that whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and act upon such belief, he cannot in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission be permitted to falsify it.' While estoppel by deed is a bar which precludes a party to a deed and his privies from asserting as against the other and his privies any right of title in derogation of the deed, or from denying the truth of any material fact asserted in it(31 C.J.S. 195; 19 Am. Jur. 603). Thus, defendants-appellees are not permitted to repudiate their admissions and representations or to assert any right or title in derogation of the deeds or from denying the truth of any material fact asserted in the (1) power of attorney dated January 24, 1966 (Exhibit A); (2) the Agreements of February 1, 1966 and May 16, 1966 (Exhibits B and C); and (3) the Contract of Lease dated January 5, 1972 (Exhibit P). . . . The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. The doctrine of estoppel springs from equitable principles and the equities in the case. It is designed to aid the law in the administration of justice where without its aid injustice might result. It has been applied by court wherever and whenever special circumstances of a case so demands' (Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 357, 368 [1979]). It was only after the services of counsel has been obtained that Choithram alleged for the first time in his Answer that the General Power of attorney (Annex A) with the Contracts to Sell (Annexes B and C) were made only for the sole purpose of assuring defendants' acquisition and ownership of the lots described thereon in due time under the law; that said instruments do not reflect the true intention of the parties (par. 2, Answer dated May 30, 1983), seventeen (17) long years from the time he received the money transmitted to him by his brother, Ishwar. Moreover, Choithram's 'temporary arrangement,' by which he claimed purchasing the two (2) parcels in question in 1966 and placing them in the name of Ishwar who is an American citizen , to circumvent the disqualification provision of aliens acquiring real properties in the Philippines under the 1935 Philippine Constitution, as Choithram was then a British subject, show a palpable disregard of the law of the land and to sustain the supposed "temporary arrangement" with Ishwar would be sanctioning the perpetration of an illegal act and culpable violation of the Constitution. Defendants-appellees likewise violated the Anti-Dummy Law (Commonwealth Act 108, as amended),which provides in Section 1 thereof that: In all cases in which any constitutional or legal provision requires Philippine or any other specific citizenship as a requisite for the exercise or enjoyment of a right, franchise or privilege, . . . any alien or foreigner profiting thereby, shall be punished . . . by imprisonment . . . and of a fine of not less than the value of the right, franchise or privileges, which is enjoyed or acquired in violation of the provisions hereof . . . Having come to court with unclean hands, Choithram must not be permitted foist his 'temporary arrangement' scheme as a defense before this court. Being in delicto, he does not have any right whatsoever being shielded from his own wrong-doing, which is not so with respect to Ishwar, who was not a party to such an arrangement. The falsity of Choithram's defense is further aggravated by the material inconsistencies and contradictions in his testimony. While on January 23, 1985 he testified that he purchased the land in question on his own behalf (tsn, p. 4, S. Jan. 23, 1985), in the July 18, 1985 hearing, forgetting probably what he stated before, Choithram testified that he was only an attorney-in-fact of Ishwar (tsn, p. 5, S. July 18, 1985). Also in the hearing of January 23, 1985, Choithram declared that nobody rented the building that was constructed on the parcels of land in question (tsn, pp. 5 and 6), only to admit in the hearing of October 30, 1985, that he was in fact renting the building for P12,000. 00 per annum (tsn, p. 3). Again, in the hearing of July 19, 1985, Choithram testified that he had no knowledge of the revocation of the Power of Attorney (tsn, pp. 20- 21),

only to backtrack when confronted with the letter of June 25, 1971 (Exhibits R to R-3), which he admitted to be in "his own writing," indicating knowledge of the revocation of the Power of Attorney. These inconsistencies are not minor but go into the entire credibility of the testimony of Choithram and the rule is that contradictions on a very crucial point by a witness, renders s testimony incredible People vs. Rafallo, 80 Phil. 22). Not only this the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is fully applicable as far as the testimony of Choithram is concerned. The cardinal rule, which has served in all ages, and has been applied to all conditions of men, is that a witness willfully falsifying the truth in one particular, when upon oath, ought never to be believed upon the strength of his own testimony, whatever he may assert (U.S. vs. Osgood 27 Feb. Case No. 15971-a, p. 