Wave 7 Goquiolay Vs Sycip Case Digest

TITLE OF THE CASE: Antonio C. Goquilay, ET AL.
plaintiffs-appellants vs. Washington Z. Sycip, ET AL.

defendants-appellees
GR NO. L-11840
DATE: December 10, 1963
FACTS:
Tan Sin An and Goquiolay entered into a general commercial
partnership under the partnership name Tan Sin An and
Antonio Goquiolay for the purpose of dealing in real estate.
The agreement lodged upon Tan Sin An the sole management
of the partnership affairs.
The lifetime of the partnership was fixed at ten years and the
Articles of Co-partnership stipulated that in the event of death
of any of the partners before the expiration of the term, the
partnership will not be dissolved but will be continued by the
heirs or assigns of the deceased partner. But the partnership
could be dissolved upon mutual agreement in writing of the
partners.
Goquiolay executed a GPA in favor of Tan Sin An.
The plaintiff partnership purchased 3 parcels of land which was
mortgaged to La Urbana as payment of P25,000. Another 46
parcels of land were purchased by Tan Sin An in his individual
capacity which he assumed payment of a mortgage debt for
P35K. A downpayment and the amortization were advanced by
Yutivo and Co.
The two obligations were consolidated in an instrument
executed by the partnership and Tan Sin An, whereby the
entire 49 lots were mortgaged in favor of Banco
Hipotecario Tan Sin An died leaving his widow, Kong Chai Pin
and four minor children. The widow subsequently became the
administratrix of the estate.
Repeated demands were made by Banco Hipotecario on the
partnership and on Tan Sin An. Defendant Sing Yee, upon
PARTNERSHIP ***** ANNA L. ILAGAN-MALIPOL, AB, MD Page 1

request of defendant Yutivo Sons , paid the remaining balance
of the mortgage debt, the mortgage was cancelled
Yutivo Sons and Sing Yee filed their claim in the intestate
proceedings of Tan Sin An for advances, interest and taxes paid
in amortizing and discharging their obligations to La Urbana
and Banco Hipotecario
Kong Chai Pin filed a petition with the probate court for
authority to sell all the 49 parcels of land. She then sold it to
Sycip and Lee in consideration of P37K and of the vendees
assuming payment of the claims filed by Yutivo Sons and Sing
Yee.
Later, Sycip and Lee executed in favor of Insular Development
a deed of transfer covering the 49 parcels of land. When
Goquiolay learned about the sale to Sycip and Lee, he filed a
petition in the intestate proceedings to set aside the order of
the probate court approving the sale in so far as his interest
over the parcels of land sold was concerned.
Probate court annulled the sale executed by the administratrix
w/ respect to the 60% interest of Goquiolay over the properties
Administratrix appealed. The decision of probate court was set
aside for failure to include the indispensable parties. New
pleadings were filed
The second amended complaint prays for the annulment of the
sale in favor of Sycip and Lee and their subsequent conveyance
to Insular Development.
The complaint was dismissed by the lower court hence this
appeal.
PLAINTIFFS ARGUMENTS: The plaintiffs in their complaint

challenged the authority of Kong Chai Pin to sell the partnership
properties on the ground that she had no authority to sell because
even granting that she became a partner upon the death of Tan Sin
An the power of attorney granted in favor of the latter expired after
his death.

DEFENDANTS ARGUMENTS: The defendants defended the validity
of the sale on the theory that she succeeded to all the rights and
prerogatives of Tan Sin An as managing partner.
DECISIONS OF --
LOWER COURT: The trial court sustained the validity of the
sale on the ground that under the provisions of the articles of
partnership allowing the heirs of the deceased partner to
represent him in the partnership after his death Kong Chai Pin
became a managing partner, this being the capacity held by
Tan Sin An when he died.
CA:
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not a widow or substitute become also a general

partner or only a limited partner.
Whether or not the lower court err in holding that the widow
succeeded her husband Tan Sin An in the sole management of
the partnership upon Tans death
Whether or not the consent of the other partners was

necessary to perfect the sale of the partnership properties to
Sycip and Lee?
HELD:
Kong Chai Pin became a mere general partner. By seeking authority to

manage partnership property, Tan Sin Ans widow showed that she
desired to be considered a general partner. By authorizing the widow
to manage partnership property (which a limited partner could not be
authorized to do), Goqulay recognized her as such partner, and is now
in estoppel to deny her position as a general partner, with authority to

