EN BANC

[G.R. No. 100152. March 31, 2000]

ACEBEDO OPTICAL COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Hon. MAMINDIARA MANGOTARA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC, 12th Judicial Region, Br. 1, Iligan City; SAMAHANG OPTOMETRIST Sa PILIPINAS - Iligan City Chapter, LEO T. CAHANAP, City Legal Officer, and Hon. CAMILO P. CABILI, City Mayor of Iligan, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PURISIMA, J.:

At bar is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the original petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed by the herein petitioner against the City Mayor and City Legal Officer of Iligan and the Samahang Optometrist sa Pilipinas - Iligan Chapter (SOPI, for brevity).

The antecedent facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are as follows:

Petitioner applied with the Office of the City Mayor of Iligan for a business permit. After consideration of petitioner’s application and the opposition interposed thereto by local optometrists, respondent City Mayor issued Business Permit No. 5342 subject to the following conditions:

1. Since it is a corporation, Acebedo cannot put up an optical clinic but only a commercial store;

2. Acebedo cannot examine and/or prescribe reading and similar optical glasses for patients, because these are functions of optical clinics;

3. Acebedo cannot sell reading and similar eyeglasses without a prescription having first been made by an independent optometrist (not its employee) or independent optical clinic. Acebedo can only sell directly to the public, without need of a prescription, Ray-Ban and similar eyeglasses;

4. Acebedo cannot advertise optical lenses and eyeglasses, but can advertise Ray-Ban and similar glasses and frames;

5. Acebedo is allowed to grind lenses but only upon the prescription of an independent optometrist.[1]

On December 5, 1988, private respondent Samahan ng Optometrist Sa Pilipinas (SOPI), Iligan Chapter, through its Acting President, Dr. Frances B. Apostol, lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the Office of the City Mayor,

alleging that Acebedo had violated the conditions set forth in its business permit and requesting the cancellation and/or revocation of such permit.

Acting on such complaint, then City Mayor Camilo P. Cabili designated City Legal Officer Leo T. Cahanap to conduct an investigation on the matter. On July 12, 1989, respondent City Legal Officer submitted a report to the City Mayor finding the herein petitioner guilty of violating all the conditions of its business permit and recommending the disqualification of petitioner from operating its business in Iligan City. The report further advised that no new permit shall be granted to petitioner for the year 1989 and should only be given time to wind up its affairs.

On July 19, 1989, the City Mayor sent petitioner a Notice of Resolution and Cancellation of Business Permit effective as of said date and giving petitioner three (3) months to wind up its affairs.

On October 17, 1989, petitioner brought a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for restraining order/preliminary injunction against the respondents, City Mayor, City Legal Officer and Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas-Iligan City Chapter (SOPI), docketed as Civil Case No. 1497 before the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch I. Petitioner alleged that (1) it was denied due process because it was not given an opportunity to present its evidence during the investigation conducted by the City Legal Officer; (2) it was denied equal protection of the laws as the limitations imposed on its business permit were not imposed on similar businesses in Iligan City; (3) the City Mayor had no authority to impose the special conditions on its business permit; and (4) the City Legal Officer had no authority to conduct the investigation as the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Professional Regulation Commission and the Board of Optometry.

Respondent SOPI interposed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies but on November 24, 1989, Presiding Judge Mamindiara P. Mangotara deferred resolution of such Motion to Dismiss until after trial of the case on the merits. However, the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction was granted. Thereafter, respondent SOPI filed its answer.

On May 30, 1990, the trial court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction it earlier issued. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration met the same fate. It was denied by an Order dated June 28, 1990.

On October 3, 1990, instead of taking an appeal, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals seeking to set aside the questioned Order of Dismissal, branding the same as tainted with grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.

On January 24, 1991, the Ninth Division[2] of the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Petitioner’s motion reconsideration was also denied in the Resolution dated May 15, 1991.

Undaunted, petitioner has come before this court via the present petition, theorizing that:

A.

THE RESPONDENT COURT, WHILE CORRECTLY HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT CITY MAYOR ACTED BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY IN IMPOSING THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS IN THE PERMIT AS THEY HAD NO BASIS IN ANY LAW OR ORDINANCE, ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SAID SPECIAL CONDITIONS NEVERTHELESS BECAME BINDING ON PETITIONER UPON ITS ACCEPTANCE THEREOF AS A PRIVATE AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT.

B.

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE CITY OF ILIGAN WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE LATTER IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS PROPRIETARY FUNCTIONS.

The petition is impressed with merit.

Although petitioner agrees with the finding of the Court of Appeals that respondent City Mayor acted beyond the scope of his authority in imposing the assailed conditions in subject business permit, it has excepted to the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the said conditions nonetheless became binding on petitioner, once accepted, as a private agreement or contract. Petitioner maintains that the said special conditions are null and void for being ultra vires and cannot be given effect; and therefore, the principle of estoppel cannot apply against it.

On the other hand, the public respondents, City Mayor and City Legal Officer, private respondent SOPI and the Office of the Solicitor General contend that as a valid exercise of police power, respondent City Mayor has the authority to impose, as he did, special conditions in the grant of business permits.

Police power as an inherent attribute of sovereignty is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people.[3] The State, through the legislature, has delegated the exercise of police power to local government units, as agencies of the State, in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their creation.[4] This delegation of police power is embodied in the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code which provides:

Sec. 16. General Welfare. - Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.

The scope of police power has been held to be so comprehensive as to encompass almost all matters affecting the health, safety, peace, order, morals, comfort and convenience of the community. Police power is essentially regulatory in nature and the power to issue licenses or grant business permits, if exercised for a regulatory and not revenue-raising purpose, is within the ambit of this power.[5]

The authority of city mayors to issue or grant licenses and business permits is beyond cavil. It is provided for by law.

Section 171, paragraph 2 (n) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 337 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1983, reads:

Sec. 171. The City Mayor shall:

x x x

n) Grant or refuse to grant, pursuant to law, city licenses or permits, and revoke the same for violation of law or ordinance or the conditions upon which they are granted.

However, the power to grant or issue licenses or business permits must always be exercised in accordance with law, with utmost observance of the rights of all concerned to due process and equal protection of the law.

Succinct and in point is the ruling of this Court, that:

"x x x While a business may be regulated, such regulation must, however, be within the bounds of reason, i. e., the regulatory ordinance must be reasonable, and its provision cannot be oppressive amounting to an arbitrary interference with the business or calling subject of regulation. A lawful business or calling may not, under the guise of regulation, be unreasonably interfered with even by the exercise of police power. xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx The exercise of police power by the local government is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the land or an act of the legislature, or unless it is against public policy or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating or in derogation of a common right."[6]

In the case under consideration, the business permit granted by respondent City Mayor to petitioner was burdened with several conditions. Petitioner agrees with the holding by the Court of Appeals that respondent City Mayor acted beyond his authority in imposing such special conditions in its permit as the same have no basis in the law or ordinance. Public respondents and private respondent SOPI, on the other hand, are one in saying that the imposition of said special conditions on petitioner’s business permit is well within the authority of the City Mayor as a valid exercise of police power.

As aptly discussed by the Solicitor General in his Comment, the power to issue licenses and permits necessarily includes the corollary power to revoke, withdraw or cancel the same. And the power to revoke or cancel, likewise includes the power to restrict through the imposition of certain conditions. In the case of Austin-Hardware, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[7] it was held that the power to license carries with it the authority to provide reasonable terms and conditions under which the licensed business shall be conducted. As the Solicitor General puts it:

"If the City Mayor is empowered to grant or refuse to grant a license, which is a broader power, it stands to reason that he can also exercise a lesser power that is reasonably incidental to his express power, i. e. to restrict a license through the imposition of certain conditions, especially so that there is no positive prohibition to the exercise of such prerogative by the City Mayor, nor is there any particular official or body vested with such authority"[8]

However, the present inquiry does not stop there, as the Solicitor General believes. The power or authority of the City Mayor to impose conditions or restrictions in the business permit is indisputable. What petitioner assails are the conditions imposed in its particular case which, it complains, amount to a confiscation of the business in which petitioner is engaged.

