Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/297066829/01-Tocao-vs-CA
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:50:34+00:00

Document:
COURT OF APPEALS and NENITA A. ANAY, respondents.
dependable and honest when it came to financial commitments.
president and general manager of Geminesse Enterprise, even wrote a letter to the Visa Section of the U.S.
wrote Belo a letter." In their answer. such complaint should have been lodged with the Department of Labor and not with the regular court.000. and (3) P100." As far as Belo was concerned.000. Belo denied that Anay was supposed to receive a share in the profit of the business.00 as exemplary damages. Petitioners (defendants therein) further alleged that Anay filed the complaint on account of "ill­will and resentment" because Marjorie Tocao did not allow her to "lord it over in the Geminesse Enterprise. Still. 1988 and the audit of the company to determine her share in the net profits. the following: (1) P32.html 2/8 . Branch 140. 127405 manager. besmirched reputation in the business world. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiff overriding commission on the total production which for the period covering January 8. in view of the foregoing." was "either unenforceable or void or inexistent. that letter was not answered. 1993.00. jointly and severally. 1988 amounted to P32.360. Because Anay merely acted as marketing demonstrator of Geminesse Enterprise for an agreed remuneration.12/26/2015 G. Geminesse Enterprise was the sole proprietorship of Marjorie Tocao.300. He attended and/or presided over business meetings of the venture in his capacity as a guarantor but he never participated in decision­making. Marjorie Tocao denied having entered into an oral partnership agreement with Anay.000. 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 determine her ten percent (10%) share in the net profits. 1988 to February 5.lawphil. There could not have been a partnership because.00; http://www. He. who was new in the business. and two percent (2%) for recruitment of personnel. Anay prayed that defendants be ordered to pay her.00 as unpaid overriding commission from January 8.00.00." Marjorie received the same amounts of commissions as her.000. On April 22.00. 1988. 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." They also alleged that.000. For her part. Marjorie denied that they agreed on a ten percent (10%) commission on the net profits. However. Tocao and William Belo before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. Anay still received her five percent (5%) overriding commission up to December 1987. Anay filed Civil Case No. 1988; (2) P100. On April 5. and various damages not less than P500. Ordering defendants to submit to the Court a formal account as to the partnership affairs for the years 1987 and 1988 pursuant to Art. 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 her complaint. 1988." they had to hire counsel for a fee of P23. Anay consulted her lawyer.000.9 Marjorie Tocao and Belo asserted that the "alleged agreement" with Anay that was "neither reduced in writing. the trial court rendered a decision the dispositive part of which is as follows: "WHEREFORE. they agreed to grant her the following commissions: thirty­seven percent (37%) on personal sales; five percent (5%) on gross sales; two percent (2%) on product demonstrations. 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. He claimed that he wrote the memo granting the plaintiff thirty­seven percent (37%) commission upon her dismissal from the business venture at the request of Tocao. in turn. the issues were limited to: (a) whether or not the plaintiff was an employee or partner of Marjorie Tocao and Belo. 1988 to February 5.00 as moral damages. a complaint for sum of money with damages8 against Marjorie D.00. No. and (b) whether or not the parties are entitled to damages. that Marjorie Tocao had barred her from holding office and conducting demonstrations in both Makati and Cubao offices. to "vindicate their names. Anay failed to account for stocks valued at P200.10 In their defense. The following year.R. 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. Because she treated Anay as her "co­equal. 1988 to February 5. she admitted that Anay was an expert in the cookware business and hence." Anay had acted like she owned the enterprise because of her experience and expertise. admitted that the two had agreed that Anay would receive a three to four percent (3­4%) share in the gross sales of the cookware. she did not receive the same commission although the company netted a gross sales of P13.7 Anay attempted to contact Belo. judgment is hereby rendered: 1. She wrote him twice to demand her overriding commission for the period of January 8.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_127405_2000." and "serious anxiety. who. Nenita A. However. At the pre­trial conference. because Anay had no other income. 88­509. his only role was to introduce Anay to Marjorie Tocao. He denied contributing capital to the business or receiving a share in its profits as he merely served as a guarantor of Marjorie Tocao. as Anay herself admitted. a Singaporean friend­ financier who loaned her the funds with interest. and her complaint referred to either her compensation or dismissal. however. When her letters were not answered. petitioners were the ones who suffered actual damages "including unreturned and unaccounted stocks of Geminesse Enterprise. Hence. nor ratified.
