Source: https://www.scribd.com/presentation/60927957/Partnership
Timestamp: 2019-08-26 09:32:29
Document Index: 420419941

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 1767', 'ART. 1768', 'Art. 1825', 'ART. 1769', 'ART. 1769', 'ART. 1769', 'ART. 1769', 'ART. 1770', 'ART. 1770', 'ART. 1771', 'ART. 1771', 'ART. 1771', 'ART. 1772', 'ART. 1772', 'Art. 1768', 'ART. 1772', 'Art. 1772', 'ART. 1774', 'ART. 1775', 'ART. 1775', 'Art 1780', 'Art 1780', 'Art 1780', 'Art 1780', 'Art. 1780', 'ART. 1781', 'Art. 133', 'Art. 739']

Partnership | Partnership | Sole Proprietorship
Uploaded by Ren Ren
Digest_Heirs of Tan Eng Kee vs. CA
Goquiolay v Sycip
Partnership Law Outline
Evangelist A v. Abad Santos
Single Proprietorship Partnership Corporation
The oldest, simplest, and most common legal form of business. A single person has the controlling interest and is responsible for the firms policies, owns all its assets, and is personally liable for its debts.
SINGLE PROPRIETORSHIPADVANTAGES
Ease of formation, control, and the manner in which it is taxed. Few legal and organizational requirements associated with setting up a proprietorship organizational costs are very low.
Owner has total control of the business Earnings of the business are taxed at individual income tax rates which are lower than corporate tax rates
SINGLE PROPRIETORSHIPDISADVANTAGES
Unlimited personal liability Limited access to funds Limited lifetime
Low cost and ease of formation Ability to raise a larger amount of capital Greater creditworthiness
PARTNERSHIP - DISADVANTGES
Unlimited liability Limited lifetime Taxed in the same manner as a corporation
Limited liability Unlimited life Transferability of ownership
Contract whereby two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing profits among themselves (Art. 1767)
Consensual Bilateral/multilateral Nominate Principal Onerous Preparatory
Contribution of money, property or industry to a common fund Object must be lawful Intention of dividing the profit among the partners Desire to form an active union New personality must arise, distinct from each partner.
PARTNERSHIP V. CORPORATION
DISTINGUISHING PARTNERFACTOR SHIP How created Voluntary agreement How long it exists No time limit except upon agreement of parties. CORPORATION Operation of law Not more than 50 years.
DISTINGUISHING PARTNERFACTOR SHIP Liability to May be liable strangers with their private property beyond the contribution to the firm. CORPORATION Liable only for payment of their subscribed capital stock.
DISTINGUISHING PARTNERFACTOR SHIP Transferability of No person can interest become a partner without the consent of all other partners.
delectus personarum or the principle of mutual trust and confidence.
CORPORATION Transfer of interest makes the transferee a stockholder, even without the consent of the others.
DISTINGUISHING PARTNERFACTOR SHIP Generally, Ability to bind the partners acting firm CORPORATION Generally, the stockholders on behalf of the cannot bind partnership are the corporation agents thereof; since they are consequently, not agents they can bind both the firm and thereof.
DISTINGUISHING PARTNERFACTOR SHIP A partner can Mismanagement
sue a partner who mismanages.
A stockholder cannot sue a member of the board of directors who mismanages: the action must be in the name of the corporation.
DISTINGUISHING PARTNERFACTOR SHIP A partnership is Nationality
a national of the country it was created.
A corporation is a national of the country under whose laws it was incorporated, except for wartime purposes.
DISTINGUISHING PARTNERFACTOR SHIP Attainment of legal The firm becomes a personality CORPORATION
The firm becomes a juridical person juridical person from the time the from the time it is contract begins. registered with SEC and all requisites have been complied with.
DISTINGUISHING PARTNERFACTOR SHIP Death, Dissolution
retirement, insolvency, civil interdiction, or insanity of a partner dissolves the firm.
Such causes do not dissolve a corporation.
PARTNERSHIP V. COOWNERSHIP
DISTINGUISHING PARTNERFACTOR SHIP Created by CREATION
contract only (express or implied)
Created by contract, law, and other things
DISTINGUISHING PARTNERFACTOR SHIP Has legal or JURIDICAL
Has no juridical personality (hence, it cannot sue or be sued as such).
DISTINGUISHING PARTNERFACTOR SHIP For profit PURPOSE COOWNERSHIP
Collective enjoyment; (hence, not necessarily for profit)
DISTINGUISHING PARTNERCOFACTOR SHIP OWNERSHIP As a rule, there As a rule, there is AGENCY OR no mutual REPRESENTATION is mutual
representation (although it is enough for one co-owner to bring an action for ejectment against a stranger.