Distinction must be made between the grant of a license or permit to do business and the issuance of a license to engage in the practice of a particular profession. The first is usually granted by the local authorities and the second is issued by the Board or Commission tasked to regulate the particular profession. A business permit authorizes the person, natural or otherwise, to engage in business or some form of commercial activity. A professional license, on the other hand, is the grant of authority to a natural person to engage in the practice or exercise of his or her profession.

In the case at bar, what is sought by petitioner from respondent City Mayor is a permit to engage in the business of running an optical shop. It does not purport to seek a license to engage in the practice of optometry as a corporate body or entity, although it does have in its employ, persons who are duly licensed to practice optometry by the Board of Examiners in Optometry.

The case of Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas vs. Acebedo International Corporation, G.R. No. 117097,[9] promulgated by this Court on March 21, 1997, is in point. The factual antecedents of that case are similar to those of the case under consideration and the issue ultimately resolved therein is exactly the same issue posed for resolution by this Court en banc.

In the said case, the Acebedo International Corporation filed with the Office of the Municipal Mayor an application for a business permit for the operation of a branch of Acebedo Optical in Candon, Ilocos Sur. The application was opposed by the Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas-Ilocos Sur Chapter, theorizing that Acebedo is a juridical entity not qualified to practice optometry. A committee was created by the Office of the Mayor to study private respondent’s application. Upon recommendation of the said committee, Acebedo’s application for a business permit was denied. Acebedo filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court but the same was dismissed. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s disposition, prompting the Samahan ng Optometrists to elevate the matter to this Court.

The First Division of this Court, then composed of Honorable Justice Teodoro Padilla, Josue Bellosillo, Jose Vitug and Santiago Kapunan, with Honorable Justice Regino Hermosisima, Jr. as ponente, denied the petition and ruled in favor of respondent Acebedo International Corporation, holding that "the fact that private respondent hires optometrists who practice their profession in the course of their employment in private respondent’s optical shops, does not translate into a practice of optometry by private respondent itself."[10] The Court further elucidated that in both the old and new Optometry Law, R.A. No. 1998, superseded by R.A. No. 8050, it is significant to note that there is no prohibition against the hiring by corporations of optometrists. The Court concluded thus:

"All told, there is no law that prohibits the hiring by corporations of optometrists or considers the hiring by corporations of optometrists as a practice by the corporation itself of the profession of optometry."

In the present case, the objective of the imposition of subject conditions on petitioner’s business permit could be attained by requiring the optometrists in petitioner’s employ to produce a valid certificate of registration as optometrist, from the Board of Examiners in Optometry. A business permit is issued primarily to regulate the conduct of business and the City Mayor cannot, through the issuance of such permit, regulate the practice of a profession, like that of optometry. Such a function is within the exclusive domain of the administrative agency specifically empowered by law to supervise the profession, in this case the Professional Regulations Commission and the Board of Examiners in Optometry.

It is significant to note that during the deliberations of the bicameral conference committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives on R.A. 8050 (Senate Bill No. 1998 and House Bill No. 14100), the committee failed to reach a consensus as to the prohibition on indirect practice of optometry by corporations. The proponent of the bill, former Senator Freddie Webb, admitted thus:

"Senator Webb: xxx xxx xxx

The focus of contention remains to be the proposal of prohibiting the indirect practice of optometry by corporations. We took a second look and even a third look at the issue in the bicameral conference, but a compromise remained elusive."[11]

Former Senator Leticia Ramos-Shahani likewise voted her reservation in casting her vote:

"Senator Shahani: Mr. President

The optometry bills have evoked controversial views from the members of the panel. While we realize the need to uplift the standards of optometry as a profession, the consensus of both Houses was to avoid touching sensitive issues which properly belong to judicial determination. Thus, the bicameral conference committee decided to leave the issue of indirect practice of optometry and the use of trade names open to the wisdom of the Courts which are vested with the prerogative of interpreting the laws."[12]

From the foregoing, it is thus evident that Congress has not adopted a unanimous position on the matter of prohibition of indirect practice of optometry by corporations, specifically on the hiring and employment of licensed optometrists by optical corporations. It is clear that Congress left the resolution of such issue for judicial determination, and it is therefore proper for this Court to resolve the issue.

Even in the United States, jurisprudence varies and there is a conflict of opinions among the federal courts as to the right of a corporation or individual not himself licensed, to hire and employ licensed optometrists.[13]

Courts have distinguished between optometry as a learned profession in the category of law and medicine, and optometry as a mechanical art. And, insofar as the courts regard optometry as merely a mechanical art, they have tended to find nothing objectionable in the making and selling of eyeglasses, spectacles and lenses by corporations so long as the patient is actually examined and prescribed for by a qualified practitioner.[14]

The primary purpose of the statute regulating the practice of optometry is to insure that optometrical services are to be rendered by competent and licensed persons in order to protect the health and physical welfare of the people from the dangers engendered by unlicensed practice. Such purpose may be fully accomplished although the person rendering the service is employed by a corporation.[15]

Furthermore, it was ruled that the employment of a qualified optometrist by a corporation is not against public policy.[16] Unless prohibited by statutes, a corporation has all the contractual rights that an individual has[17] and it does not become the practice of medicine or optometry because of the presence of a physician or optometrist.[18] The manufacturing, selling, trading and bartering of eyeglasses and spectacles as articles of merchandise do not constitute the practice of optometry. [19]

In the case of Dvorine vs. Castelberg Jewelry Corporation,[20] defendant corporation conducted as part of its business, a department for the sale of eyeglasses and the furnishing of optometrical services to its clients. It employed a registered optometrist who was compensated at a regular salary and commission and who was furnished instruments and appliances needed for the work, as well as an office. In holding that the corporation was not engaged in the practice of optometry, the court ruled that there is no public policy forbidding the commercialization of optometry, as in law and medicine, and recognized the general practice of making it a commercial business by advertising and selling eyeglasses.

To accomplish the objective of the regulation, a state may provide by statute that corporations cannot sell eyeglasses, spectacles, and lenses unless a duly licensed physician or a duly qualified optometrist is in charge of, and in personal attendance at the place where such articles are sold.[21] In such a case, the patient’s primary and essential safeguard lies in the optometrist’s control of the "treatment" by means of prescription and preliminary and final examination.[22]

In analogy, it is noteworthy that private hospitals are maintained by corporations incorporated for the purpose of furnishing medical and surgical treatment. In the course of providing such treatments, these corporations employ physicians, surgeons and medical practitioners, in the same way that in the course of manufacturing and selling eyeglasses, eye frames and optical lenses, optical shops hire licensed optometrists to examine, prescribe and dispense ophthalmic lenses. No

one has ever charged that these corporations are engaged in the practice of medicine. There is indeed no valid basis for treating corporations engaged in the business of running optical shops differently.

It also bears stressing, as petitioner has pointed out, that the public and private respondents did not appeal from the ruling of the Court of Appeals. Consequently, the holding by the Court of Appeals that the act of respondent City Mayor in imposing the questioned special conditions on petitioner’s business permit is ultra vires cannot be put into issue here by the respondents. It is well-settled that:

"A party who has not appealed from the decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he had obtain from the lower court, if any, whose decision is brought up on appeal.[23]

xxx an appellee who is not an appellant may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to maintain the judgment on other grounds, but he cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or affirmative relief unless he has also appealed."[24]

Thus, respondents’ submission that the imposition of subject special conditions on petitioner’s business permit is not ultra vires cannot prevail over the finding and ruling by the Court of Appeals from which they (respondents) did not appeal.

Anent the second assigned error, petitioner maintains that its business permit issued by the City Mayor is not a contract entered into by Iligan City in the exercise of its proprietary functions, such that although petitioner agreed to such conditions, it cannot be held in estoppel since ultra vires acts cannot be given effect.

Respondents, on the other hand, agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the business permit in question is in the nature of a contract between Iligan City and the herein petitioner, the terms and conditions of which are binding upon agreement, and that petitioner is estopped from questioning the same. Moreover, in the Resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals held that the contract between the petitioner and the City of Iligan was entered into by the latter in the performance of its proprietary functions.

