Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 194 views

    Art 1768

    Uploaded by

    Eileen Eika Dela Cruz-Lee
    1. The partnership Ang Pue & Company, comprised of Chinese citizens, was originally formed for 5 years in 1953 to engage in general merchandising and retail business. 2. In 1954, Republic Act 1180 was passed restricting retail business to partnerships wholly owned by Filipinos. The law allowed existing partnerships until the expiration of their term. 3. In 1958, before the original 5 year term expired but after the new law, the partners amended the articles to extend the partnership another 5 years. Registration was denied as this would violate the new law. 4. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the right to engage in retail business is a privilege subject to state terms and conditions. The partners could not

    Copyright:

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

    Art 1768

    Uploaded by

    Eileen Eika Dela Cruz-Lee
    194 views2 pages
    1. The partnership Ang Pue & Company, comprised of Chinese citizens, was originally formed for 5 years in 1953 to engage in general merchandising and retail business. 2. In 1954, Republic Act 1180 was passed restricting retail business to partnerships wholly owned by Filipinos. The law allowed existing partnerships until the expiration of their term. 3. In 1958, before the original 5 year term expired but after the new law, the partners amended the articles to extend the partnership another 5 years. Registration was denied as this would violate the new law. 4. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the right to engage in retail business is a privilege subject to state terms and conditions. The partners could not

    Original Description:

    pat

    Original Title

    ART 1768

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The partnership Ang Pue & Company, comprised of Chinese citizens, was originally formed for 5 years in 1953 to engage in general merchandising and retail business. 2. In 1954, Republic Act 1180 was passed restricting retail business to partnerships wholly owned by Filipinos. The law allowed existing partnerships until the expiration of their term. 3. In 1958, before the original 5 year term expired but after the new law, the partners amended the articles to extend the partnership another 5 years. Registration was denied as this would violate the new law. 4. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the right to engage in retail business is a privilege subject to state terms and conditions. The partners could not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    194 views2 pages

    Art 1768

    Uploaded by

    Eileen Eika Dela Cruz-Lee
    1. The partnership Ang Pue & Company, comprised of Chinese citizens, was originally formed for 5 years in 1953 to engage in general merchandising and retail business. 2. In 1954, Republic Act 1180 was passed restricting retail business to partnerships wholly owned by Filipinos. The law allowed existing partnerships until the expiration of their term. 3. In 1958, before the original 5 year term expired but after the new law, the partners amended the articles to extend the partnership another 5 years. Registration was denied as this would violate the new law. 4. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the right to engage in retail business is a privilege subject to state terms and conditions. The partners could not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1. CONCEPT OF PARTNERSHIP EE.M.

    DELACRUZ, DMD
    AND ITS CLASSIFICATION
    ART. 1768
    Issue:
    1. ALFREDO N. AGUILA, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
    FELICIDAD S. VDA. DE ABROGAR Whether petitioner is the real party in interest against whom
    G.R. No. 127347, November 25, 1999 this action should be prosecuted.

    Facts: Ruling:

    Petitioner is the manager of A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co. (ACASC), a No. Under Article 1768 of the Civil Code, a partnership "has a
    partnership engaged in lending activities. Private respondent, with juridical personality separate and distinct from that of each of the
    the consent of her late husband, and ACASC, represented by partners." The partners cannot be held liable for the obligations of the
    petitioner, entered into a Contract of Sale/Memorandum of partnership unless it is shown that the legal fiction of a different
    Agreement with right to repurchase. ACASC bought the property of juridical personality is being used for fraudulent, unfair, or illegal
    Spouses Abrogar located in Marikina, and respondent was given the purposes.
    option to repurchase the said property within 90 days from the
    execution of the memorandum of agreement. In this case, respondent has not shown that ACASC, as a
    separate juridical entity, is being used for fraudulent, unfair, or illegal
    Respondent failed to redeem the property. Hence, pursuant to purposes. Moreover, the title to the subject property is in the name of
    the agreement and a special power of attorney, petitioner caused the ACASC and the Memorandum of Agreement was executed between
    cancellation of their title and the issuance of a new certificate of title private respondent, with the consent of her late husband, and ACASC,
    in the name of ACASC. Counsel for ACASC then demanded respondent represented by petitioner. Hence, it is the partnership, not its officers
    to vacate the premises and surrender its possession to ACASC. The or agents, which should be impleaded in any litigation involving
    demand went unheeded, thus, ACASC filed an ejectment case against property registered in its name. A violation of this rule will result in
    her in the MeTC. the dismissal of the complaint.