DISTINGUISHING FACTOR TRANSFER OF INTEREST PARTNERSHIP
Cannot substitute another as partner in this place, without unanimous consent.
Can dispose of his share without the consent of the others.
DISTINGUISHING FACTOR LENGTH OF EXISTENCE IF CREATED BY CONTRACT PARTNERSHIP COOWNERSHIP
years (although agreement, after termination may be renewed) (hence, if more than 10 years the excess is void)
No term limit is Must not be for set by the law. more than 10
DISTINGUISHING FACTOR PROFITS PARTNERSHIP COOWNERSHIP
proportionate shares (any stipulation to the contrary is VOID)
Profits must May be stipulated upon always depend on
DISTINGUISHING FACTOR DISSOLUTION PARTNERSHIP
Dissolved by death or incapacity of a partner
Not dissolved by the death or incapacity of coowner.
DISTINGUISHING FACTOR FORM PARTNERSHIP
May be made in any form except when real property is contributed (Here public instrument is required).
No public instrument needed even if real property is the object of the coownership.
CAPACITY TO BECOME PARTNER
person capacitated to enter into contractual relations may become a partner.
A unemancipated minor cannot become a partner unless his parent or guardian consents. Without such consent, the partnership contract is voidable, unless other partners are in the same situation, in which case the contract is unenforceable.
A partnership being a juridical person by itself can, it is believed, form another partnership, either with private individuals or with other partnerships, there being no prohibition on the matter.
The majority view is that a corporation cannot become a partner on grounds of public policy, otherwise people other than its officers may be liable to bind it.
ART. 1768 The partnership has a JURIDICAL PERSONALITY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT from that of each of the partners.
ABCD Partnership
CONSEQUENCES: The partnership can: a) Acquire and possess property of all kinds; b) Incur obligations
CONSEQUENCES: The partnership can: c) Bring civil or criminal actions; and d) Can be adjudged INSOLVENT even if the individual members be each financially solvent
Hongkong & Shanghai Bank v Jurado & Co, 2 Phil 671 Unless he is personally sued, a partner has no right to make a separate appearance in court, if the partnership being sued is already represented.
TESTS TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE OF PARTNERSHIP
Persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons (exception: Partners by estoppel, Art. 1825)
Co-ownership or co-possession does not itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or copossessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property;
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;
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;
ART. 1769 NO INFERENCE OF PARTNERSHIP IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: When profits were received in payment:
ART. 1769 When profits were received in payment: a) As a debt by installments or otherwise; b) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord;
ART. 1769 When profits were received in payment: 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;
ART. 1769 When profits were received in payment: e) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by installments or otherwise;
Fortis v. Gutierrez Hermanos, 6 Phil, 100
Fortis was a bookkeeper in a partnership named Gutierrez Hermanos, with a yearly salary amounting to 5% of the net profits for each year. Fortis however had no vote at all in the management of the business. Was he a partner?
No. Fortis was a mere employee as their contract is a contract of employment.
Bastida v. Menzi and Co, 58 Phil. 188
Bastida worked for Menzi and Co., as procurer of contracts for fertilizers to be manufactured by the firm, and as supervisor of the mixing of the fertilizers. However he had no voice in the management of the business except in his task of supervising the mixing of said fertilizers. For his services, he was entitled to 35% of the net profits in the fertilizer business. Was a partner?
Bastida v. Menzi and Co, 58 Phil. 188 Not a partner, but a mere employee with no power to vote.
Lyons vs. Rosenstock, 56 Phil 632
Elser and Lyons are engaged in real estate. They co-owned a parcel of land. Elser, with the consent of Lyons, mortgaged the property to raise money for the development of the San Juan Estate. Lyons expressed his desire not to be part of the development project. The business prospered. Lyons demands for a share in the mortgage and in the business claiming he is a partner. Is Lyons a partner of Elser?
Lyons vs. Rosenstock, 56 Phil 632 No. Lyons himself did not want to participate in the development project. No partnership was formed. The mortgage of the property is immaterial to the issue of partnership existence.
ART. 1770 A partnership must have a lawful object or purpose. Otherwise, it will be VOID.
When an unlawful partnership is dissolved by a judicial decree, the PROFITS shall be confiscated in favor of the State, without prejudice to the provisions of the Penal Code governing the confiscation of the INSTRUMENTS and EFFECTS of a crime.
ART. 1770 Partnership is still VOID, if the subject matter is outside the commerce of man or is impossible thing or service.
ARBES VS. POLISTICO, 53 Phil 489
Turnuhan Polistico and Co, is a private organization engaged in conducting a lottery among its partnersmembers every weekend. Contributions are made every week, except for certain , the contributions were distributed to the lottery winners. The court declared the partnership unlawful. May the partners retrieve their capital and profits?