This Court holds otherwise. It had occasion to rule that a license or permit is not in the nature of a contract but a special privilege.

"xxx a license or a permit is not a contract between the sovereignty and the licensee or permitee, and is not a property in the constitutional sense, as to which the constitutional proscription against impairment of the obligation of contracts may extend. A license is rather in the nature of a special privilege, of a permission or authority to do what is within its terms. It is not in any way vested, permanent or absolute."[25]

It is therefore decisively clear that estoppel cannot apply in this case. The fact that petitioner acquiesced in the special conditions imposed by the City Mayor in subject business permit does not preclude it from challenging the said imposition, which is ultra vires or beyond the ambit of authority of respondent City Mayor. Ultra vires acts or acts which are clearly beyond the scope of one’s authority are null and

void and cannot be given any effect. The doctrine of estoppel cannot operate to give effect to an act which is otherwise null and void or ultra vires.

The Court of Appeals erred in adjudging subject business permit as having been issued by respondent City Mayor in the performance of proprietary functions of Iligan City. As hereinabove elaborated upon, the issuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or city is essentially regulatory in nature. The authority, which devolved upon local government units to issue or grant such licenses or permits, is essentially in the exercise of the police power of the State within the contemplation of the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED; the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 22995 REVERSED; and the respondent City Mayor is hereby ordered to reissue petitioner’s business permit in accordance with law and with this disposition. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

AURELIO K. LITONJUA, JR.,Petitioner,

              - versus –

EDUARDO K. LITONJUA, SR., ROBERT T. YANG, ANGLO PHILS. MARITIME, INC., CINEPLEX, INC., DDM GARMENTS, INC., EDDIE K. LITONJUA SHIPPING AGENCY,  INC., EDDIE K.  LITONJUA SHIPPING CO., INC.,  LITONJUA  SECURITIES, INC. (formerly E. K. Litonjua Sec),   LUNETA THEATER, INC.,  E & L REALTY, (formerly E & L  INT’L SHIPPING CORP.), FNP CO., INC., HOME ENTERPRISES, INC., BEAUMONT DEV. REALTY CO., INC.,  GLOED LAND CORP., EQUITY TRADING CO.,  INC., 3D CORP., “L” DEV. CORP, LCM THEATRICAL  ENTERPRISES, INC.,  LITONJUA SHIPPING CO. INC., MACOIL INC., ODEON REALTY CORP., SARATOGA REALTY, INC.,  ACT THEATER INC. (formerly General Theatrical & Film Exchange, INC.), AVENUE REALTY, INC., AVENUE THEATER, INC. and LVF  PHILIPPINES, INC., (Formerly VF PHILIPPINES),

Respondents.

    G.R. NOS. 166299-300

    Present:

        PANGANIBAN, J., Chairman        SANDOVAL- GUTIERREZ,        CORONA,        CARPIO MORALES and        GARCIA, JJ.

         Promulgated:

         December 13, 2005

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  x                                                  D E C I S I O NGARCIA, J.:

          In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Aurelio K. Litonjua, Jr.  seeks to nullify and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated March 31, 2004[1] in consolidated cases C.A. G.R. Sp. No. 76987 and C.A. G.R. SP. No 78774 and its Resolution dated December 07, 2004,[2] denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.         The recourse is cast against the following factual backdrop:           Petitioner Aurelio K. Litonjua, Jr. (Aurelio) and herein respondent Eduardo K. Litonjua, Sr. (Eduardo) are brothers. The legal dispute between them started when, on December 4, 2002, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Pasig City, Aurelio filed a suit against his brother Eduardo and herein respondent Robert T. Yang (Yang) and several corporations for specific performance and accounting.  In his complaint,[3] docketed as Civil Case No. 69235 and eventually raffled to Branch 68 of the court,[4] Aurelio alleged that, since June 1973, he and Eduardo are into a joint venture/partnership arrangement in the Odeon Theater business which had expanded thru investment in Cineplex, Inc., LCM Theatrical Enterprises, Odeon Realty Corporation (operator of Odeon I and II theatres), Avenue Realty, Inc., owner of lands and buildings, among other corporations. Yang is described in the complaint as petitioner’s and Eduardo’s partner in their Odeon Theater investment. [5] The same complaint also contained the following material averments:

                       3.01 On or about 22 June 1973, [Aurelio] and Eduardo entered into a joint venture/partnership for the continuation of their family business and common family funds ….             3.01.1 This joint venture/[partnership] agreement was contained in a memorandum addressed by Eduardo to his siblings, parents and other relatives. Copy of this memorandum is attached hereto and made an integral part as   Annex   “A”   and the portion referring to [Aurelio] submarked as Annex “A-1 ”.              3.02 It was then agreed upon between [Aurelio] and Eduardo that in consideration of [Aurelio’s] retaining his share in the remaining family businesses (mostly, movie theaters, shipping and land development) and contributing his industry to the continued operation of these businesses, [Aurelio] will be given P1 Million or 10% equity in all these businesses and those to be subsequently acquired by them whichever is greater. . . .             4.01 … from 22 June 1973 to about August 2001, or [in] a span of 28 years, [Aurelio] and Eduardo had accumulated in their joint venture/partnership various assets including but not limited to the corporate defendants and [their] respective assets.             4.02 In addition . . . the joint venture/partnership … had also acquired [various other assets], but Eduardo caused to be registered in the names of other parties….                    xxx                                 xxx                                 xxx             4.04 The substantial assets of most of the corporate defendants consist of real properties …. A list of some of these real properties is attached hereto and made an integral part as Annex “B”. 

                    xxx                                  xxx                                 xxx             5.02 Sometime in 1992, the relations between [Aurelio] and Eduardo became sour so that [Aurelio] requested for an accounting and liquidation of his share in the joint venture/partnership [but these demands for complete accounting and liquidation were not heeded]. 

xxx                               xxx                               xxx             5.05 What is worse, [Aurelio] has reasonable cause to believe that Eduardo and/or the corporate defendants as well as Bobby [Yang], are transferring . . . various real properties of the corporations belonging to the joint venture/partnership to other parties in fraud of [Aurelio]. In consequence, [Aurelio] is therefore causing at this time the annotation on the titles of these real properties… a notice of lis pendens …. (Emphasis in the original; underscoring and words in bracket added.)  

          For ease of reference, Annex “A-1” of the complaint, which petitioner asserts to have been meant for him by his brother Eduardo,  pertinently reads:

             10) JR. (AKL) [Referring to petitioner Aurelio K. Litonjua]:             You have now your own life to live after having been married. ….             I am trying my best to mold you the way I work so you can follow the pattern …. You will be the only one left with the company, among us brothers and I will ask you to stay as I want you to run this office every time I am away. I want you to run it the way I am trying to run it because I will be all alone and I will depend entirely to you (sic).  My sons will not be ready to help me yet until about maybe 15/20 years from now. Whatever is left in the corporation, I will make sure that you get ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00) or ten percent (10%) equity, whichever is greater.  We two will gamble the whole thing of what I have and what you are entitled to. ….  It will be you and me alone on this.  If ever I pass away, I want you to take care of all of this.   You keep my share for my two sons are ready take over but give them the chance to run the company which I have built.              xxx                              xxx                               xxx             Because you will need a place to stay, I will arrange to give you first ONE HUNDRED THOUSANDS PESOS: (P100, 000.00) in cash or asset, like Lt. Artiaga so you can live better there.  The rest I will give you in form of stocks which you can keep.  This stock I assure you is good and saleable.  I will also gladly give you the share of Wack-Wack …and Valley Golf … because you have been good.  The rest will be in stocks from all the corporations which I repeat, ten percent (10%) equity. [6]

  

