Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 802 views

    Anton v. Oliva

    Uploaded by

    Sean Galvez
    This case discusses the obligations of the Antons to the Olivas regarding the terms of their agreement, even though the court found that no partnership existed between the parties. The Olivas alleged they entered into agreements with the Antons to invest in three fast food stores, entitled the Olivas to shares of the net profits. While the Antons initially paid the shares, they stopped in 1997. The RTC found no partnership existed but the Antons still had to account for profits until terminating the agreements. The CA affirmed, finding that while no partnership, the Antons agreed to compensate the Olivas for the risks they took in investing, so the Olivas were entitled to their shares of profits until the agreements ended.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Anton v. Oliva

    Uploaded by

    Sean Galvez
    802 views1 page
    This case discusses the obligations of the Antons to the Olivas regarding the terms of their agreement, even though the court found that no partnership existed between the parties. The Olivas alleged they entered into agreements with the Antons to invest in three fast food stores, entitled the Olivas to shares of the net profits. While the Antons initially paid the shares, they stopped in 1997. The RTC found no partnership existed but the Antons still had to account for profits until terminating the agreements. The CA affirmed, finding that while no partnership, the Antons agreed to compensate the Olivas for the risks they took in investing, so the Olivas were entitled to their shares of profits until the agreements ended.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses the obligations of the Antons to the Olivas regarding the terms of their agreement, even though the court found that no partnership existed between the parties. The Olivas alleged they entered into agreements with the Antons to invest in three fast food stores, entitled the Olivas to shares of the net profits. While the Antons initially paid the shares, they stopped in 1997. The RTC found no partnership existed but the Antons still had to account for profits until terminating the agreements. The CA affirmed, finding that while no partnership, the Antons agreed to compensate the Olivas for the risks they took in investing, so the Olivas were entitled to their shares of profits until the agreements ended.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    802 views1 page

    Anton v. Oliva

    Uploaded by

    Sean Galvez
    This case discusses the obligations of the Antons to the Olivas regarding the terms of their agreement, even though the court found that no partnership existed between the parties. The Olivas alleged they entered into agreements with the Antons to invest in three fast food stores, entitled the Olivas to shares of the net profits. While the Antons initially paid the shares, they stopped in 1997. The RTC found no partnership existed but the Antons still had to account for profits until terminating the agreements. The CA affirmed, finding that while no partnership, the Antons agreed to compensate the Olivas for the risks they took in investing, so the Olivas were entitled to their shares of profits until the agreements ended.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Anton v.

    Oliva 2011 Facts: This case is about the obligation to continue complying with the terms of the agreement despite the court's declaration that no partnership exist between the parties. The OLIVAS filed an action for accounting and specific performance with damages against petitioner (3) ANTONS before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The Olivas alleged that they entered into three Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with Gladys Miriam, their daughter, and Jose Miguel, their son-in-law, setting up a business partnership covering three fast food stores, known as "Pinoy Toppings" that were to be established at SM Megamall, SM Cubao, and SM Southmall. Under the MOAs, the Olivas were entitled to 30% share of the net profits of the SM Megamall store and 20% in the cases of SM Cubao and SM Southmall stores. The OLIVAS alleged that while the ANTONS gave them a total of P2,547,000.00 representing their monthly shares of the net profits from the operations of the SM Megamall and SM Southmall stores, the Antons did not give them their shares of the net profits from the store at SM Cubao. 1997 stopped giving the OLIVAS all their share in the NET PROFITS of the 3 stores. THUS OLIVAS demanded an accounting of PARTNERSHIP FUNDS but in response Jose Miguel (ANTON) TERMINATED their PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT. ANSWERING IN COMPLAINT ANTON alleged that he and his wife NEVER PARTNERED with OLIVAS. They only BORROWED MONEY from the OLIVAS to finance the opening of the stored. The wife, Gladys, managed the operations ot the business, and remitted to the OLIVAS the amounts due to them EVEN AFTER THE LOANS had been paid. IF ACCOUNTING - purpose of ascertaining the correctness the payments made. They paid OLIVAS their share in the PROFITS of the business. EVENT Gladys and Miriam filed for legal separation terminate their business partnership with her parents. RTC held NO PARTNERSHIP RELATION existed but Jose Miguel had an obligation to render an accounting from the start of the business until TERMINATION OF THEIR MOAs CA affirmed with modifications (see case)

    Issues: Whether or not CA notwithstanding the absence of a PARTNERSHIP between the Olivas and the Antons, the later have the obligation to pay the former their shares of the net profits? Held: Petition denied. Ratio: NO PARTNERSHIP, relationship, creditor-debtor. Although the MOA contained partners THE AMOUNTS GIVEN DID NOT APPEAR TO BE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STORES. (SEE DEFINITION OF PARTNERSHIP COMMON FUND BUSINESS ENTERPRISE) *share in net profits only (though must also share in loss to be partners) The stores had to pay the amounts back with interests. MOAs FORBADE the OLIVAS from interfering with the running of the stores. ALSO none of the parties has made an issued of the common finding of the courts THUS ESTOPPEL, no partnership already proven. JOSE MIGUELs argument, since they are not partners, OLIVAS are not entitled to receive percentage shares of the NET PROFITS. HELD: Antons agreed to compensate them (olivas) for the risks they had taken. The OLIVAS gave the loans with NO SECURITY they were to be paid such loans only if the stores made profits. IF the business suffered loses and could not pay the OLIVAS would have assumed those loses by themselves. (NO SEPARAT JURIDICAL PERSONALITY). HELD since OLIVAS were mere creditors and not partners they had NO RIGH to demand that the ANTONS make an accounting of the money loaned out to them. OLVIVAS were entitled to know from the ANTONS how much net profits the 3 stores were making annually since the OLIVAS were entitled to certain percentages of those profits. INTEREST ISSUE The interest that the CA awarded to the OLIVAS referred not to the interests on the loans they gave, but to interest that their unpaid shares of the net profits of the 3 stores should earn on account of Jose Miguels unjustified refusal to pay them since 1997. 6& per annum

    You might also like