The partners can get their capital and but not the profits. The law authorizes only the confiscation of profits and not capital. Capital may be recovered, unless it constitutes instruments and effects of the crime.
FORMALITIES OF PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT
ART. 1771 GENERAL RULE: Any form (for validity and enforceability, regardless of the value of the contribution) Partnership contract is not one of those covered by Statute of Frauds.
ART. 1771 EXCEPTION: Where immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary.
ARTS. 1771 and 1773 WHERE REAL PROPERTIES OR REAL RIGHTS ARE CONTRIBUTED:  A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT is needed.  An INVENTORY of the immovables.  A inventory must be SIGNED by the parties and ATTACHED to the public instrument.
ART. 1771 EFFECT IF NOT COMPLIED Partnership is VOID.
TO BIND THIRD PERSONS
Where immovable property had been contributed and the inventory properly made, to bind third persons, the contract of partnership must be registered with the Registry of Property where the immovable is located (Borja vs. Addison, et.al., 49 Phil. 895).
AGAD VS. MABATO, 23 SCRA 1223
A partnership was entered into between Agad and Mabato to operate a fishpond. Neither partner contributed a fishpond or a real right to any fishpond. Their contributions were in cash only in the sum of P1,000 each. While the partnership contract was done in a public instrument, no inventory of the fishpond was attached in the said instrument.
Is there a valid contract of partnership?
The contract is VALID, despite the lack of the inventory. The purpose of the partnership was not to engage in the fishpond business but to operate a fishpond. Neither said fishpond nor real right thereto was contributed to the partnership, or become part of the capital thereof, even if a fishpond or a real right thereto could become part of its assets. (Dean Ernesto L. Pineda, Partnership, Agency & Trusts, 2006 Edition, pp. 33-34)
ART. 1772 WHERE THE CAPITAL OF THE PARTNERSHIP IS P3,000.00 OR MORE, IN MONEY OR PROPERTY: a) The partnership contract must be in a public instrument; and b) Registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
ART. 1772 EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE: a) The partnership contract is still VALID. Accordingly, the partnership still acquires juridical personality (Art. 1768, 1772) b) The liability of the partnership and the members thereof to third persons are NOT AFFECTED.
ART. 1772 MANUEL VS. CRUZ, CA-GR No. 42050-R, July 14, 1975
Paragraph 1 of Art. 1772 of the New Civil code is not intended as a pre-requisite for the acquisition of juridical personality by the partnership, but merely a condition for the issuance of licenses to engage in business of trade (citing Capistrano, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, p.260).
ACQUISITION/CONVEYANCE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
Any immovable property or an interest therein may be acquired in the partnership name. Title so acquired can be conveyed only in the partnership name.
Refers to immovable property The word title means real estate.
RULE ON CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY IN PARTNERSHIP NAME:
Title so acquired can be conveyed only in the partnership name.
ART. 1774 Title so acquired can be conveyed only in the partnership name. IMPLICATION: An immovable property in the name of the partnership can only be conveyed in the name of the partnership. Otherwise, the conveyance is void.
ASSOCIATIONS AND SOCIETIES WHOSE ARTICLES ARE KEPT SECRET
ART. 1775 is applicable to:
Associations and societies whose articles are kept secret among the members, wherein any one of the members may contract in his own name with third persons
ART. 1775 is applicable to: These associations and societies shall have:
NO JURIDICAL PERSONALITY; and shall be governed by the provisions relating to CO-OWNERSHIP.
As to object (1) Universal Partnership a. of all present property, or b. of all profits (2) Particular Partnership
As to liability of partners (1) General Partnership one where all the partners are general partners. (2) Limited Partnership one where there is one or more general partners, and one or more limited partners.
As to manner of creation (1) orally constituted; (2) constituted in a private instrument; (3) constituted in a public instrument; (4) registered in the Office of the SEC;
As to legality (1) lawful or legal (2) illegal or unlawful
As to duration (1) for a specific period or till the purpose is accomplished; (2) partnership at will.
As to representation to others(1) ordinary partnership (2) partnership by estoppel.
Partnership of all present property; Partnership of all profits
UNIVERSAL PARTNERSHIP OF ALL PRESENT PROPERTY
RULE ON CONTRIBUTION: ALL THE PROPERTY actually belonging to the partners are CONTRIBUTED and said properties become COMMON PROPERTY (owned by all the partners and by the partnership)
RULE ON CONTRIBUTION: Aside from the contributed properties, the PROFITS of said contributed COMMON PROPERTY are likewise contributed.