    The MeTC ruled in favor of ACASC. Private respondent


    appealed first to the RTC then to the CA, and later to the SC, but she
    lost in all the cases. Respondent then filed a petition for declaration
    of nullity of a deed of sale with the RTC, alleging that the signature of
    her husband on the deed of sale was a forgery because he was already
    dead when the deed was supposed to have been executed. She had
    also filed a criminal complaint for falsification against petitioner
    which was dismissed.
    2. G.R. No. L-17295 July 30, 1962
    The RTC dismissed respondents petition. However, on ANG PUE & COMPANY, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
    appeal, the CA reversed. Hence, petitioner filed this present petition vs.
    for review on certiorari.
    1. CONCEPT OF PARTNERSHIP EE.M.DELACRUZ, DMD
    AND ITS CLASSIFICATION
    ART. 1768
    SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, defendant- such, is not a matter of absolute right but a privilege which may be
    appellee. enjoyed only under such terms as the State may deem necessary
    DIZON, J.: to impose. That the State, through Congress, and in the manner
    provided by law, had the right to enact Republic Act No. 1180 and
    FACTS: to provide therein that only Filipinos and concerns wholly owned
    On May 1, 1953, Ang Pue and Tan Siong, both Chinese by Filipinos may engage in the retail business can not be
    citizens, organized the partnership Ang Pue & Company for a seriously disputed. That this provision was clearly intended to
    term of five years from May 1, 1953, extendible by their mutual apply to partnership already existing at the time of the enactment
    consent. The purpose of the partnership was "to maintain the of the law is clearly showing by its provision giving them the right
    business of general merchandising, buying and selling at to continue engaging in their retail business until the expiration of
    wholesale and retail, particularly of lumber, hardware and other their term or life.
    construction materials for commerce, either native or foreign." The The agreement contain therein must be deemed subject
    corresponding articles of partnership (Exhibit B) were registered in to the law existing at the time when the partners came to agree
    the Office of the Securities & Exchange Commission on June 16, regarding the extension. In the present case, as already stated,
    1953. when the partners amended the articles of partnership, the
    On June 19, 1954 Republic Act No. 1180 was enacted to provisions of Republic Act 1180 were already in force, and there
    regulate the retail business. It provided, among other things, that, can be not the slightest doubt that the right claimed by appellants
    after its enactment, a partnership not wholly formed by Filipinos to extend the original term of their partnership to another five
    could continue to engage in the retail business until the expiration years would be in violation of the clear intent and purpose of the
    of its term. law aforesaid.
    On April 15, 1958 prior to the expiration of the five-year term of WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with
    the partnership Ang Pue & Company, but after the enactment of costs.
    the Republic Act 1180, the partners already mentioned amended
    the original articles of part ownership (Exhibit B) so as to extend
    the term of life of the partnership to another five years. When the
    amended articles were presented for registration in the Office of
    the Securities & Exchange Commission on April 16, 1958,
    registration was refused upon the ground that the extension was
    in violation of the aforesaid Act.
    ISSUE: W/N the extension for another five years of the term of the
    plaintiffs' partnership is in violation of the provisions of Republic
    Act No. 1180.?
    HELD: Yes.
    To organize a corporation or a partnership that could
    claim a juridical personality of its own and transact business as

    You might also like