          On December 20, 2002, Eduardo and the corporate respondents, as defendants a quo, filed a joint ANSWERWith Compulsory Counterclaim denying under oath the material allegations of the complaint, more particularly that portion

thereof depicting petitioner and Eduardo as having entered into a contract of partnership.  As affirmative defenses, Eduardo, et al., apart from raising a jurisdictional matter, alleged that the complaint states no cause of action, since no cause of action may be derived from the actionable document, i.e., Annex “A-1”, being void under the terms of Article 1767 in relation to Article 1773 of the Civil Code, infra.  It is further alleged that whatever undertaking Eduardo agreed to do, if any, under Annex “A-1”, are unenforceable under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.[7]            For his part, Yang - who was served with summons long after the other defendants submitted their answer – moved to dismiss on the ground, inter alia, that, as to him, petitioner has no cause of action and the complaint does not state any.[8] Petitioner opposed this motion to dismiss.            On January 10, 2003, Eduardo, et al., filed a Motion to Resolve Affirmative Defenses.[9]   To this motion, petitioner interposed an Opposition with ex-Parte Motion to Set the Case for Pre-trial.[10]

 Acting on the separate motions immediately adverted to above, the trial

court, in an Omnibus Order dated March 5, 2003, denied the affirmative defenses and, except for Yang, set the case for pre-trial on April 10, 2003.[11]

 In another Omnibus Order of April 2, 2003, the same court denied the

motion of Eduardo, et al., for reconsideration[12] and Yang’s motion to dismiss. The following then transpired insofar as Yang is concerned:

 1. On April 14, 2003, Yang filed his ANSWER,  but expressly reserved the

right to seek reconsideration of the April 2, 2003 Omnibus Order and to pursue his failed motion to dismiss[13] to its full resolution.

 2. On April 24, 2003, he moved for reconsideration of the Omnibus Order of

April 2, 2003, but his motion was denied in an Order of July 4, 2003.[14]

 3. On August 26, 2003, Yang went to the Court of Appeals (CA) in a petition

for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 78774,[15] to nullify the separate orders of the trial court, the first  denying his motion to dismiss the basic complaint and, the second, denying his motion for reconsideration.

  Earlier, Eduardo and the corporate defendants, on the contention that

grave abuse of discretion and injudicious haste attended the issuance of the trial court’s aforementioned Omnibus Orders dated March 5, and April 2, 2003, sought relief from the CA via similar recourse. Their petition for certiorari was docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 76987.  

 Per its resolution dated October 2, 2003,[16]  the CA’s 14th Division ordered

the consolidation of CA G.R. SP No. 78774 with CA G.R. SP No. 76987. Following the submission by the parties of their respective Memoranda of

Authorities, the appellate court came out with the herein assailed Decision dated March 31, 2004, finding for Eduardo and Yang, as lead petitioners therein, disposing as follows:

 WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered granting the

issuance of the writ of certiorari in these consolidated cases annulling, reversing and setting aside the assailed orders of the court a quo dated March 5, 2003, April 2, 2003 and July 4, 2003

and the complaint filed by private respondent [now petitioner Aurelio] against all the petitioners [now herein respondents Eduardo, et al.] with the court a quo is hereby dismissed.

                 SO ORDERED.[17] (Emphasis in the original; words in bracket added.)            

          Explaining its case disposition, the appellate court stated, inter alia,  that the alleged partnership, as evidenced by the actionable documents,  Annex “A” and “A-1” attached to the complaint, and upon which petitioner solely predicates his right/s allegedly violated by Eduardo, Yang and the corporate defendants a quo is “void or legally inexistent”.  

In time, petitioner moved for reconsideration but his motion was denied by the CA in its equally assailedResolution of December 7, 2004.[18]  .           Hence, petitioner’s present recourse, on the contention that the CA erred:

             A. When it ruled that there was no partnership created by the actionable document because this was not a public instrument and immovable properties were contributed to the partnership.             B. When it ruled that  the  actionable document did not create a demandable right in favor of petitioner.             C. When it ruled that the complaint stated no cause of action against [respondent] Robert Yang; and             D. When it ruled that petitioner has changed his theory on appeal when all that Petitioner had done was to support his pleaded cause of action by another legal perspective/argument.   The petition lacks merit.  Petitioner’s demand, as defined in the petitory portion of his complaint in

the trial court, is for delivery or payment to him, as Eduardo’s and Yang’s partner, of his partnership/joint venture share, after an accounting has been duly conducted of what he deems to be partnership/joint venture property.[19]

 A partnership exists when two or more persons agree to place their money,

effects, labor, and skill in lawful commerce or business, with the understanding that there shall be a proportionate sharing of the profits and losses between them.[20] A contract of partnership is defined by the Civil Code as one where two or more persons bound themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. [21]   A joint venture, on the other hand, is hardly distinguishable from, and  may be likened to, a partnership since their elements are similar, i.e., community of interests in the business and sharing of profits and losses. Being a form of partnership, a joint venture is generally governed by the law on partnership.[22]

 The underlying issue that necessarily comes to mind in this proceedings is

whether or not petitioner and respondent Eduardo are partners in the theatre, shipping and realty business, as one claims but which the other denies. And the issue bearing on the first assigned error relates to the question of what legal provision is applicable under the premises, petitioner seeking, as it were, to enforce  the actionable document - Annex “A-1” - which he depicts in his complaint to be the

contract of partnership/joint venture between himself and  Eduardo. Clearly, then, a look at the legal provisions determinative of the existence, or defining the formal requisites, of a partnership is indicated. Foremost of these are the following provisions of the Civil Code:

             Art.   1771.  A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary.             Art. 1772.  Every contract of partnership having a capital of three thousand pesos or more, in money or property, shall appear in a public instrument, which must be recorded in the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission.             Failure to comply with the requirement of the preceding paragraph shall not affect the liability of the partnership and the members thereof to third persons.             Art. 1773. A contract of partnership is void, whenever immovable property is contributed thereto, if an inventory of said property is not made, signed by the parties, and attached to the public instrument.  Annex “A-1”, on its face, contains typewritten entries, personal in tone, but

is unsigned and undated. As an unsigned document, there can be no quibbling that Annex “A-1” does not meet the public instrumentation requirements exacted under Article 1771 of the Civil Code. Moreover, being unsigned and doubtless referring to a partnership involving more than P3,000.00 in money or property, Annex “A-1” cannot be presented for notarization, let alone registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as called for under the Article 1772 of the Code.  And inasmuch as the inventory requirement under the succeeding Article 1773 goes into the matter of validity when immovable property is contributed to the partnership, the next logical point of inquiry turns on the nature of petitioner’s contribution, if any, to the supposed partnership.

 The CA, addressing the foregoing query, correctly stated that petitioner’s

contribution consisted of immovables and real rights. Wrote that court: 

A further examination of the allegations in the complaint would show that [petitioner’s] contribution to the so-called “partnership/joint venture” was his supposed share in the family business that is consisting of movie theaters, shipping and land development under paragraph 3.02 of the complaint. In other words, his contribution as a partner in the alleged partnership/joint venture consisted of immovable properties and real rights. ….[23]

   

Significantly enough, petitioner matter-of-factly concurred with the appellate court’s observation that, prescinding from what he himself alleged in his basic complaint, his contribution to the partnership consisted of his share in the Litonjua family businesses which owned variable immovable properties. Petitioner’s assertion in his motion for reconsideration[24] of the CA’s decision, that “what was to be contributed to the business [of the partnership] was [petitioner’s] industry and his share in the family [theatre and land development] business” leaves no room for speculation as to what petitioner contributed to the perceived partnership. 

 

 Lest it be overlooked, the contract-validating inventory requirement under Article 1773 of the Civil Code applies as long real property or real rights are initially brought into the partnership. In short, it is really of no moment which of the partners, or, in this case, who between petitioner and his brother Eduardo, contributed immovables. In context, the more important consideration is that real property was contributed, in which case an inventory of the contributed property duly signed by the parties should be attached to the public instrument, else there is legally no partnership to speak of.

 Petitioner, in an obvious bid to evade the application of Article 1773, argues

that the immovables in question were not contributed, but were acquired after the formation of the supposed partnership. Needless to stress, the Court cannot accord cogency to this specious argument. For, as earlier stated, petitioner himself admitted contributing his share in the supposed shipping, movie theatres and realty development family businesses which already owned immovables even before Annex “A-1” was allegedly executed.