364); Gonzales vs. Mauricio, 52 Phil, 728), for what ground of judicial relief can there be left when the party has shown such gross insensibility to the difference between right and wrong, between truth and falsehood? (The Santisima Trinidad, 7 Wheat, 283, 5 U.S. [L. ed.] 454). True, that Choithram's testimony finds corroboration from the testimony of his brother, Navalrai, but the same would not be of much help to Choithram. Not only is Navalrai an interested and biased witness, having admitted his close relationship with Choithram and that whenever he or Choithram had problems, they ran to each other (tsn, pp. 17-18, S. Sept. 20, 1985), Navalrai has a pecuniary interest in the success of Choithram in the case in question. Both he and Choithram are business partners in Jethmal and Sons and/or Jethmal Industries, wherein he owns 60% of the company and Choithram, 40% (p. 62, Appellant's Brief). Since the acquisition of the properties in question in 1966, Navalrai was occupying 1,200 square meters thereof as a factory site plus the fact that his son (Navalrais) was occupying the apartment on top of the factory with his family rent free except the amount of P l,000.00 a month to pay for taxes on said properties (tsn, p. 17, S. Oct. 3, 1985). Inherent contradictions also marked Navalrai testimony. "While the latter was very meticulous in keeping a receipt for the P 10,000.00 that he paid Ishwar as settlement in Jethmal Industries, yet in the alleged payment of P 100,000.00 to Ishwar, no receipt or voucher was ever issued by him (tsn, p. 17, S. Oct. 3, 15 1983). We concur. The foregoing findings of facts of the Court of Appeals which are supported by the evidence is conclusive on this Court. The Court finds that Ishwar entrusted US$150,000.00 to Choithram in 1965 for investment in the realty business. Soon thereafter, a general power of attorney was executed by Ishwar in favor of both Navalrai and Choithram. If it is true that the purpose only is to enable Choithram to purchase realty temporarily in the name of Ishwar, why the inclusion of their elder brother Navalrai as an attorney-in-fact? Then, acting as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, Choithram purchased two parcels of land located in Barrio Ugong Pasig, Rizal, from Ortigas in 1966. With the balance of the money of Ishwar, Choithram erected a building on said lot. Subsequently, with a loan obtained from a bank and the income of the said property, Choithram constructed three other buildings thereon. He managed the business and collected the rentals. Due to their relationship of confidence it was only in 1970 when Ishwar demanded for an accounting from Choithram. And even as Ishwar revoked the general power of attorney on February 4, 1971, of which Choithram was duly notified, Choithram wrote to Ishwar on June 25, 1971 requesting that he execute a new power of attorney 16 in their favor. When Ishwar did not respond thereto, Choithram nevertheless proceeded as such attorney-in-fact to assign all the rights and interest of Ishwar to his daughter-in-law Nirmla in 1973 without the knowledge and consent of Ishwar. Ortigas in turn executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Nirmla after full payment of the purchase accomplice of the lots. In the prefatory statement of their petition, Choithram pictured Ishwar to be so motivated by greed and ungratefulness, who squandered the family business in New York, who had to turn to his wife for support, accustomed to living in ostentation and who resorted to blackmail in filing several criminal and civil suits against them. These statements find no support and should be stricken from the records. Indeed, they are irrelevant to the proceeding. Moreover, assuming Ishwar is of such a low character as Choithram proposes to make this Court to believe, why is it that of all persons, under his temporary arrangement theory, Choithram opted to entrust the purchase of valuable real estate and built four buildings thereon all in the name of Ishwar? Is it not an unconscious emergence of the truth that this otherwise wayward brother of theirs was on the contrary able to raise enough capital through the generosity of his father-in-law for the purchase of the very properties in question? As the appellate court aptly observed if truly this temporary arrangement story is the only motivation, why Ishwar of all people? Why not the own son of Choithram, Haresh who is also an American citizen and who was already 18 years old at the time of purchase in 1966? The Court agrees with the observation that this theory is an afterthought which surfaced only when Choithram, Nirmla and Moti filed their answer. When Ishwar asked for an accounting in 1970 and revoked the general power of attorney in 1971, Choithram had a total change of heart. He decided to claim the property as his. He caused the transfer of the rights and interest of Ishwar to Nirmla. On his representation, Ortigas executed the deeds of sale of the properties in favor of Nirmla. Choithram obviously surmised Ishwar cannot stake a valid claim over the property by so doing.