Where no immovable property or real rights are involved. Petitioners admit that private respondent had the expertise to engage in the business of distributorship of http://www. SO ORDERED. a partnership must fulfill these requisites: (1) two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money.000.14 In this case. not entitled to the damages awarded to her by the Court of Appeals." The trial court held that there was indeed an "oral partnership agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants. 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.lawphil. but the amount of damages awarded by the trial court were reduced to P50. Inc. asserting that there was no business partnership between them and herein private respondent Nenita A.000.. The partnership has a juridical personality separate and distinct from that of each of the partners. No.000. Ordering defendants to pay P50."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." Petitioners’ appeal to the Court of Appeals11 was dismissed. 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. This Court finds no reason to rule otherwise.00 as attorney’s fees and P20. Belo’s 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. both the trial court and the Court of Appeals are one in ruling that petitioners and private respondent established a business partnership." 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. 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 combination of the two would be invaluable to the partnership. and that it was very unlikely that petitioner Belo would invest the sum of P2.00 with petitioner Tocao contributing nothing. The testimony of Elizabeth Bantilan. The trial court finally held that a partner who is excluded wrongfully from a partnership is an innocent partner. What was registered with the Bureau of Domestic Trade was merely the business name or style of Geminesse Enterprise. first paragraph. 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 Code17 did not cause the nullification of the partnership. 1986 until it was absorbed by Royal International. it demonstrated his involvement as a partner in the business. therefore. Ordering defendants to pay P100. 127405 4. Anay who is.00 as exemplary damages. an oral contract of partnership is as good as a written one. Moreover. The pertinent provision of the Civil Code on the matter states: Art. without any "memorandum whatsoever regarding the alleged partnership. and 5. Anay’s cousin and the administrative officer of Geminesse Enterprise from August 21. and (c) there was a joint interest in the profits. On the contrary.00 as moral damages and P100.16 This implies that since a contract of partnership is consensual. 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 Marjorie’s financial contribution and Anay’s experience.00 as exemplary damages. 1768. buttressed the fact that a partnership existed between the parties. even in case of failure to comply with the requirements of article 1772. also supported that conclusion.000. 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.00 for moral damages and P50.12/26/2015 G.00 as costs of suit. 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. To be considered a juridical personality.html 3/8 . what matters is that the parties have complied with the requisites of a partnership. 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.500. property or industry to a common fund; and (2) intention on the part of the partners to divide the profits among themselves." 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.15 It may be constituted in any form; a public instrument is necessary only where immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto.R.000.000." The fact that Geminesse Enterprise was registered in Marjorie Tocao’s name is not determinative of whether or not the business was managed and operated by a sole proprietor or a partnership.000. Hence.12 Petitioners Belo and Marjorie Tocao are now before this Court on a petition for review on certiorari. Their Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals for lack of merit.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_127405_2000.
so about four (4).lawphil. this promotion. that private respondent should receive thirty­seven (37%) of the proceeds of her personal sales. sir.html 4/8 . she testified thus: "A: No. private respondent had a voice in the management of the affairs of the cookware distributorship. 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. and her nickname. Jiji. That’s the one I am telling you earlier a certain percentage for promotions.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_127405_2000. the Statute of Frauds. She claimed that she herself financed the business. the communication dated June 4.27 private respondent received only commissions and transportation and representation allowances28 and not a fixed salary. a former ramp model. Betty Bantilan. Q: I see. sir at the start she was the marketing manager because there were no one to sell yet. advertising.410. Geminesse will finance the operations.23 The special relationship between them dovetails with petitioner Belo’s claim that he was acting in behalf of petitioner Tocao. incentive. requires that "a special promise to answer for the debt. 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. http://www."18 By the set­up of the business. 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. They also established a firm that they called "Wiji. She admitted that. incentive. Now.20 he should have presented documentary evidence therefor. ‘Y’ is denominated `Cubao overrides’ 8­21­87 with ending August 21. there is a figure here and words which I quote: ‘Overrides Marjorie Ann Tocao P21. was that petitioners merged their respective capital and infused the amount into the partnership of distributing cookware with private respondent as the managing partner. She has also gathered former demonstrators. his having authorized in writing on October 7. 1986 of Missy Jagler of West Bend Company to Roger Muencheberg of the same company states: "Marge Tocao is president of Geminesse Enterprises. They will continue to gather other key people and build up the organization. ‘X’ and ‘Y. In the first place. Petitioner Tocao herself admitted private respondent’s indispensable role in putting up the business when.29 Petitioner Tocao testified: "Q: Of course. in the early stage of the business operation. on a stationery of his own business firm. Nita Anay has started to gather former managers. 