administer and alienate partnership property.
The articles did not provide that the heirs of the deceased would be
merely limited partners; on the contrary, they expressly stipulated
that in case of death of either partner, the co partnership will have to
be continued with the heirs or assignees. It certainly could not be
continued if it were to be converted from a general partnership into a
limited partnership since the difference between the two kinds of
associations is fundamental, and specially because the conversion into
a limited association would leave the heirs of the deceased partner
without a share in the management. Hence, the contractual stipulation
actually contemplated that the heirs would become general partners
rather than limited ones.
Separate Opinion: Justice Angelo Bautista
The court affirmed the decision but on different grounds, among which
are: (1) there is no sufficient factual basis to conclude that Kong Chai
Pin executed acts of management to give her the character of general
manager of the partnership, or to serve as basis for estoppel that may
benefit the purchasers of the partnership properties; (2) the alleged
acts of management, even if proven, could not give Kong Chai Pin the
character of general manager for the same is contrary to law and well-
known authorities; (3) even if Kong Chai Pin acted as general
manager she has no authority to sell the partnership properties as to
make it legal and valid; and (4) Kong Chai Pin had no necessity to sell
the properties to pay the obligation of the partnership and if she did so
it was merely to favor the purchasers who were close relatives to the
prejudice of Goquiolay.
The sale of the partnership properties by Kong Chai Pin cannot be

upheld on the ground of estoppel, first, because the alleged acts of
management have not been clearly proven. Moreover, mere
acceptance of the inheritance does not make the heir of a general
partner a general partner himself. He emphasized that heir must
declare that he is entering the partnership as a general partner unless

the deceased partner has made it an express condition in his will that
the heir accepts the condition of entering the partnership as a
prerequisite of inheritance, in which case acceptance of the
inheritance is enough. But here Tan Sin An died intestate.
Kong Chai Pin cannot be deemed to have declared her intention to

become a general partner by exercising acts of management because
as a general rule the heirs of a deceased partner succeed as limited
partners only by operation of law, it is obvious that the heir, upon
entering the partnership, must make a declaration of his character,
otherwise he should be deemed as having succeeded as limited
partner by the mere acceptance of the inheritance. And here Kong
Chai Pin did not make such declaration. Being then a limited partner
upon the death of Tan Sin An by operation of law, the peremptory
prohibition contained in Article 148 of the Code of Commerce became
binding upon her and as a result she could not change her status by
violating its provisions not only under the general principle that
prohibited acts cannot produce any legal effect, but also because
under the provisions of Article 147 of the same Code she was
precluded from acquiring more rights than those pertaining to her as a
limited partner. The alleged acts of management, therefore, did not
give Kong Chai Pin the character of general manager to authorize her
to bind the partnership.
Kong Chain Pin could not sell the partnership properties without
authority from the other partners. the relationship between a
managing partner and the partnership is substantially the same as
that of the agent and his principal, the extent of the power of Kong
Chai Pin must, therefore, be determined under the general principles
governing agency. And, on this point, the law says that an agency
created in general terms includes only acts of administration, but with
regard to the power to compromise, sell mortgage, and other acts of
strict ownership, an express power of attorney is required. Here Kong
Chai Pin did not have such power when she told the properties of the
partnership.

Since Kong Chai Pin sold the partnership properties not in line with the
business of the partnership but to pay its obligation without first
obtaining the consent of the other partners the sale is invalid being in
excess of her authority.
Upon the strength of the foregoing considerations, the court grant the
motion for reconsideration.

Wave 7 Goquiolay Vs Sycip Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wave 7 Goquiolay Vs Sycip Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wave 7 Goquiolay Vs Sycip Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TITLE OF THE CASE: Antonio C. Goquilay, ET AL.

plaintiffs-appellants vs. Washington Z. Sycip, ET AL.

PARTNERSHIP ***** ANNA L. ILAGAN-MALIPOL, AB, MD Page 1

PLAINTIFFS ARGUMENTS: The plaintiffs in their complaint

PARTNERSHIP ***** ANNA L. ILAGAN-MALIPOL, AB, MD Page 2

Whether or not a widow or substitute become also a general

Whether or not the consent of the other partners was

Kong Chai Pin became a mere general partner. By seeking authority to

PARTNERSHIP ***** ANNA L. ILAGAN-MALIPOL, AB, MD Page 3

Separate Opinion: Justice Angelo Bautista

The sale of the partnership properties by Kong Chai Pin cannot be

PARTNERSHIP ***** ANNA L. ILAGAN-MALIPOL, AB, MD Page 4

Kong Chai Pin cannot be deemed to have declared her intention to

PARTNERSHIP ***** ANNA L. ILAGAN-MALIPOL, AB, MD Page 5

PARTNERSHIP ***** ANNA L. ILAGAN-MALIPOL, AB, MD Page 6

You might also like