 Considering thus the value and nature of petitioner’s alleged contribution to

the purported partnership, the Court, even if so disposed, cannot plausibly extend Annex “A-1” the legal effects that petitioner so desires and pleads to be given. Annex “A-1”, in fine, cannot support the existence of the partnership sued upon and sought to be enforced. The legal and factual milieu of the case calls for this disposition. A partnership may be constituted in any form, save when immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto or when the partnership has a capital of at least P3,000.00, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary. [25] And if only to stress what has repeatedly been articulated, an inventory to be signed by the parties and attached to the public instrument is also indispensable to the validity of the partnership whenever immovable property is contributed to it.

 Given the foregoing perspective, what the appellate court wrote in its

assailed Decision[26] about the probative value and legal effect of Annex “A-1” commends itself for concurrence:

 Considering that the allegations in the complaint showed that

[petitioner] contributed immovable properties to the alleged partnership, the “Memorandum” (Annex “A” of the complaint) which purports to establish the said “partnership/joint venture” is NOT a public instrument and there was NO inventory of the immovable property duly signed by the parties. As such, the said “Memorandum” … is null and void for purposes of establishing the existence of a valid contract of partnership. Indeed, because of the failure to comply with the essential formalities of a valid contract, the purported “partnership/joint venture” is legally inexistent and it produces no effect whatsoever. Necessarily, a void or legally inexistent contract cannot be the source of any contractual or legal right. Accordingly, the allegations in the complaint, including the actionable document attached thereto, clearly demonstrates that [petitioner] has NO valid contractual or legal right which could be violated by the [individual respondents] herein. As a consequence, [petitioner’s] complaint does NOT state a valid cause of action because NOT all the essential elements of a cause of action are present. (Underscoring and words in bracket added.)

  

        Likewise well-taken are the following complementary excerpts from the CA’s equally assailed Resolution of December 7, 2004[27] denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration:                          Further, We conclude that despite glaring defects in the

allegations in the complaint as well as the actionable document

attached thereto (Rollo, p. 191), the [trial] court did not appreciate and apply the legal provisions which were brought to its attention by herein [respondents] in the their pleadings. In our evaluation of [petitioner’s] complaint, the latter alleged inter alia to have contributed immovable properties to the alleged partnership but the actionable document is not a public document and there was no inventory of immovable properties signed by the parties. Both the allegations in the complaint and the actionable documents considered, it is crystal clear that [petitioner] has no valid or legal right which could be violated by [respondents]. (Words in bracket added.)

                                                                                          Under the second assigned

error, it is petitioner’s posture that Annex “A-1”, assuming its inefficacy or nullity as a partnership document, nevertheless created demandable rights in his favor. As petitioner succinctly puts it in this petition:

                         43. Contrariwise, this actionable document, especially its

above-quoted provisions, established an actionable contract even though it may not be a partnership. This actionable contract is what is known as an innominate contract (Civil Code, Article 1307).

                          44.  It may not be a contract of loan, or a mortgage or

whatever, but surely the contract does create rights and obligations of the parties and which rights and obligations may be enforceable and demandable. Just because the relationship created by the agreement cannot be specifically labeled or pigeonholed into a category of nominate contract does not mean it is void or unenforceable.  

                     Petitioner has thus thrusted the notion of an innominate contract  on  this  Court - and earlier on the CA after he experienced a reversal of fortune thereat - as an afterthought. The appellate court, however, cannot really be faulted for not yielding to petitioner’s dubious stratagem of altering his theory of joint venture/partnership  to  an  innominate  contract.  For, at bottom, the  appellate  court’s certiorari jurisdiction was circumscribed by what was alleged to have been the order/s issued by the trial court in grave abuse of discretion. As respondent Yang pointedly observed,[28] since the parties’ basic position had been well-defined, that of petitioner being that the actionable document established a partnership/joint venture, it is on those positions that the appellate court exercised its certiorari jurisdiction. Petitioner’s act of changing his original theory is an impermissible practice and constitutes, as the CA aptly declared, an admission of the untenability of such theory in the first place.                    [Petitioner] is now humming a different tune . . . . In a sudden

twist of stance, he has now contended that the actionable instrument may be considered an innominate contract. xxx Verily, this now changes [petitioner’s] theory of the case which is not only prohibited by the Rules but also is an implied admission that the very theory he himself … has adopted, filed and prosecuted before the respondent court is erroneous.

                         Be that as it may . …. We hold that this new theory

contravenes [petitioner’s] theory of the actionable document being a partnership document. If anything, it is so obvious we do have to test the sufficiency of the cause of action on the basis of

partnership law xxx.[29] (Emphasis in the original; Words in bracket added).

       But even assuming in gratia argumenti that Annex “A-1” partakes of   a perfected innominate contract, petitioner’s complaint would still be dismissible as against Eduardo and, more so, against Yang. It cannot be over-emphasized that petitioner points to Eduardo as the author of Annex “A-1”. Withal, even on this consideration alone, petitioner’s claim against Yang is doomed from the very start.          As it were,  the only portion of Annex “A-1” which  could perhaps be remotely regarded as vesting petitioner with a right to demand from respondent Eduardo  the observance of a determinate conduct, reads:                        xxx You will be the only one left with the company, among us

brothers and I will ask you to stay as I want you to run this office everytime I am away.   I want you to run it the way I am trying to run it because I will be alone and I will depend entirely to you, My sons will not be ready to help me yet until about maybe 15/20 years from now. Whatever is left in the corporation, I will make sure that you get ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00) or ten percent (10%) equity, whichever is greater. (Underscoring added)

                                                                                                              It is at once

apparent that what respondent Eduardo imposed upon himself under the above passage, if he indeed wrote Annex “A-1”, is a promise which is not to be performed within one year from “contract” execution on June 22, 1973.  Accordingly, the agreement embodied in Annex “A-1” is covered by the Statute of Frauds and ergo unenforceable for non-compliance therewith.[30]  By force of the statute of frauds, an agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing and subscribed by the party charged. Corollarily, no action can be proved unless the requirement exacted by the statute of frauds is complied with.[31]

                                                                                                           Lest it be

overlooked, petitioner is the intended beneficiary of the P1 Million or 10% equity of the family businesses supposedly promised by Eduardo to give in the near future. Any suggestion that the stated amount or the equity component of the promise was intended to go to a common fund would be to read something not written in Annex “A-1”. Thus, even this angle alone argues against the very idea of a partnership, the creation of which requires two or more contracting minds mutually agreeing to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits between or among themselves.[32] 

                                                                                                         In sum then, the Court rules, as did the CA, that petitioner’s complaint for specific performance anchored on an actionable document of partnership which is legally inexistent or void or, at best, unenforceable does not state a cause of action as against respondent Eduardo and the corporate defendants. And if no of action can successfully be maintained against respondent Eduardo because no valid partnership existed between him and petitioner, the Court cannot see its way clear on how the same action could plausibly prosper against Yang.  Surely, Yang could not have become a partner in, or could not have had any form of business relationship with, an inexistent partnership. 

          As may be noted, petitioner has not, in his complaint, provide the logical nexus that would tie Yang to him as his partner.  In fact, attendant circumstances would indicate the contrary. Consider:

                                                                                                                          1. Petitioner asserted in his complaint that his so-called joint venture/partnership with Eduardo was “for the continuation of their family business and common family funds which were theretofore being mainly managed by Eduardo.” [33] But Yang denies kinship with the Litonjua family and petitioner has not disputed the disclaimer.

                                                                                                                            2. In some detail, petitioner mentioned what he had contributed to the joint venture/partnership with Eduardo and what his share in the businesses will be. No allegation is made whatsoever about what Yang contributed, if any, let alone his proportional share in the profits. But such allegation cannot, however, be made because, as aptly observed by the CA, the actionable document did not contain such provision, let alone mention the name of Yang.  How, indeed, could a person be considered a partner when the document purporting to establish the partnership contract did not even mention his name. 