RULE ON CONTRIBUTION: PROFITS FROM OTHER SOURCES may become COMMON, but only if there is a stipulation to such effect.
RULE ON CONTRIBUTION: FUTURE PROPERTIES: Properties subsequently acquired by inheritance, legacy, or donation (ILD) cannot be included in the stipulation, BUT the fruits thereof can be included in the stipulation
HYPOTHETICAL CASES (Paras, Civil Code Book V): 1. A and B entered into a universal partnership of
all present property. No stipulation was made regarding other properties . Subsequently, A received a parcel of land by inheritance from his father; and another parcel of land from University of Bohol as remuneration for As work as professor.
HYPOTHETICAL CASES (Paras, Civil Code Book V): Are the two parcels of land and their fruits to be enjoyed by the partnership?
HYPOTHETICAL CASES (Paras, Civil Code Book V): ANS: No, because there was no stipulation regarding future properties or their fruits.
HYPOTHETICAL CASES (Paras, Civil Code Book V): 2. A and B entered into a universal partnership of all
present property. Subsequently, A received a parcel of land by inheritance from his father; and another parcel of land from University of Bohol as remuneration for As work as professor. It was stipulated that all properties subsequently acquired would belong to the partnership.
HYPOTHETICAL CASES (Paras, Civil Code Book V): 2. Are the two parcels of land and their fruits to be enjoyed by the partnership?.
HYPOTHETICAL CASES (Paras, Civil Code Book V): ANS: For land acquired as salary YES For land acquired as inheritance NO Fruits of inherited land - YES
DEFINED (Art 1780).
Comprises all that the partners may acquire by their industry or work during the existence of the partnership.
Art 1780
Movable or immovable property which each of the partners may possess at the time of the celebration of the contract shall continue to pertain EXCLUSIVELY to each, only the USUFRUCT passing to the partnership.
Art 1780 Only the USUFRUCT of the properties of the partners becomes COMMON PROPERTY (owned by them and the partnership); NAKED OWNERSHIP is retained by each of the partners.
Art 1780 ALL PROFITS acquired by the INDUSTRY or WORK of the partners become COMMON PROPERTY (regardless of whether or not said profits were obtained through the usufruct contributed)
HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEMS (Paras, Civil Code, Book V) 1) In a universal partnership of profits, A contributed the use of his car. At the end of the partnership, should the car be returned to him?
HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEMS (Paras, Civil Code, Book V) ANS: Yes, because the naked ownership had always been with him, and upon the end of the usufruct, full ownership reverts to him.
HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEMS (Paras, Civil Code, Book V) 2) A and B entered into a universal partnership of profits. Subsequently, A won 1st prize in the sweepstakes. Will the money belong to the partnership?
HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEMS (Paras, Civil Code, Book V) ANS: No, because it was not acquired by industry or work.
HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEMS (Paras, Civil Code, Book V) 3) A and B entered into a universal partnership of profits. Subsequently, A became a professor at the UB College of Law. Will As salary belong to the partnership?
HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEMS (Paras, Civil Code, Book V) ANS: Yes, even though no stipulation was made on this point because after all the salary was acquired by As industry or work during the existence of the partnership.
HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEMS (Paras, Civil Code, Book V) 4) A and B entered into a universal partnership of profits. Later A purchased a parcel of land. Will the fruits of said land belong to the partnership?
HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEMS (Paras, Civil Code, Book V)
ANS: No, because the usufruct (use and fruits) granted to the firm under Art. 1780, par. 2 refers only to that of the property possessed by the partner at the time of the celebration of the contract. After-acquired properties do not belong to the firm as a matter of right.
PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF PARTNERSHIP OF PROFITS
ART. 1781 Articles of universal partnership, entered into without specification of its nature, only constitute a UNIVERSAL PARTNERSHIP OF PROFITS.
PERSONS WHO CANNOT FORM A UNIVERSAL PARTNERSHIP
Husband and wife (Art. 133) Those guilty of adultery or concubinage (Art. 739) Those guilty of the same criminal offense, if the partnership was entered into in consideration of the same.
It has for its object determinate things, their use or fruits, or specific undertaking, or the exercise of a profession or vocation. Husband and wife may enter into a particular partnership.
More From Ren Ren
catalinttt
Ebeis Narrative Report
Landbank vs. Santos
Virgilio S. Delima v. Susan Mercaida Gois
Fd_Felony Disenfranchisement Primer
Daniel v. Scott, 10th Cir. (2001)
George Anthony Pauldino, Alias Anthony Capra v. United States, 379 F.2d 170, 10th Cir. (1967)
PSDB Compliance Program
United States v. Dominic Carozza, A/K/A Crowbar, 974 F.2d 1332, 4th Cir. (1992)
ebaffidavit.doc