Clearly, this transfer to Nirmla is fictitious and, as admitted by Choithram, was intended only to place the property in her name 17 until Choithram acquires Philippine citizenship. What appears certain is that it appears to be a scheme of Choithram to place the property beyond the reach of Ishwar should he successfully claim the same. Thus, it must be struck down. Worse still, on September 27, 1990 spouses Ishwar filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and to require Choithram, et al. to submit certain documents, inviting the attention of this Court to the following: a) Donation by Choithram of his 2,500 shares of stock in General Garments Corporation in favor of his 18 children on December 29, 1989; 19 b) Sale on August 2, 1990 by Choithram of his 100 shares in Biflex (Phils.), Inc., in favor of his children; and c) Mortgage on June 20, 1989 by Nirmla through her attorney-in-fact, Choithram, of the properties subject of this litigation, for the amount of $3 Million in favor of Overseas Holding, Co. Ltd., (Overseas for brevity), a corporation which appears to be organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Cayman Islands, with a capital of only $100.00 divided into 100 shares of $1.00 each, and with address at P.O. Box 1790, 20 Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands. An opposition thereto was filed by Choithram, et al. but no documents were produced. A manifestation and reply to the opposition was filed by spouses Ishwar. All these acts of Choithram, et al. appear to be fraudulent attempts to remove these properties to the detriment of spouses Ishwar should the latter prevail in this litigation. On December 10, 1990 the court issued a resolution that substantially reads as follows: Considering the allegations of petitioners Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani and Sonya Ramnani that respondents Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla Ramnani and Moti G. Ramnani have fraudulently executed a simulated mortgage of the properties subject of this litigation dated June 20, 1989, in favor of Overseas Holding Co., Ltd. which appears to be a corporation organized in Cayman Islands, for the amount of $ 3,000,000.00, which is much more than the value of the properties in litigation; that said alleged mortgagee appears to be a "shell" corporation with a capital of only $100.00; and that this alleged transaction appears to be intended to defraud petitioners Ishwar and Sonya Jethmal Ramnani of any favorable judgment that this Court may render in this case; Wherefore the Court Resolved to issue a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining and prohibiting said respondents Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti G. Ramnani and the Overseas Holding Co., Ltd. from encumbering, selling or otherwise disposing of the properties and improvements subject of this litigation until further orders of the Court. Petitioners Ishwar and Sonya Jethmal Ramnani are hereby required to post a bond of P 100,000.00 to answer for any damages d respondents may suffer by way of this injunction if the Court finally decides the said petitioners are not entitled thereto. The Overseas Holding Co., Ltd. with address at P.O. Box 1790 Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, is hereby IMPLEADED as a respondent in these cases, and is hereby required to SUBMIT its comment on the Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment and Motion for Production of Documents, the Manifestation and the Reply to the Opposition filed by said petitioners, within Sixty (60) days after service by publication on it in accordance with the provisions of Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, at the expense of petitioners Ishwar and Sonya Jethmal Ramnani. Let copies of this resolution be served on the Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal, and the Provincial Assessor of Pasig, Rizal, both in Metro Manila, for its annotation on the transfer Certificates of Titles Nos. 403150 and 403152 registered in the name of respondent Nirmla V. Ramnani, and on the tax declarations of the said 21 properties and its improvements subject of this litigation. The required injunction bond in the amount of P 100,000.00 was filed by the spouses Ishwar which was approved by the Court. The above resolution of the Court was published in the Manila Bulletin issue of December 17, 1990 at the expense of said 22 spouses. On December 19, 1990 the said resolution and petition for review with annexes in G.R. Nos. 85494 and 85496 were transmitted to respondent Overseas, Grand Cayman Islands at its address c/o Cayman Overseas Trust Co. Ltd., through the 23 24 United Parcel Services Bill of Lading and it was actually delivered to said company on January 23, 1991. On January 22, 1991, Choithram, et al., filed a motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction alleging that there is no basis therefor as in the amended complaint what is sought is actual damages and not a reconveyance of the property, that there is no reason for its issuance, and that acts already executed cannot be enjoined. They also offered to file a counterbond to dissolve the writ. A comment/opposition thereto was filed by spouses Ishwar that there is basis for the injunction as the alleged mortgage of the property is simulated and the other donations of the shares of Choithram to his children are fraudulent schemes to negate any judgment the Court may render for petitioners. No comment or answer was filed by Overseas despite due notice, thus it is and must be considered to be in default and to have lost the right to contest the representations of spouses Ishwar to declare the aforesaid alleged mortgage nun and void. This purported mortgage of the subject properties in litigation appears to be fraudulent and simulated. The stated amount of $3 Million for which it was mortgaged is much more than the value of the mortgaged properties and its improvements. The