                                                                                                                             3. Petitioner  states  in  par. 2.01 of the complaint that “[he] and Eduardo are business partners in the [respondent] corporations,” while “Bobby is his and Eduardo’s partner in their Odeon Theater investment’ (par. 2.03). This means that the partnership between petitioner and Eduardo came first; Yang became their partner in their Odeon Theater investment thereafter. Several paragraphs later, however, petitioner would contradict himself by alleging that  his “investment and that of  Eduardo and Yang in the Odeon theater business has expanded through a reinvestment of profit income and direct investments in several corporation including but not limited to [six] corporate respondents” This simply means that  the “Odeon Theatre business” came before the corporate respondents. Significantly enough, petitioner refers to the corporate respondents as “progeny” of the Odeon Theatre business.[34]   

           Needless to stress, petitioner has not sufficiently established in his complaint the legal vinculum whence he sourced his right to drag Yang into the fray. The Court of Appeals, in its assailed decision, captured and formulated the legal situation in the following wise:

                                                                                                                         [Respondent] Yang, … is impleaded because, as alleged in the complaint, he is a “partner” of [Eduardo] and the [petitioner] in the Odeon Theater Investment which expanded through reinvestments of profits and direct investments in several corporations, thus: 

                                                                                                                                                xxx                               xxx                                                                                                                                                xxx 

                                                                                                                        Clearly, [petitioner’s] claim against … Yang arose from his alleged partnership with petitioner and the …respondent. However, there was NO allegation in the complaint which directly

alleged how the supposed contractual relation was created between [petitioner] and …Yang. More importantly, however, the foregoing ruling of this Court that the purported partnership between [Eduardo] is void and legally inexistent directly affects said claim against …Yang. Since [petitioner] is trying to establish his claim against … Yang by linking him to the legally inexistent partnership . . . such attempt had become futile because there was NOTHING that would contractually connect [petitioner] and … Yang. To establish a valid cause of action, the complaint should have a statement of fact upon which to connect [respondent] Yang to the alleged partnership between [petitioner] and respondent [Eduardo], including their alleged investment in the Odeon Theater. A statement of facts on those matters is pivotal to the complaint as they would constitute the ultimate facts necessary to establish the elements of a cause of action against … Yang. [35]

  Pressing its point, the CA later stated in its resolution denying petitioner’s

motion for reconsideration the following: 

xxx Whatever the complaint calls it, it is the actionable document attached to the complaint that is controlling. Suffice it to state, We have not ignored the actionable document … As a matter of fact, We emphasized in our decision … that insofar as [Yang] is concerned, he is not even mentioned in the said actionable document. We are therefore puzzled how a person not mentioned in a document purporting to establish a partnership could be considered a partner.[36] (Words in bracket ours).

  

The last issue raised by petitioner, referring to whether or not he changed his theory of the case, as peremptorily determined by the CA, has been discussed at length earlier and need not detain us long. Suffice it to say that after the CA has ruled that the alleged partnership is inexistent, petitioner took a different tack. Thus, from a joint venture/partnership theory which he adopted and consistently pursued in his complaint, petitioner embraced the innominate contract theory. Illustrative of this shift is petitioner’s statement in par. #8 of his motion for reconsideration of the CA’s decision combined with what he said in par. # 43 of this petition, as follows:

 8. Whether or not the actionable document creates a

partnership, joint venture, or whatever, is a legal matter. What is determinative for  purposes of sufficiency of the complainant’s allegations, is whether the actionable document bears out an actionable contract – be it a partnership, a joint venture or whatever or some innominate contract … It may be noted that one kind of innominate contract is what is known as du ut facias (I give that you may do).[37] 

 43. Contrariwise, this actionable document, especially its

above-quoted provisions, established an actionable contract even though it may not be a partnership. This actionable contract is what is known as an innominate contract (Civil Code, Article 1307).[38]

  

          Springing surprises on the opposing party is offensive to the sporting idea of fair play, justice and due process; hence, the proscription against a party shifting from one theory at the trial court to a new and different theory in the appellate

court.[39] On the same rationale, an issue which was neither averred in the complaint cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[40]  It is not difficult, therefore, to agree with the CA when it made short shrift of petitioner’s innominate contract theory on the basis of the foregoing basic reasons.                     Petitioner’s protestation that his act of introducing  the concept of innominate contract was not a case of changing theories but of supporting his pleaded cause of action – that of the existence of a partnership - by another legal perspective/argument, strikes the Court  as a strained attempt to rationalize an untenable position. Paragraph 12 of his motion for reconsideration of the CA’s decision virtually relegates partnership as a fall-back theory. Two paragraphs later, in the same notion, petitioner faults the appellate court for reading, with myopic eyes, the actionable document solely as establishing a partnership/joint venture. Verily, the cited paragraphs are a study of a party hedging on whether or not to pursue the original cause of action or altogether abandoning the same, thus:                                                                                                                          

           12. Incidentally, assuming that the actionable document created a partnership between [respondent] Eduardo, Sr. and [petitioner], no immovables were contributed to this partnership. xxx

                                                                                                                         14. All told, the Decision takes off from a false premise that the actionable document attached to the complaint does not establish a contractual relationship between [petitioner] and … Eduardo, Sr. and Roberto T Yang simply because his document does not  create a partnership or a joint venture. This is … a myopic reading of the actionable document.

                                                                                                                                              Per the Court’s own count, petitioner used in his complaint the mixed words “joint venture/partnership”  nineteen (19) times and the term “partner” four (4) times.  He made reference to the “law of joint venture/partnership [being applicable] to the business relationship … between  [him],  Eduardo  and  Bobby  [Yang]”  and  to  his “rights in  all  specific  properties  of  their  joint  venture/partnership”. Given this consideration, petitioner’s right of action against respondents Eduardo and Yang doubtless pivots on the existence of the partnership  between  the three of them, as purportedly evidenced by  the  undated  and  unsigned  Annex “A-1”. A void Annex “A-1”, as  an  actionable  document  of  partnership, would strip petitioner of  a  cause  of  action  under  the  premises.  A complaint for delivery and accounting of partnership property based on such void or legally non-existent actionable document is dismissible for failure to state of action. So, in gist, said the Court of Appeals. The Court agrees.             WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the impugned Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.           Cost against the petitioner. 

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-45425             April 29, 1939

JOSE GATCHALIAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs.THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, defendant-appellee.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover from the defendant Collector of Internal Revenue the sum of P1,863.44, with legal interest thereon, which they paid under protest by way of income tax. They appealed from the decision rendered in the case on October 23, 1936 by the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, which dismissed the action with the costs against them.

The case was submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of facts:

Come now the parties to the above-mentioned case, through their respective undersigned attorneys, and hereby agree to respectfully submit to this Honorable Court the case upon the following statement of facts:

1. That plaintiff are all residents of the municipality of Pulilan, Bulacan, and that defendant is the Collector of Internal Revenue of the Philippines;

2. That prior to December 15, 1934 plaintiffs, in order to enable them to purchase one sweepstakes ticket valued at two pesos (P2), subscribed and paid therefor the amounts as follows:

1. Jose Gatchalian ....................................................................................................

P0.18

2. Gregoria Cristobal ...............................................................................................

.18

3. Saturnina Silva .................................................................................................... .08

4. Guillermo Tapia ................................................................................................... .13

5. Jesus Legaspi ......................................................................................................

.15

6. Jose Silva .............................................................................................................

