Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 133 views

    Magalona vs. Pesayco, GR No. L-39607, February 6, 1934 (59 Phil 453) PDF

    Uploaded by

    Johanna Vidad
    The document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from 1934 regarding a dispute over a fishing partnership. It summarizes that: - The plaintiffs and defendant formed a verbal partnership in 1930 to catch and sell "semillas de bañgus" fish for 1931, with each contributing 1/3 of capital. - The defendant was awarded the contract but failed to provide accounting or profits to the plaintiffs. - The court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the verbal partnership agreement was valid and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs their 2/3 share of the P2,925 profits he obtained without their knowledge.

    Copyright:

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

    Magalona vs. Pesayco, GR No. L-39607, February 6, 1934 (59 Phil 453) PDF

    Uploaded by

    Johanna Vidad
    133 views2 pages
    The document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from 1934 regarding a dispute over a fishing partnership. It summarizes that: - The plaintiffs and defendant formed a verbal partnership in 1930 to catch and sell "semillas de bañgus" fish for 1931, with each contributing 1/3 of capital. - The defendant was awarded the contract but failed to provide accounting or profits to the plaintiffs. - The court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the verbal partnership agreement was valid and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs their 2/3 share of the P2,925 profits he obtained without their knowledge.

    Original Title

    Magalona vs. Pesayco, GR No. L-39607, February 6, 1934 (59 Phil 453).pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from 1934 regarding a dispute over a fishing partnership. It summarizes that: - The plaintiffs and defendant formed a verbal partnership in 1930 to catch and sell "semillas de bañgus" fish for 1931, with each contributing 1/3 of capital. - The defendant was awarded the contract but failed to provide accounting or profits to the plaintiffs. - The court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the verbal partnership agreement was valid and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs their 2/3 share of the P2,925 profits he obtained without their knowledge.

    Copyright:

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

    Magalona vs. Pesayco, GR No. L-39607, February 6, 1934 (59 Phil 453) PDF

    Uploaded by

    Johanna Vidad
    The document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from 1934 regarding a dispute over a fishing partnership. It summarizes that: - The plaintiffs and defendant formed a verbal partnership in 1930 to catch and sell "semillas de bañgus" fish for 1931, with each contributing 1/3 of capital. - The defendant was awarded the contract but failed to provide accounting or profits to the plaintiffs. - The court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the verbal partnership agreement was valid and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs their 2/3 share of the P2,925 profits he obtained without their knowledge.

    Copyright:

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

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. L-39607 February 6, 1934

    ENCARNACION MAGALONA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees,


    vs.
    JUAN PESAYCO, defendant-appellant.

    Manuel Polido and Pedro V. Jimenez for appellant.


    Lutero and Lutero and Ramon Maza for appellee.

    GODDARD, J.:

    In the month of September, 1930, the plaintiffs, Encarnacion Magalona, Juan Sermeno, and the
    defendant, Juan Pesayco, formed a partnership for the purpose of catching "semillas de bañgus o
    aua" in the sea and rivers within the jurisdiction of the municipality of San Jose, Antique Province, for
    the year 1931. It was agreed that the defendant should put in a bid for this privilege and that the
    partners should each supply one third of the capital in case the defendant was awarded the desired
    privilege. The defendant, having had experience in this line, was to be the manager in case his bid
    was accepted. The defendant offered the sum of P5,550.09 for the year ending December 31, 1931.
    As a deposit of
    one-fourth of the amount of the bid was required each of the partners put up one third of this
    amount. This bid, being the highest, was accepted by the municipality and the privilege was awarded
    to the defendant. The latter entered upon his duties under the contract and gave an account of two
    sales of "semillas de bañgus", to Tiburcio Lutero as representative of the plaintiff Magalona. As the
    defendant, on April 21, 1931, had on hand only P410 he wired, Exhibit A, Lutero for sufficient money
    to complete the payment of the first quarter which was to be paid within the first twenty days of the
    second quarter of the year 1931. This telegram reads as follows: "Hemos conseguido plazo hasta
    esta tarde tenemos aqui cuatrocientos diez gira telegraficamente restante." Lutero immediately sent
    P1,000 to the municipal treasurer of San Jose, Antique (Exhibit D).

    The defendant managed the business from January 1,1931, and with the exception of the two sales
    above-mentioned, never gave any account of his catches or sales to his partners, the plaintiffs. In
    view of this the herein complaint was filed April 21, 1931, in which it was prayed that a receiver be
    appointed by the court to take charge of the funds of the partnership and the management of its
    affairs; that the defendant be ordered to render an account of his management and to pay to the
    plaintiff their participation in the profits thereof; that the defendant be required to turn over to the
    receiver all of the funds of the partnership and that the defendant be condemned to pay the costs.

    The plaintiffs put up a bond of P5,000 and a receiver was appointed who also put up a bond for the
    same amount.

    The receiver took over the management and took possession of all the devices and implements
    used in the catching of "semillas de bañgus".

    At the trial it was proven that before April 20, 1931, the defendant obtained and sold a total of
    975,000 "semillas de bañgus" the market value of which was P3 per thousand. The defendant made
    no report of this nor did he pay the plaintiffs any part of the P2,925 realized by him on the sales
    thereof. This was not denied.

    In his two counter-complaints the defendant prays that he be awarded damages in the sum of
    P34,700. He denies that there was a partnership and depends principally upon the fact that the
    partnership agreement was not in writing.

    The partnership was conclusively proven by the oral testimony of the plaintiffs and other witnesses,
    two of whom were Attorneys Lutero and Maza. The defense made no objection to the questions
    asked with regard to the forming of this partnership. This court has held that if a party permits a
    contract, which the law provides shall be in writing, to be proved, without objection as to the form of
    the proof, it is just as binding as if the statute had been complied with.

    However, we cannot agree with the appellant that one of the requisites of a partnership agreement
    such as the one under consideration, is that it should be in writing.

    Article 1667 of the Civil Code provides that "Civil partnerships may be established in any form
    whatever, unless real property or real rights are contributed to the same, in which case a public
    instrument shall be necessary."

    Articles of partnership are not required to be in writing except in the cases mentioned in
    article 1667, Civil Code, which controls article 1280 of the same Code. (Fernandez vs. Dela
    Rosa, 1 Phil., 671.)

    A verbal partnership agreement is valid between the parties even though more than
    1,500 pesetas are involved and can be enforced without bringing action under article 1279,
    Civil Code, to compel execution of a written instrument. (Arts. 1261, 1278-1280, 1667, Civil
    Code; arts. 116-119, 51, Code of Commerce.) Thunga Chui vs. Que Bentec, 2 Phil., 561. (4
    Phil. Digest, 3468.)

    The dispositive part of the decision of the trial court reads as follows:

    Habiendose probado, sin pruebas en contrario, de que el demandado obtuvo durante su


    administracion de este negocio, semillas de bañgus por valor de P2,925 que no dio cuenta
    ni participacion a sus consocios los demandantes, el Juzgado declara al demandado en
    deber a la sociedad, compuesta por demandantes y demandado, en la suma de P2,925,
    importe de 975,000 semillas de bañgus a P3 el millar, y ordena que entregue esta suma al
    depositario judicial nombrado, como fondos de dicha sociedad.

    Se sobreseen las contrademandas y se condena en costas al demandado. Asi se ordena.

    This decision is affirmed with costs in both instances against the defendant-appellant. So ordered.

    Malcolm, Villa-Real, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.

    You might also like