1987.12/26/2015 G. third persons were made to believe that a partnership had indeed been forged between petitioners and private respondents. Her and petitioner Belo’s roles as both capitalists to the partnership with private respondent are buttressed by petitioner Tocao’s admissions that petitioner Belo was her boyfriend and that the partnership was not their only business venture together. Now. under the law. like her who owned Geminesse Enterprise.24 The inevitable conclusion. Moreover. advertising.R. petitioner Tocao’s admissions militate against an employer­employee relationship. I am showing to you certain documents already marked as Exhs. after that when she recruited already Oscar Abella and Lina Torda­Cruz these two (2) people were given the designation of marketing managers of which definitely Nita as superior to them would be the Vice President. 127405 cookware. Secondly. Now. Thus. Exh. William. petitioner Belo’s 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. could not be interpreted otherwise than that he had a proprietary interest in the business." the combination of petitioner Belo’s first name. default or miscarriage of another" be in writing. 1987. His claim that he was merely a guarantor is belied by that personal act of proprietorship in the business.25 the evidence in the case at bar controverts an employer­employee relationship between the parties. Private respondent contributed such expertise to the partnership and hence. Wilcon Builders Supply."19 On the other hand. 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 company’s cookware products; it was through the same efforts that the business was propelled to financial success. sir this is what I am talking about earlier. Significantly. While Article 2055 of the Civil Code simply provides that guaranty must be "express. All they need is the finance and the products to sell. therefore. The business venture operated under Geminesse Enterprise did not result in an employer­employee relationship between petitioners and private respondent. it’s only me there then her and then two (2) people. Eloisa Lamela. Lina Torda and Dory Vista. Moreover. No. Marge does not have cookware experience.26 including selection of people who would constitute the administrative staff and the sales force. upon being asked if private respondent held the positions of marketing manager and vice­president for sales." Article 1403.22 was also a capitalist in the partnership. Menchu Javier.21 Petitioner Tocao. if he was indeed a guarantor of future debts of petitioner Tocao under Article 2053 of the Civil Code.’ Please go over this.50’ this means that you have received this amount? A: Oh yes.
Q: I see.410. sir.410. each partner must share in the profits and losses of the venture." (Italics supplied. ‘Y’ ‘Overrides Makati the other one is ­­­ A: That is the same thing. In Idos v." while 20% to 30% of its business activity was devoted to the sale of water sterilizer or purifier. utensils. private respondent had the right to demand for a formal accounting of the business and to receive her share in the net profit. except that the industrial partner shall not be liable for the losses. Q: And.250. 1987 was merely the name of that enterprise. Q: Okey.35 Indubitably then. In a partnership.R. What was registered with the Bureau of Domestic Trade on August 19. No. cookwares. representation. sir. Q: As an equal.33 While it is true that in her undated application for renewal of registration of that firm name.25 that is also an indication that she received the same amount? A: Yes. what is this? A: That’s her overriding commission.00. I see. Q: It is again in concept of you treating Miss Anay as your equal? A: Yes. And. a sole proprietorship. Q: Overriding commission.html 5/8 . Q: So. Anay P21.32 The fact that the cookware distributorship was operated under the name of Geminesse Enterprise."36 Obviously a ploy to offset the damages awarded to private respondent.140. I see. 127405 Q: I see. you know in a sense because of her expertise in the business she is vital to my business. Q: I am calling again your attention to Exh.)30 If indeed petitioner Tocao was private respondent’s employer.314.50’. Petitioners underscore the fact that the Court of Appeals did not return the "unaccounted and unremitted stocks of Geminesse Enterprise amounting to P208. I mean having gotten from the company P21. sir. sir.31 As an industrial partner. advertising and promotion? A: Yes.25’ the amount there you will acknowledge you have received that? A: Yes."34 she also admitted that the enterprise was only "60% to 70% for the cookware business.50 is merely by coincidence? A: No. petitioner Tocao indicated that it would be engaged in retail of "kitchenwares. by way of amplification this is what you are saying as one representing commission.12/26/2015 G. proves the existence of a partnership between them.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_127405_2000. sir. sir. it is difficult to believe that they shall receive the same income in the business. Q: With ending August 21. http://www. as part of the incentive I offer her the same thing. You were treating her as an equal? A: Yes. etc. sir. in short you are saying that this you have shared together. is of no moment. as in your previous statement it is not by coincidence that these two (2) are the same? A: No. which included the distributorship of cookware. Q: Again in concept of commission. Below your name is the words and figure and I quote ‘Nita D. more than anything else. the business name Geminesse Enterprise was used only for practical reasons ­ it was utilized as the common name for petitioner Tocao’s various business activities. representation. promotion. words and figure ‘Overrides Marjorie Ann Tocao P15.? A: Yes. Below your name is the name of Nita Anay P15.lawphil. sir. So. that claim. I made it a point that we were equal because the way I look at her kasi.50 is your way of indicating that you were treating her as an equal? A: As an equal. you are telling this Honorable Court that there being the same P21. sir.314. Of course. skillet.
