Plaintiff-Appellant Vs Vs Defendant-Appellee Jose Perez Cardenas Jose M. Casal Celso B. Jamora Antonio Gonzalez

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 33580. February 6, 1931.]
MAXIMILIANO SANCHO , plaintiff-appellant, vs . SEVERIANO

LIZARRAGA , defendant-appellee.
Jose Perez Cardenas and Jose M. Casal for appellant.

Celso B. Jamora and Antonio Gonzalez for appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. JUDGMENT; APPEAL FROM AN ORDER ON RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS. —

In accordance with the doctrine laid down in the case of Natividad vs. Villarica (31 Phil.,
172), it is held that an appeal taken from a decision ordering the rendition of accounts
is deemed premature.
2. PARTNERSHIP; FAILURE OF PARTNER TO PAY THE WHOLE AMOUNT
PROMISED; RESPONSIBILITY. — Owing to the defendant's failure to pay to the
partnership the whole amount which he bound himself to pay, he became indebted to it
for the remainder, with interest and any damages occasioned thereby, but the plaintiff
did not thereby acquire the right to demand rescission of the partnership contract
under article 1124 of the Civil Code.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. — Article 1124 of the Civil Code
cannot be applied to the case in question, because it refers to the resolution of
obligations in general, whereas articles 1681 and 1682 speci cally refer to the contract
of partnership in particular. And it is a well known principle that special provisions
prevail over general provisions.
DECISION
ROMUALDEZ , J : p
The plaintiff brought an action for the rescission of a partnership contract

between himself and the defendant, entered into on October 15, 1920, the
reimbursement by the latter of his 50,000 peso investment therein, with interest at 12
per cent per annum from October 15, 1920, with costs, and any other just and equitable
remedy against said defendant.
The defendant denies generally and speci cally all the allegations of the
complaint which are incompatible with his special defenses, cross-complaint and
counterclaim, setting up the latter and asking for the dissolution of the partnership, and
the payment to him as its manager and administrator of P500 monthly from October
15, 1920, until the nal dissolution, with interest, one-half of said amount to be charged
to the plaintiff. He also prays for any other just and equitable remedy.
The Court of First Instance of Manila, having heard the cause, and nding it duly
proved that the defendant had not contributed all the capital he had bound himself to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
invest, and that the plaintiff had demanded that the defendant liquidate the partnership,
declared it dissolved on account of the expiration of the period for which it was
constituted, and ordered the defendant, as managing partner, to proceed without delay
to liquidate it, submitting to the court the result of the liquidation together with the
accounts and vouchers within the period of thirty days from receipt of notice of said
judgment, without costs.
The plaintiff appealed from said decision making the following assignments of
error:
"1. In holding that the plaintiff and appellant is not entitled to the
rescission of the partnership contract, Exhibit A, and that article 1124 of the Civil
Code is not applicable to the present case.
"2. In failing to order the defendant to return the sum of P50,000 to the
plaintiff with interest from October 15, 1920, until fully paid.
"3. In denying the motion for a new trial."
In the brief led by counsel for the appellee, a preliminary question is raised
purporting to show that this appeal is premature and therefore will not lie. The point is
based on the contention that inasmuch as the liquidation ordered by the trial court, and
the consequent accounts, have not been made and submitted, the case cannot be
deemed terminated in said court and its ruling is not yet appealable. In support of this
contention counsel cites section 123 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the decision of
this court in the case of Natividad vs. Villarica (31 Phil., 172).
This contention is well founded. Until the accounts have been rendered as
ordered by the trial court, and until they have been either approved or disapproved, the
litigation involved in this action cannot be considered as completely decided; and, as it
was held in said case of Natividad vs. Villarica, also with reference to an appeal taken
from a decision ordering the rendition of accounts following the dissolution of a
partnership, the appeal in the instant case must be deemed premature.
But even going into the merits of the case, the a rmation of the judgment
appealed from is inevitable. In view of the lower court's ndings referred to above,
which we cannot revise because the parol evidence has not been forwarded to this
court, articles 1681 and 1682 of the Civil Code have been properly applied. Owing to
the defendant's failure to pay to the partnership the whole amount which he bound
himself to pay, he became indebted to it for the remainder, with interest and any
damages occasioned thereby, but the plaintiff did not thereby acquire the right to
demand rescission of the partnership contract according to article 1124 of the Code.
This article cannot be applied to the case in question, because it refers to the resolution
of obligations in general, whereas articles 1681 and 1682 speci cally refer to the
contract of partnership in particular. And it is a well known principle that special
provisions prevail over general provisions.
By virtue of the foregoing, this appeal is hereby dismissed, leaving the decision
appealed from in full force, without special pronouncement of costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real,
JJ., concur.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

Plaintiff-Appellant Vs Vs Defendant-Appellee Jose Perez Cardenas Jose M. Casal Celso B. Jamora Antonio Gonzalez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff-Appellant Vs Vs Defendant-Appellee Jose Perez Cardenas Jose M. Casal Celso B. Jamora Antonio Gonzalez

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

Plaintiff-Appellant Vs Vs Defendant-Appellee Jose Perez Cardenas Jose M. Casal Celso B. Jamora Antonio Gonzalez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 33580. February 6, 1931.]

MAXIMILIANO SANCHO , plaintiff-appellant, vs . SEVERIANO

Jose Perez Cardenas and Jose M. Casal for appellant.

1. JUDGMENT; APPEAL FROM AN ORDER ON RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS. —

The plaintiff brought an action for the rescission of a partnership contract

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like