alleged mortgagee-company (Overseas) was organized only on June 26,1989 but the mortgage was executed much earlier, on 25 June 20, 1989, that is six (6) days before Overseas was organized. Overseas is a "shelf" company worth only $100.00. In the manifestation of spouses Ishwar dated April 1, 1991, the Court was informed that this matter was brought to the attention of the Central Bank (CB) for investigation, and that in a letter of March 20, 1991, the CB informed counsel for spouses Ishwar that 26 said alleged foreign loan of Choithram, et al. from Overseas has not been previously approved/registered with the CB. Obviously, this is another ploy of Choithram, et al. to place these properties beyond the reach of spouses Ishwar should they obtain a favorable judgment in this case. The Court finds and so declares that this alleged mortgage should be as it is hereby declared null and void. All these contemporaneous and subsequent acts of Choithram, et al., betray the weakness of their cause so they had to take an steps, even as the case was already pending in Court, to render ineffective any judgment that may be rendered against them. The problem is compounded in that respondent Ortigas is caught in the web of this bitter fight. It had all the time been dealing with Choithram as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. However, evidence had been adduced that notice in writing had been served not only on Choithram, but also on Ortigas, of the revocation of Choithram's power of attorney by Ishwar's lawyer, on May 24, 27 1971. A publication of said notice was made in the April 2, 1971 issue of The Manila Times for the information of the general 28 public. Such notice of revocation in a newspaper of general circulation is sufficient warning to third persons including 29 30 Ortigas. A notice of revocation was also registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 1 971. Indeed in the letter of Choithram to Ishwar of June 25, 1971, Choithram was pleading that Ishwar execute another power of 31 attorney to be shown to Ortigas who apparently learned of the revocation of Choithram's power of attorney. Despite said notices, Ortigas nevertheless acceded to the representation of Choithram, as alleged attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, to assign the rights of petitioner Ishwar to Nirmla. While the primary blame should be laid at the doorstep of Choithram, Ortigas is not entirely without fault. It should have required Choithram to secure another power of attorney from Ishwar. For recklessly believing the pretension of Choithram that his power of attorney was still good, it must, therefore, share in the latter's liability to Ishwar. In the original complaint, the spouses Ishwar asked for a reconveyance of the properties and/or payment of its present value 32 and damages. In the amended complaint they asked, among others, for actual damages of not less than the present value of the real properties in litigation, moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, costs of the suit and further prayed for "such 33 other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises . The amended complaint contain the following positive allegations: 7. Defendant Choithram Ramnani, in evident bad faith and despite due notice of the revocation of the General Power of Attorney, Annex 'D" hereof, caused the transfer of the rights over the said parcels of land to his daughter-in-law, defendant Nirmla Ramnani in connivance with defendant Ortigas & Co., the latter having agreed to the said transfer despite receiving a letter from plaintiffs' lawyer informing them of the said revocation; copy of the letter is hereto attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex "H"; 8. Defendant Nirmla Ramnani having acquired the aforesaid property by fraud is, by force of law,considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of plaintiff and is obliged to return the same to the latter : 9. Several efforts were made to settle the matter within the family but defendants (Choithram Ramnani, Nirmla Ramnani and Moti Ramnani) refused and up to now fail and still refuse to cooperate and respond to the same; thus, the present case; 10. In addition to having been deprived of their rights over the properties (described in par. 3 hereof), plaintiffs, by reason of defendants' fraudulent act, suffered actual damages by way of lost rental on the property which defendants (Choithram Ramnani, Nirmla Ramnani and Moti Ramnani have collected for 34 themselves; In said amended complaint, spouses Ishwar, among others, pray for payment of actual damages in an amount no less than the value of the properties in litigation instead of a reconveyance as sought in the original complaint. Apparently they opted not to insist on a reconveyance as they are American citizens as alleged in the amended complaint. The allegations of the amended complaint above reproduced clearly spelled out that the transfer of the property to Nirmla was fraudulent and that it should be considered to be held in trust by Nirmla for spouses Ishwar. As above-discussed, this allegation is well-taken and the transfer of the property to Nirmla should be considered to have created an implied trust by Nirmla as 35 trustee of the property for the benefit of spouses Ishwar. The motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction filed by Choithram, et al. should be denied. Its issuance by this Court is proper and warranted under the circumstances of the case. Under Section 3(c) Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, a writ of preliminary injunction may be granted at any time after commencement of the action and before judgment when it is established: (c) that the defendant is doing, threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act probably in violation of plaintiffs's rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

