G. R. No. 33580, February 06, 1931: Supreme Court of The Philippines

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

Supreme Court of the Philippines

55 Phil. 601

G. R. No. 33580, February 06, 1931


MAXIMILIANO SANCHO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS.
SEVERIANO LIZARRAGA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

DECISION

ROMUALDEZ, J.:

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 specifically all the allegations of the
complaint which are incompatible with his special defenses,  cross-complaint
and counterclaim, getting 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 final 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 he cause, and finding it
duly proved that the defendant had not contributed all the capital he had
bound himself to 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 filed 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 affirmation of the judgment
appealed from is inevitable. In view of the lower court's  findings 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
specifically 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.

Batas.org

You might also like