CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI et.al.

vs CA
FACTS:

Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani and his wife Sonya had their main business based in New
York. Ishwar received US $150,000.00 from his father-in-law in Switzerland. In 1965,
Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani 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. Subsequently, spouses Ishwar executed a general power of
attorney appointing Ishwar’s full blood brothers Choithram and Navalrai as attorneys-
in-fact, empowering them to manage and conduct their business concerns in the
Philippines. Choithram, as attorney-in-factr, entered into two agreements for the
purchase of two parcels of land located in Pasig Rizal from Ortigas & Company, Ltd.
Partnership (Ortigas Ltd.) with a total area of approximately 10,048 square meters.
Three buildings were constructed thereon and were leased out by Choithram as
attorney-in-fact of spouses Ishwar. Two of these buildings were later burned.

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 which prompted Ishwar to revoke the general power of attorney.
Choithram and Ortigas Ltd. were duly notified by notice in writing of such revocation. It
was also registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and published in The
Manila Times. Nevertheless, Choithram as such attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, transferred
all rights and interests of Ishwar spouses in favor of Nirmla Ramnani, the wife of
Choitram’s son, Moti. Ortigas also executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of
Nirmla and the TCT ISSUEd in her favour. Thus, spouses Ishwar filed a complaint in the
Court of First Instance of Rizal against Choithram and spouses Nirmla and Moti
(Choithram et al.) and Ortigas Ltd. for reconveyance of said properties or payment of its
value and damages.

The CFI dismissed the case for damages. Upon appeal, the CA set aside the lower court’s
judgment and ordered Choithram and Ortigas Ltd. To pay the spouses the value of the
properties as well as the income they received as rent thereof, together with moral and
exemplary damages. On a motion for reconsideration, Ortigas Ltd. Was absolved from
paying the liability. So, Choithram filed a petition for review to challenge the CA’s
decision.

Issue:

Whether a partnership was formed?

Held:
The Court held that there was a partnership formed. Even without a written agreement,
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. 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. But
because of the acts of Choithram in defrauding the spouses, the Supreme Court still
awarded moral and exemplary damages to the spouses Ramnani.