R. Y. HANLON vs. JOHN W. HAUSSERMANN and A. W. BEAM, defendantsappellants. GEORGE C.

SELLNER, intervener
Facts:
Haussermann and Beam, officers of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, entered
into an agreement with Sellner and Hanlon whereby in consideration of P50,000 to be
raised by the latter two to rehabilitate certain essential machineries within a six-month
period, the two would receive certain shares in the company. Because the P50,000 was
not raised within the proper period, Haussermann and Beam had to look for other sources
of capital. Fortunately, they were able to do so, and the shares in the company rose 10
times their original value. Sellner and Hanlon now desire to participate in said profits on
the ground that the four of them had jointly agreed to improve the company, and it is but
fair that they should share in the profits.
Issue:
Whether or not Sellner and Hanlon are entitled to the profits
Held:
No.
In the first place, Sellner and Hanlon are not partners. Second, granting that they were
originally joint ventures, still the fiduciary relations between them ceased when Sellner
and Hanlon were unable to raise the needed P50,000. It is true that the defendants had
obliged themselves to seek financial assistance from the plaintiff but only for the period of
sex months, not indefinitely afterwards. Moreover, after termination of an agency,
partnership, or joint venture, each of the parties is free to act in his own interest, provided
he has done nothing during the continuance of the relation to lay a foundation for an
undue advantage to himself.

18. ANTONIO LIM TANHU, DY OCHAY, ALFONSO LEONARDO NG SUA and CO OYO
vs. HON. JOSE R. RAMOLETE as Presiding Judge, Branch III, CFI, Cebu and TAN
PUT
Facts:
Tan Put filed a complaint against spouses Lim Tanhu and Dy Ochay. She later amended
her complaint and included some other people as defendants
Tan Put alleges that she is the widow of Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan, who was a partner of
defendants in the commercial partnership Glory Commercial Co.
Tan Put alleges, among others, that Tanhu et. al., through fraud and machinations, took
actual and active management of the partnership, and that although her deceased
husband was the manager of Glory,Tanhu et.al managed to use the funds of the
partnership to purchase lands and buildings in different cities in Visayas.
Further, she also alleges that after the death of Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan,Tanhu et. al.
continued the business without liquidation by organizing a corporation

she alleges that the assets of the corporation are actually the assets of the defunct
partnership.
In the CFI level, Tan Put prayed for an accounting of the real and personal properties of
the Glory Commercial Co., and to subsequently deliver to her 1/3 of the total value of the
properties.
Defendants defense: That Tan Put was not the legitimate wife of the deceased; that the
assets of the partnership has already been properly liquidated, and that it was the
legitimate wife Ang Siok Tin who had received Tee Hoons share.
Issue:
Whether Tan Put, as she alleged being married with Tee Hoon, can claim from the
company of the latters share.
Held:
Yes.
Indeed, not only does this document prove that plaintiff's relation to the deceased was
that of a common-law wife but that they had settled their property interests with the
payment to her of P40,000.
In the light of all these circumstances, We find no alternative but to hold that plaintiff Tan
Put's allegation that she is the widow of Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan has not been
satisfactorily established and that, on the contrary, the evidence on record convincingly
shows that her relation with said deceased was that of a common-law wife and
furthermore, that all her claims against the company and its surviving partners as well as
those against the estate of the deceased have already been settled and paid. We take
judicial notice of the fact that the respective counsel who assisted the parties in the
quitclaim, Attys. H. Hermosisima and Natalio Castillo, are members in good standing of
the Philippine Bar, with the particularity that the latter has been a member of the Cabinet
and of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, hence, absent any credible proof
that they had allowed themselves to be parties to a fraudulent document His Honor did
right in recognizing its existence, albeit erring in not giving due legal significance to its
contents.
Of course, the existence of the partnership has not been denied, it is actually admitted
impliedly in defendants' affirmative defense that Po Chuan's share had already been duly
settled with and paid to both the plaintiff and his legitimate family. But the evidence as to
the actual participation of the defendants Lim Tanhu and Ng Sua in the operation of the
business that could have enabled them to make the extractions of funds alleged by
plaintiff is at best confusing and at certain points manifestly inconsistent.
If Po Chuan was in control of the affairs and the running of the partnership, how could the
defendants have defrauded him of such huge amounts as plaintiff had made his Honor
believe? Upon the other hand, since Po Chuan was in control of the affairs of the
partnership, the more logical inference is that if defendants had obtained any portion of
the funds of the partnership for themselves, it must have been with the knowledge and
consent of Po Chuan, for which reason no accounting could be demanded from them
therefor, considering that Article 1807 of the Civil Code refers only to what is taken by a
partner without the consent of the other partner or partners. Incidentally again, this

theory about Po Chuan having been actively managing the partnership up to his death is
a substantial deviation from the allegation in the amended complaint to the effect that
"defendants Antonio Lim Tanhu, Alfonso Leonardo Ng Sua, Lim Teck Chuan and Eng Chong
Leonardo, through fraud and machination, took actual and active management of the
partnership and although Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan was the manager of Glory Commercial
Co., defendants managed to use the funds of the partnership to purchase lands and
buildings etc. and should not have been permitted to be proven by the hearing officer,
who naturally did not know any better.
Moreover, it is very significant that according to the very tax declarations and land titles
listed in the decision, most if not all of the properties supposed to have been acquired by
the defendants Lim Tanhu and Ng Sua with funds of the partnership appear to have been
transferred to their names only in 1969 or later, that is, long after the partnership had
been automatically dissolved as a result of the death of Po Chuan. Accordingly,
defendants have no obligation to account to anyone for such acquisitions in the absence
of clear proof that they had violated the trust of Po Chuan during the existence of the
partnership.
Besides, assuming there has not yet been any liquidation of the partnership, contrary to
the allegation of the defendants, then Glory Commercial Co. would have the status of a
partnership in liquidation and the only right plaintiff could have would be to what might
result after such liquidation to belong to the deceased partner, and before this is finished,
it is impossible to determine, what rights or interests, if any, the deceased had. In other
words, no specific amounts or properties may be adjudicated to the heir or legal
representative of the deceased partner without the liquidation being first terminated.
Petition is granted.