.07

7. Tomasa Mercado ................................................................................................

.08

8. Julio Gatchalian ...................................................................................................

.13

9. Emiliana Santiago ................................................................................................

.13

10. Maria C. Legaspi ............................................................................................... .16

11. Francisco Cabral ............................................................................................... .13

12. Gonzalo Javier .................................................................................................... .14

13. Maria Santiago ...................................................................................................

.17

14. Buenaventura Guzman ...................................................................................... .13

15. Mariano Santos ................................................................................................. .14

Total ........................................................................................................ 2.00

3. That immediately thereafter but prior to December 15, 1934, plaintiffs purchased, in the ordinary course of business, from one of the duly authorized agents of the National Charity Sweepstakes Office one ticket bearing No. 178637 for the sum of two pesos (P2) and that the said ticket was registered in the name of Jose Gatchalian and Company;

4. That as a result of the drawing of the sweepstakes on December 15, 1934, the above-mentioned ticket bearing No. 178637 won one of the third prizes in the amount of P50,000 and that the corresponding check covering the above-mentioned prize of P50,000 was drawn by the National Charity Sweepstakes Office in favor of Jose Gatchalian & Company against the Philippine National Bank, which check was cashed during the latter part of December, 1934 by Jose Gatchalian & Company;

5. That on December 29, 1934, Jose Gatchalian was required by income tax examiner Alfredo David to file the corresponding income tax return covering the prize won by Jose Gatchalian & Company and that on December 29, 1934, the said return was signed by Jose Gatchalian, a copy of which return is enclosed as Exhibit A and made a part hereof;

6. That on January 8, 1935, the defendant made an assessment against Jose Gatchalian & Company requesting the payment of the sum of P1,499.94 to the deputy provincial treasurer of Pulilan, Bulacan, giving to said Jose Gatchalian & Company until January 20, 1935 within which to pay the said amount of P1,499.94, a copy of which letter marked Exhibit B is enclosed and made a part hereof;

7. That on January 20, 1935, the plaintiffs, through their attorney, sent to defendant a reply, a copy of which marked Exhibit C is attached and made a part hereof, requesting exemption from payment of the income tax to which reply there were enclosed fifteen (15) separate individual income tax returns filed separately by each one of the plaintiffs, copies of which returns are attached and marked Exhibit D-1 to D-15, respectively, in order of their names listed in the caption of this case and made parts hereof; a statement of sale signed by Jose Gatchalian showing the amount put up by each of the plaintiffs to cover up the attached and marked as Exhibit E and made a part hereof; and a copy of the affidavit signed by Jose Gatchalian dated December 29, 1934 is attached and marked Exhibit F and made part thereof;

8. That the defendant in his letter dated January 28, 1935, a copy of which marked Exhibit G is enclosed, denied plaintiffs' request of January 20, 1935, for exemption from the payment of tax and reiterated his demand for the payment of the sum of P1,499.94 as income tax and gave plaintiffs until February 10, 1935 within which to pay the said tax;

9. That in view of the failure of the plaintiffs to pay the amount of tax demanded by the defendant, notwithstanding subsequent demand made by defendant upon the plaintiffs through their attorney on March 23, 1935, a copy of which marked Exhibit H is enclosed, defendant on May 13, 1935 issued a warrant of distraint and levy against the property of the plaintiffs, a copy of which warrant marked Exhibit I is enclosed and made a part hereof;

10. That to avoid embarrassment arising from the embargo of the property of the plaintiffs, the said plaintiffs on June 15, 1935, through Gregoria Cristobal, Maria C. Legaspi and Jesus Legaspi, paid under protest the sum of P601.51 as part of the tax and penalties to the municipal treasurer of Pulilan, Bulacan, as evidenced by official receipt No. 7454879 which is attached and marked Exhibit J and made a part hereof, and requested defendant that plaintiffs be allowed to pay under protest the balance of the tax and penalties by monthly installments;

11. That plaintiff's request to pay the balance of the tax and penalties was granted by defendant subject to the condition that plaintiffs file the usual bond secured by two solvent persons to guarantee prompt payment of each installments as it becomes due;

12. That on July 16, 1935, plaintiff filed a bond, a copy of which marked Exhibit K is enclosed and made a part hereof, to guarantee the payment of the balance of the alleged tax liability by monthly installments at the rate of P118.70 a month, the first payment under protest to be effected on or before July 31, 1935;

13. That on July 16, 1935 the said plaintiffs formally protested against the payment of the sum of P602.51, a copy of which protest is attached and marked Exhibit L, but that defendant in his letter dated August 1, 1935 overruled the protest and denied the request for refund of the plaintiffs;

14. That, in view of the failure of the plaintiffs to pay the monthly installments in accordance with the terms and conditions of bond filed by them, the defendant in his letter dated July 23, 1935, copy of which is attached and marked Exhibit M, ordered the municipal treasurer of Pulilan, Bulacan to execute within five days the warrant of distraint and levy issued against the plaintiffs on May 13, 1935;

15. That in order to avoid annoyance and embarrassment arising from the levy of their property, the plaintiffs on August 28, 1936, through Jose Gatchalian, Guillermo Tapia, Maria Santiago and Emiliano Santiago, paid under protest to the municipal treasurer of Pulilan, Bulacan the sum of P1,260.93 representing the unpaid balance of the income tax and penalties demanded by defendant as evidenced by income tax receipt No. 35811 which is attached and marked Exhibit N and made a part hereof; and that on September 3, 1936, the plaintiffs formally protested to the defendant against the payment of said amount and requested the refund thereof, copy of which is attached and marked Exhibit O and made part hereof; but that on September 4, 1936, the defendant overruled the protest and denied the refund thereof; copy of which is attached and marked Exhibit P and made a part hereof; and

16. That plaintiffs demanded upon defendant the refund of the total sum of one thousand eight hundred and sixty three pesos and forty-four centavos (P1,863.44) paid under protest by them but that defendant refused and still refuses to refund the said amount notwithstanding the plaintiffs' demands.

17. The parties hereto reserve the right to present other and additional evidence if necessary.

Exhibit E referred to in the stipulation is of the following tenor:

To whom it may concern:

I, Jose Gatchalian, a resident of Pulilan, Bulacan, married, of age, hereby certify, that on the 11th day of August, 1934, I sold parts of my shares on ticket No. 178637 to the persons

and for the amount indicated below and the part of may share remaining is also shown to wit:

Purchaser

Amount Address

1. Mariano Santos ........................................... P0.14 Pulilan, Bulacan.

2. Buenaventura Guzman ............................... .13 - Do -

3. Maria Santiago ............................................ .17 - Do -

4. Gonzalo Javier .............................................. .14 - Do -

5. Francisco Cabral .......................................... .13 - Do -

6. Maria C. Legaspi .......................................... .16 - Do -

7. Emiliana Santiago ......................................... .13 - Do -

8. Julio Gatchalian ............................................ .13 - Do -

9. Jose Silva ...................................................... .07 - Do -

10. Tomasa Mercado ....................................... .08 - Do -

11. Jesus Legaspi ............................................. .15 - Do -

12. Guillermo Tapia ........................................... .13 - Do -

13. Saturnina Silva ............................................ .08 - Do -

14. Gregoria Cristobal ....................................... .18 - Do -

15. Jose Gatchalian ............................................ .18 - Do -

2.00

Total cost of saiD

ticket; and that, therefore, the persons named above are entitled to the parts of whatever prize that might be won by said ticket.

Pulilan, Bulacan, P.I.

(Sgd.) JOSE GATCHALIAN

And a summary of Exhibits D-1 to D-15 is inserted in the bill of exceptions as follows:RECAPITULATIONS OF 15 INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1934 ALL

DATED JANUARY 19, 1935 SUBMITTED TO THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

The legal questions raised in plaintiffs-appellants' five assigned errors may properly be reduced to the two following: (1) Whether the plaintiffs formed a partnership, or merely a community of property without a personality of its own; in the first case it is admitted that the partnership thus formed is liable for the payment of income tax, whereas if there was merely a community of property, they are exempt from such payment; and (2) whether they should pay the tax collectively or whether the latter should be prorated among them and paid individually.

The Collector of Internal Revenue collected the tax under section 10 of Act No. 2833, as last amended by section 2 of Act No. 3761, reading as follows:

SEC. 10. (a) There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually upon the total net income received in the preceding calendar year from all sources by every corporation, joint-stock company, partnership, joint account (cuenta en participacion), association or insurance company, organized in the Philippine Islands, no matter how created or organized, but not including duly registered general copartnership (compañias colectivas), a tax of three per centum upon such income; and a like tax shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually upon the total net income received in the preceding calendar year from all sources within the Philippine Islands by every corporation, joint-stock company, partnership, joint account (cuenta en participacion), association, or insurance company organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of any foreign country, including interest on bonds, notes, or other interest-bearing obligations of residents, corporate or otherwise: Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall be construed as permitting the taxation of the income derived from dividends or net profits on which the normal tax has been paid.

