Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    FERNANDEZ vs. DE LA ROSA/ G.R. No. 413/ February 2, 1903

    Uploaded by

    eliz
    The document summarizes a court case between Fernandez and Dela Rosa regarding an alleged partnership to purchase and rent out boats. Fernandez claims they had a verbal partnership agreement in January 1900, where each would contribute money to purchase boats, with profits split proportionally. However, when they later tried to draft official articles of partnership, Dela Rosa proposed different terms and refused to include the second boat. The court found that a complete partnership contract was formed in January 1900, even if details remained undefined, as Dela Rosa proceeded to purchase boats. The court ruled a partnership did exist between the parties.

    Copyright:

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

    FERNANDEZ vs. DE LA ROSA/ G.R. No. 413/ February 2, 1903

    Uploaded by

    eliz
    36 views1 page
    The document summarizes a court case between Fernandez and Dela Rosa regarding an alleged partnership to purchase and rent out boats. Fernandez claims they had a verbal partnership agreement in January 1900, where each would contribute money to purchase boats, with profits split proportionally. However, when they later tried to draft official articles of partnership, Dela Rosa proposed different terms and refused to include the second boat. The court found that a complete partnership contract was formed in January 1900, even if details remained undefined, as Dela Rosa proceeded to purchase boats. The court ruled a partnership did exist between the parties.

    Original Description:

    REFERENCE

    Original Title

    Fernandez Vs

    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 document summarizes a court case between Fernandez and Dela Rosa regarding an alleged partnership to purchase and rent out boats. Fernandez claims they had a verbal partnership agreement in January 1900, where each would contribute money to purchase boats, with profits split proportionally. However, when they later tried to draft official articles of partnership, Dela Rosa proposed different terms and refused to include the second boat. The court found that a complete partnership contract was formed in January 1900, even if details remained undefined, as Dela Rosa proceeded to purchase boats. The court ruled a partnership did exist between the parties.

    Copyright:

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

    FERNANDEZ vs. DE LA ROSA/ G.R. No. 413/ February 2, 1903

    Uploaded by

    eliz
    The document summarizes a court case between Fernandez and Dela Rosa regarding an alleged partnership to purchase and rent out boats. Fernandez claims they had a verbal partnership agreement in January 1900, where each would contribute money to purchase boats, with profits split proportionally. However, when they later tried to draft official articles of partnership, Dela Rosa proposed different terms and refused to include the second boat. The court found that a complete partnership contract was formed in January 1900, even if details remained undefined, as Dela Rosa proceeded to purchase boats. The court ruled a partnership did exist between the parties.

    Copyright:

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

    FERNANDEZ vs. DE LA ROSA/ G.R. No.

    413/ February 2, 1903

    FACTS: Fernandez alleges that in January, 1900, he entered into a verbal agreement with Dela Rosa to form a partnership for the
    purchase of cascoes and the carrying on of the business of letting the same for hire in Manila, and Dela Rosa is to buy the cascoes and
    each partner to furnish for that purpose such amount of money as he could, the profits to be divided proportionately; Fernandez
    furnished Dela Rosa sums to purchase and repair cascoes, the latter taking the titles in his own name; that in April the parties
    undertook to draw up articles of partnership for the purpose of embodying the same in an authentic document, but that the defendant
    having proposed a draft of such articles which differed materially from the terms of the earlier verbal agreement, and being unwillingly
    to include the 2nd casco in the partnership, they were unable to come to any understanding and no written agreement was executed;
    that the defendant having in the meantime had the control and management of the two cascoes, the plaintiff made a demand for an
    accounting upon him, which the defendant refused to render, denying the existence of the partnership altogether.

    Dela Rosa admits that the project of forming a partnership in the casco business in which he was already engaged to some extent
    individually was discussed between himself and the plaintiff in January, 1900, but he denies that any agreement was ever
    consummated. He denies that the plaintiff furnished any money in January, 1900, for the purchase of the first casco, or for repairs on
    the same, but claims that he borrowed 300 pesos on his individual account in January from the bakery firm, consisting of the plaintiff,
    Marcos Angulo, and Antonio Angulo. The 825 pesos, which he admits he received from the Fernandez March 5, he claims was for the
    purchase of the first casco, which he alleged was bought March 12, and he alleges that he never received anything from the defendant
    toward the purchase of the 2nd casco. He claims to have paid, exclusive of repairs, 1,200 pesos for the first casco and 2,000 pesos for
    the second one.

    ISSUE:

    (1) Did a partnership exist between the parties?

    (2) If such partnership existed, was it terminated as a result of the act of the defendant in receiving back the 1,125 pesos?

    HELD: It is thus apparent that a complete and perfect contract of partnership was entered into by the parties. This contract, it is true,
    might have been subject to a suspensive condition, postponing its operation until an agreement was reached as to the respective
    participation of the partners in the profits, the character of the partnership as collective or en comandita, and other details, but
    although it is asserted by counsel for the defendant that such was the case, there is little or nothing in the record to support this claim,
    and that fact that the defendant did actually go on and purchase the boat, as it would seem, before any attempt had been made to
    formulate partnership articles, strongly discountenances the theory.

    You might also like