Thus. jointly and severally. the award of moral damages of P100.lawphil. 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.00 was excessive and should be likewise reduced to P50. the partnership was not terminated thereby; it continues until the winding up of the business.000.000. as petitioner Tocao became adept in the business operation. Similarly. the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. 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.44 The winding up of partnership affairs has not yet been undertaken by the partnership. not that the attendance of bad faith can prevent the dissolution of the partnership but that it can result in a liability for damages. however. Petitioners are ordered to submit to the Regional Trial Court a formal account of the partnership affairs for the years 1987 and 1988. The right to choose with whom a person wishes to associate himself is the very foundation and essence of that partnership. 1987.html 6/8 . No. 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. the doctrine of delectus personae allows the partners to have the power. petitioner Tocao unilaterally excluded private respondent from the partnership to reap for herself and/or for petitioner Belo financial gains resulting from private respondent’s efforts to make the business venture a success. Thus: "x x x."48 should be reduced to P50.38 Her instruction to Lina Torda Cruz."37 It is not surprising then that. x x x. He must. However. to pay private respondent five percent (5%) overriding http://www. pursuant to Article 1809 of the Civil Code. The appealed decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. as follows ­­­ 1.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_127405_2000. were the unsold goods and uncollected receivables. attorney’s fees that should be granted on account of the award of exemplary damages and petitioners’ evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy private respondent’s plainly valid. even after private respondent had been unceremoniously booted out of the partnership in October 1987. no longer the vice­ president for sales of Geminesse Enterprise. it may be dissolved by the will of a partner. marketing manager.00.R. just and demandable claims. exemplary damages that are awarded "by way of example or correction for the public good. Since the partnership has not been terminated.43 By that memo. and the absence of cause for dissolution provided by the law itself. act in good faith. in order to determine private respondent’s ten percent (10%) share in the net profits of the partnership; 2. she started to assert herself to the extent that she would even shout at private respondent in front of other people. dependent on the constancy of that mutual resolve. as of October 9."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 amount correctly awarded by the Court of Appeals. 1 â w p h i1 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. Its continued existence is. this Court said: "The best evidence of the existence of the partnership. This case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court for proper proceedings relative to said dissolution. This is manifest in petitioners’ claim for stocks that had been entrusted to private respondent in the pursuit of the partnership business. any one of the partners may. dictate a dissolution of the partnership at will.12/26/2015 G. she still received her overriding commission until December 1987. which was not yet terminated (though in the winding up stage). Undoubtedly.000.46 or the award is palpably or scandalously and unreasonably excessive. Concomitantly. a mere falling out or misunderstanding between partners does not convert the partnership into a sham organization. the petitioner and private complainant remained as co­partners. which were presented to the trial court.00.39 and resulted in a falling out between the two. Nevertheless. petitioner Tocao’s unilateral exclusion of private respondent from the partnership is shown by her memo to the Cubao office plainly stating that private respondent was. Verily. at his sole pleasure. and the parties are ordered to effect the winding up and liquidation of the partnership pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code. 127405 Court of Appeals.00.000.49 appear to have been excessively granted by the trial court and should therefore be reduced to P25. Petitioners are ordered.42 In this case.45 The Court of Appeals may modify that amount only when its factual findings are diametrically opposed to that of the lower court. in turn. The partnership among petitioners and private respondent is ordered dissolved. although not necessarily the right to dissolve the partnership.40 The partnership exists until dissolved under the law. along with each partner’s capability to give it.47 However. WHEREFORE.