As above extensively discussed, Choithram, et al. have committed and threaten to commit further acts of disposition of the properties in litigation as well as the other assets of Choithram, apparently designed to render ineffective any judgment the Court may render favorable to spouses Ishwar. The purpose of the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the things subject of the litigation and to protect the rights of the spouses Ishwar respecting the subject of the action during the pendency of the 36 37 Suit and not to obstruct the administration of justice or prejudice the adverse party. In this case for damages, should Choithram, et al. continue to commit acts of disposition of the properties subject of the litigation, an award of damages to 38 spouses Ishwar would thereby be rendered ineffectual and meaningless. Consequently, if only to protect the interest of spouses Ishwar, the Court hereby finds and holds that the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment filed by spouses Ishwar should be granted covering the properties subject of this litigation. Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provides that at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered, in, among others, the following cases: (d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or in concealing or disposing of the property for the taking, detention or conversion of which the action is brought; (e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors; . . . Verily, the acts of Choithram, et al. of disposing the properties subject of the litigation disclose a scheme to defraud spouses Ishwar so they may not be able to recover at all given a judgment in their favor, the requiring the issuance of the writ of attachment in this instance. Nevertheless, under the peculiar circumstances of this case and despite the fact that Choithram, et al., have committed acts which demonstrate their bad faith and scheme to defraud spouses Ishwar and Sonya of their rightful share in the properties in litigation, the Court cannot ignore the fact that Choithram must have been motivated by a strong conviction that as the industrial partner in the acquisition of said assets he has as much claim to said properties as Ishwar, the capitalist partner in the joint venture. The scenario is clear. Spouses Ishwar supplied the capital of $150,000.00 for the business. They entrusted the money to Choithram to invest in a profitable business venture in the Philippines. For this purpose they appointed Choithram as their attorney-in-fact. Choithram in turn decided to invest in the real estate business. He bought the two (2) parcels of land in question from Ortigas as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar- Instead of paying for the lots in cash, he paid in installments and used the balance of the capital entrusted to him, plus a loan, to build two buildings. Although the buildings were burned later, Choithram was able to build two other buildings on the property. He rented them out and collected the rentals. Through the industry and genius of Choithram, Ishwar's property was developed and improved into what it is nowa valuable asset worth millions of pesos. As of the last estimate in 1985, while the case was pending before the trial court, the market value of the properties is no less than 39 P22,304,000.00. It should be worth much more today. We have a situation where two brothers engaged in a business venture. One furnished the capital, the other contributed his industry and talent. Justice and equity dictate that the two share equally the fruit of their joint investment and efforts. Perhaps this Solomonic solution may pave the way towards their reconciliation. Both would stand to gain. No one would end up the loser. After all, blood is thicker than water. However, the Court cannot just close its eyes to the devious machinations and schemes that Choithram employed in attempting to dispose of, if not dissipate, the properties to deprive spouses Ishwar of any possible means to recover any award the Court may grant in their favor. Since Choithram, et al. acted with evident bad faith and malice, they should pay moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees to spouses Ishwar. WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 85494 is DENIED, while the petition in G.R. No. 85496 is hereby given due course and GRANTED. The judgment of the Court of Appeals dated October 18, 1988 is hereby modified as follows: 1. Dividing equally between respondents spouses Ishwar, on the one hand, and petitioner Choithram Ramnani, on the other, (in G.R. No. 85494) the two parcels of land subject of this litigation, including all the improvements thereon, presently covered by transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 403150 and 403152 of the Registry of Deeds, as well as the rental income of the property from 1967 to the present. 2. Petitioner Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti C. Ramnani and respondent Ortigas and Company, Limited Partnership (in G.R. No. 85496) are ordered solidarily to pay in cash the value of said one-half (1/2) share in the said land and improvements pertaining to respondents spouses Ishwar and Sonya at their fair market value at the time of the satisfaction of this judgment but in no case less than their value as appraised by the Asian Appraisal, Inc. in its Appraisal Report dated August 1985 (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive).

3. Petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti Ramnani and respondent Ortigas & Co., Ltd. Partnership shall also be jointly and severally liable to pay to said respondents spouses Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani one-half (1/2) of the total rental income of said properties and improvements from 1967 up to the date of satisfaction of the judgment to be computed as follows: a. On Building C occupied by Eppie's Creation and Jethmal Industries from 1967 to 1973, inclusive, based on the 1967 to 1973 monthly rentals paid by Eppie's Creation; b. Also on Building C above, occupied by Jethmal Industries and Lavine from 1974 to 1978, the rental incomes based on then rates prevailing as shown under Exhibit "P"; and from 1979 to 1981, based on then prevailing rates as indicated under Exhibit "Q"; c. On Building A occupied by Transworld Knitting Mills from 1972 to 1978, the rental incomes based upon then prevailing rates shown under Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1981, based on prevailing rates per Exhibit "Q"; d. On the two Bays Buildings occupied by Sigma-Mariwasa from 1972 to 1978, the rentals based on the Lease Contract, Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1980, the rentals based on the Lease Contract, Exhibit "Q". and thereafter commencing 1982, to account for and turn over the rental incomes paid or ought to be paid for the use and occupancy of the properties and all improvements totalling 10,048 sq. m., based on the rate per square meter prevailing in 1981 as indicated annually cumulative up to 1984. Then, commencing 1985 and up to the satisfaction of the judgment, rentals shall be computed at ten percent (10%) annually of the fair market values of the properties as appraised by the Asian Appraisals, Inc. in August 1985. (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive.) 4. To determine the market value of the properties at the time of the satisfaction of this judgment and the total rental incomes thereof, the trial court is hereby directed to hold a hearing with deliberate dispatch for this purpose only and to have the judgment immediately executed after such determination. 5. Petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani, are also jointly and severally liable to pay respondents Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani the amount of P500,000.00 as moral damages, P200,000.00 as exemplary damages and attorney's fees equal to 10% of the total award. to said respondents spouses. 6. The motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction dated December 10, 1990 filed by petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani, is hereby DENIED and the said injunction is hereby made permanent. Let a writ of attachment be issued and levied against the properties and improvements subject of this litigation to secure the payment of the above awards to spouses Ishwar and Sonya. 7. The mortgage constituted on the subject property dated June 20, 1989 by petitioners Choithram and Nirmla, both surnamed Ramnani in favor of respondent Overseas Holding, Co. Ltd. (in G.R. No. 85496) for the amount of $3-M is hereby declared null and void. The Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal, is directed to cancel the annotation of d mortgage on the titles of the properties in question. 8. Should respondent Ortigas Co., Ltd. Partnership pay the awards to Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani under this judgment, it shall be entitled to reimbursement from petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani. 9. The above awards shag bear legal rate of interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the time this judgment becomes final until they are fully paid by petitioners Choithram Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti C. Ramnani and Ortigas, Co., Ltd. Partnership. Said petitioners Choithram, et al. and respondent Ortigas shall also pay the costs. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.