Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 171 views

    Innominate Contract 166299 300

    Uploaded by

    kimmytolosa
    The petitioner Aurelio filed a complaint against his brother Eduardo, business partner Bobby Yang, and corporate respondents, claiming they entered a joint venture based on a memorandum by Eduardo stating Aurelio would get ₱1 million or 10% equity in the family business. However, the trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the case as the memorandum was unsigned and undated, making it void. Aurelio argued it was an innominate contract. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding no valid evidence of a partnership between Aurelio and the defendants based on the non-existent document.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Innominate Contract 166299 300

    Uploaded by

    kimmytolosa
    171 views1 page
    The petitioner Aurelio filed a complaint against his brother Eduardo, business partner Bobby Yang, and corporate respondents, claiming they entered a joint venture based on a memorandum by Eduardo stating Aurelio would get ₱1 million or 10% equity in the family business. However, the trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the case as the memorandum was unsigned and undated, making it void. Aurelio argued it was an innominate contract. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding no valid evidence of a partnership between Aurelio and the defendants based on the non-existent document.

    Original Description:

    Obligations and Contracts

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner Aurelio filed a complaint against his brother Eduardo, business partner Bobby Yang, and corporate respondents, claiming they entered a joint venture based on a memorandum by Eduardo stating Aurelio would get ₱1 million or 10% equity in the family business. However, the trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the case as the memorandum was unsigned and undated, making it void. Aurelio argued it was an innominate contract. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding no valid evidence of a partnership between Aurelio and the defendants based on the non-existent document.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    171 views1 page

    Innominate Contract 166299 300

    Uploaded by

    kimmytolosa
    The petitioner Aurelio filed a complaint against his brother Eduardo, business partner Bobby Yang, and corporate respondents, claiming they entered a joint venture based on a memorandum by Eduardo stating Aurelio would get ₱1 million or 10% equity in the family business. However, the trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the case as the memorandum was unsigned and undated, making it void. Aurelio argued it was an innominate contract. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding no valid evidence of a partnership between Aurelio and the defendants based on the non-existent document.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TITLE: G.R. NOS.

    166299-300: December 13, 2005


    AURELIO K. LITONJUA,JR., Petitioner,vs.
    EDUARDO K. LITONJUA, SR., ROBERT T. YANG, et.,al Respondents.
    TOPIC: Innominate Contract
    FACTS: Aurelio filed a complaint against his brother Eduardo, a business partner named
    Robert Bobby Yang, and several corporate respondents at the Regional Trial
    Court of Pasig on December 4, 2002. The said complaint alleged the respondents
    of specific performance and accounting and claimed that he and his brother
    entered into a joint venture/partnership for the continuation of their family
    business. On the memorandum allegedly written by Eduardo, which is labeled as
    Annex A-1, it was said that Whatever is left in the corporation, I (Eduardo)
    will make sure that you get ONE MILLION PESOS ( 1, 000,000.00) or ten
    percent (10%) equity, whichever is greater The trial court denied the
    affirmative defenses of Eduardo, et.al which stated that there was no cause of
    action that can be derived from the actionable document. The Court of Appeals
    rendered that the complaint be dismissed. The actionable document which the
    petitioner presented as Annex A-1 to claim his right allegedly violated by the
    respondents was void or legally inexistent. However, Aurelio raised the notion of
    innominate contract at the Supreme Court with the contention that the actionable
    document may be considered as an innominate contract.
    ISSUES: Whether or not there is an actionable document of partnership between the
    petitioner, Aurelio Litonjua and defendants, Eduardo Litonjua and Robert Yang.
    Whether or not the contention of an innominate contract is valid or legal.
    RULING: The petitioners claim of right of action against the respondents Eduardo K.
    Litonjua Sr., and Robert Yan thrusted on the undated and unsigned evidence
    Annex A-1. Likewise, the complaint for the delivery and accounting of
    partnerships property based on the said non-existent document was dismissible
    for failure to state cause of action and presupposed that the first theorys
    adaptation and prosecution before the court was a mistake. The Supreme Court
    denied the petition of review and affirmed the impugned Decision and Resolution
    of the Court of Appeals.
    REMARKS: Before you file a complaint, make sure that the evidence you have is strong
    enough to institute a cause of action. Cause of action is defined by Rule 2, Sec. 2
    of the Rules of Court as: A cause of action is the act omission by which a party
    violates a right of another.

    You might also like