8/13/2019 Heirs of Tan Eng Kee vs CA Digest by mr mendoza

1/1

Heirs of Tan Eng Kee vs. CA (October 3, 2000)Facts:

The heirs of Tan Eng Kee, composed of his children and his wife, claims thattheir father

was a partner of Tan Eng Lay in Benguet Lumber Company. Tan Eng Layis theb ro the r o f th e p e t i t i one r s ' f a the r who accor dung to them en te r ed in to

apartnership with the former after the WW were they both pooled in their money

inorder to recapitali!e the business. "etitioners wants to account, li#uidate and windupthe partnership as well as the e#ual di$ision of the net assets of the company.

T h e y a l l e g e d t h a t s i n c e T a n E n g K e e w a s

c o n d u c t i n g t h e a f f a i r s o f t h e company%business with his brother,&a$e orders to the employees, prepared ordersfo r th e s upp l ie rs , th e i r fa mil ie s

be ind emp lo yed in t he bus ines s and t ha t the i r families li$ed in the same

compound where the Benguet Lumber Company is foundthen these es tabl ishes the

eistence of a partnership. They also allege that theirfather was a co(owner ofsome )* pieces of &.. +hee ts and that their father was also recei$ing money from

the company.Benguet Lumber Company, represented by Tan Eng Lay, answered by

stating that Tan Eng Kee was merely an employee of the said company

e$idenced by payrollsand the +++ co$erage of petitioners' father. They also showedthe registration of thebusiness as that of a proprietorship. The TC of Baguio ruled that

there was a partnership between the two brothers inthe form of a -oint($enture. The Cre$ersed the decision of the TC.

Isse:

W/0 Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay were partners in Benguet Lumber1

He!":

0o partnership was established as the e$idence presented was insufficient. Tan Eng Kee

was merely an employee recei$ing wages. The partnership contract isre#uired to be in

writing the capital of which eceeds "2,*** and the findings of thelower courts re$ealsthe absence of such contract. Co(ownership or co(possession isn o t a n i n d i c i u m o f

t h e e i s t e n c e o f a p a r t n e r s h i p . d e m a n d f o r ap e r i o d i c accounting is e$idence of a partnership which was not done by Tan Eng Keeduringhis lifetime being his right if e$er he was a partner. The documents presented,

not$alidly declared falsified by another court, further pro$es the non(

eistence of ap a r t n e r s h i p r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o b r o t h e r s b u ta n e m p l o y e r ( e m p l o y e e relat ionship. 3ur thermore, pet it ioners did not

offer or present e$idence that theirfather recei$ed amounts pertaining to his share in

the profits of the company. Theallegations of petitioners merely shows that their father

was merely in$ol$ed in theoperations of Benguet Lumber but does not establish in whatcapacity.

4Bus /rg Tips and 5igests6- 6endo!a