Failure to comply with the requirements of the preceding paragraph shall not affect the liability of the partnership and the members thereof to third persons. 17 Civil Code. Yang Chiao Cheng. for the period covering January 8. Jr. Art.00. 4 Exh. in money or property. 754 (1989); citing Yulo v. pp. p. 1996; Rollo. Court of Appeals. 49. 24­37. 15. p. 3 Exh. 636 (1968). HH. Footnotes 1 Presiding Justice Nathanael P. 15 Civil Code.. pp. Petitioners are ordered. 6 Exh. A guaranty may also be given as security for future debts.000. Puno. to pay private respondent overriding commission on the total production which. 7 Exh.. 1767; Fue Leung v. Morales. 13 Petition.00. 12 Resolution dated December 5. 1771; Agad v. Art. exemplary damages in the amount of P50. 16 Civil Code.000. Martin.000. 2053. 79­82. 19 Exh. Kapunan. 106 Phil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_127405_2000. de Pano. Art. 18 TSN. 1772. 321. Mabato. 127405 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; 3.000. which must be recorded in the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 326­327 (1997).12/26/2015 G.J. shall appear in a public instrument.00; 4.R. 71. 336 Phil. 14 Alicbusan v.lawphil. 20 Civil Code. 11 Decision dated August 9. jointly and severally. p. C. C­5­A. JJ. amounted to P32. WW. Art. ponente; Associate Justices Fermin A. (Chairman). 8 Rollo. 132 Phil. jointly and severally. CC. 1996; Rollo. Davide. Petitioners are ordered. No. pp.00 and attorney’s fees in the amount of P25. JJ.. Intermediate Appellate Court. to pay private respondent moral damages in the amount of P50. Jr.html 7/8 . 634. 169 SCRA 746. 5 Exh. concurring. November 12. Every contract of partnership having a capital of three thousand pesos or more. 1988 to February 5. p. and Conchita Carpio Morales. 9 Rollo. Jr. 110 (1959). 39­43. SO ORDERED.. the amount of which is http://www. 10 Record. VV. 1988. 67­73. 2 Presided by Judge Leticia P. 1991. and Pardo. concur.
; Philippine Airlines. 23 Ibid. 42 Ibid. p. 15­18. C­4; TSN. p.. Art. pp. 47 Ibid. November 12. 32 Civil Code. 18. Jr. 1991. Inc. 31 Civil Code. 39 TSN.. 1991. 2208 (1) & (5). 49 Civil Code. 112 (1984). Court of Appeals. CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 43 Exh. 35 TSN. 38 TSN. 42. 1991. 447 (1987). 1992 ed.. 139 SCRA 533. 54. The Lawphil Project ­ Arellano Law Foundation http://www.lawphil. 45 Air France v. 853. 1991. at p. v. 35. 167 SCRA 524.12/26/2015 G. 34 Exh. pp. 742 (1966). November 12.. pp. Art. p. 218 Phil. pp. 315 Phil. Art. 206 (1998). 860 (1973). p. Alliance Transport System. 10; Rollo. 33 Exh. 5­A. 44. 580­581 (1995). 37 296 SCRA 194. 88 SCRA 623 (1979). Abad Santos. 124 Phil. 29 Ibid. 573. 127405 not yet known; there can be no claim against the guarantor until the debt is liquidated. November 12. 40 Muñasque v. No. Court of Appeals. 22 TSN. 27 TSN. 46 Prudencio v. 36 Petition. 1991. 25 Sardane v. Inc. A conditional obligation may also be secured. 21 V TOLENTINO. 26 Ibid. pp. 1797; Moran. 4. p. 30 Ibid. p. Art. 530­531 (1998). Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. v. 2229. June 14. v.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_127405_2000. 5­6. November 12.R. 7. 41 Ortega v. p. Carrascoso. Court of Appeals. 425 (1993). 28 Ibid. 148 SCRA 440. 52­53. 5. 1799; Evangelista & Co. 581. 722.. 226 SCRA 423. 151­A Phil. 507.html 8/8 . 44 Singsong v. 105. 56­59. 50. p. Isabela Sawmill. 540 (1985). 24 Exh.. December 16. 48 Civil Code. 1989.

References: Art.00
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 18
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 206
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 530
 v. 
 v. 
 v.