The gain derived or loss sustained from the sale or other disposition by a corporation, joint-stock company, partnership, joint account (cuenta en participacion), association, or insurance company, or property, real, personal, or mixed, shall be ascertained in accordance with subsections (c) and (d) of section two of Act Numbered Two thousand eight hundred and thirty-three, as amended by Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred and twenty-six.

The foregoing tax rate shall apply to the net income received by every taxable corporation, joint-stock company, partnership, joint account (cuenta en participacion), association, or insurance company in the calendar year nineteen hundred and twenty and in each year thereafter.

There is no doubt that if the plaintiffs merely formed a community of property the latter is exempt from the payment of income tax under the law. But according to the stipulation facts the plaintiffs organized a partnership of a civil nature because each of them put up money to buy a sweepstakes ticket for the sole purpose of dividing equally the prize which they may win, as they did in fact in the amount of P50,000 (article 1665, Civil Code). The partnership was not only formed, but upon the organization thereof and the winning of the prize, Jose Gatchalian personally appeared in the office of the Philippines Charity Sweepstakes, in his capacity as co-partner, as such collection the prize, the office issued the check for P50,000 in favor of Jose Gatchalian and company, and the said partner, in the same capacity,

collected the said check. All these circumstances repel the idea that the plaintiffs organized and formed a community of property only.

Having organized and constituted a partnership of a civil nature, the said entity is the one bound to pay the income tax which the defendant collected under the aforesaid section 10 (a) of Act No. 2833, as amended by section 2 of Act No. 3761. There is no merit in plaintiff's contention that the tax should be prorated among them and paid individually, resulting in their exemption from the tax.

In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is affirmed, with the costs of this instance to the plaintiffs appellants. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-19342 May 25, 1972

LORENZO T. OÑA and HEIRS OF JULIA BUÑALES, namely: RODOLFO B. OÑA, MARIANO B. OÑA, LUZ B. OÑA, VIRGINIA B. OÑA and LORENZO B. OÑA, JR., petitioners, vs.THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.

Orlando Velasco for petitioners.

Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete, and Special Attorney Purificacion Ureta for respondent.

 

BARREDO, J.:p

Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 617, similarly entitled as above, holding that petitioners have constituted an unregistered partnership and are, therefore, subject to the payment of the deficiency corporate income taxes assessed against them by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the years 1955 and 1956 in the total sum of P21,891.00, plus 5% surcharge and 1% monthly interest from December 15, 1958, subject to the provisions of Section 51 (e) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 2343 and the costs of the suit, 1 as well as the resolution of said court denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of said decision.

The facts are stated in the decision of the Tax Court as follows:

Julia Buñales died on March 23, 1944, leaving as heirs her surviving spouse, Lorenzo T. Oña and her five children. In 1948, Civil Case No. 4519 was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the settlement of her estate. Later, Lorenzo T. Oña the surviving spouse was appointed administrator of the estate of said deceased (Exhibit 3, pp. 34-41, BIR rec.). On April 14, 1949, the administrator submitted the project of partition, which was approved by the Court on May 16, 1949 (See Exhibit K). Because three of the heirs, namely Luz, Virginia and Lorenzo, Jr., all surnamed Oña, were still minors when the project of partition was approved, Lorenzo T. Oña, their father and administrator of the estate, filed a petition in Civil Case No. 9637 of the Court of First Instance of Manila for appointment as guardian of said minors. On November 14, 1949, the Court appointed him guardian of the persons and property of the aforenamed minors (See p. 3, BIR rec.).

The project of partition (Exhibit K; see also pp. 77-70, BIR rec.) shows that the heirs have undivided one-half (1/2) interest in ten parcels of land with a total assessed value of P87,860.00, six houses with a total assessed value of P17,590.00 and an undetermined amount to be collected from the War Damage Commission. Later, they received from said Commission the amount of P50,000.00, more or less. This amount was not divided among them but was used in the rehabilitation of properties owned by them in common (t.s.n., p. 46). Of the ten parcels of

land aforementioned, two were acquired after the death of the decedent with money borrowed from the Philippine Trust Company in the amount of P72,173.00 (t.s.n., p. 24; Exhibit 3, pp. 31-34 BIR rec.).

The project of partition also shows that the estate shares equally with Lorenzo T. Oña, the administrator thereof, in the obligation of P94,973.00, consisting of loans contracted by the latter with the approval of the Court (see p. 3 of Exhibit K; or see p. 74, BIR rec.).

Although the project of partition was approved by the Court on May 16, 1949, no attempt was made to divide the properties therein listed. Instead, the properties remained under the management of Lorenzo T. Oña who used said properties in business by leasing or selling them and investing the income derived therefrom and the proceeds from the sales thereof in real properties and securities. As a result, petitioners' properties and investments gradually increased from P105,450.00 in 1949 to P480,005.20 in 1956 as can be gleaned from the following year-end balances:

Year

Investment

Land

Building

Account

Account

Account

1949 — P87,860.00 P17,590.00

1950 P24,657.65 128,566.72 96,076.26

1951 51,301.31 120,349.28 110,605.11

1952 67,927.52 87,065.28 152,674.39

1953 61,258.27 84,925.68 161,463.83

1954 63,623.37 99,001.20 167,962.04

1955 100,786.00 120,249.78 169,262.52

1956 175,028.68 135,714.68 169,262.52

(See Exhibits 3 & K t.s.n., pp. 22, 25-26, 40, 50, 102-104)

From said investments and properties petitioners derived such incomes as profits from installment sales of subdivided lots, profits from sales of stocks, dividends, rentals and interests (see p. 3 of Exhibit 3; p. 32, BIR rec.; t.s.n., pp. 37-38). The said incomes are recorded in the books of account kept by Lorenzo T. Oña where

the corresponding shares of the petitioners in the net income for the year are also known. Every year, petitioners returned for income tax purposes their shares in the net income derived from said properties and securities and/or from transactions involving them (Exhibit 3,supra; t.s.n., pp. 25-26). However, petitioners did not actually receive their shares in the yearly income. (t.s.n., pp. 25-26, 40, 98, 100). The income was always left in the hands of Lorenzo T. Oña who, as heretofore pointed out, invested them in real properties and securities. (See Exhibit 3, t.s.n., pp. 50, 102-104).

On the basis of the foregoing facts, respondent (Commissioner of Internal Revenue) decided that petitioners formed an unregistered partnership and therefore, subject to the corporate income tax, pursuant to Section 24, in relation to Section 84(b), of the Tax Code. Accordingly, he assessed against the petitioners the amounts of P8,092.00 and P13,899.00 as corporate income taxes for 1955 and 1956, respectively. (See Exhibit 5, amended by Exhibit 17, pp. 50 and 86, BIR rec.). Petitioners protested against the assessment and asked for reconsideration of the ruling of respondent that they have formed an unregistered partnership. Finding no merit in petitioners' request, respondent denied it (See Exhibit 17, p. 86, BIR rec.). (See pp. 1-4, Memorandum for Respondent, June 12, 1961).

The original assessment was as follows:

1955

Net income as per investigation ................ P40,209.89

Income tax due thereon ............................... 8,042.0025% surcharge .............................................. 2,010.50Compromise for non-filing .......................... 50.00Total ............................................................... P10,102.50

1956

Net income as per investigation ................ P69,245.23

Income tax due thereon ............................... 13,849.0025% surcharge .............................................. 3,462.25Compromise for non-filing .......................... 50.00Total ............................................................... P17,361.25

(See Exhibit 13, page 50, BIR records)

Upon further consideration of the case, the 25% surcharge was eliminated in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Collector v. Batangas Transportation Co., G.R. No. L-9692, Jan. 6, 1958, so that the questioned assessment refers solely to the income tax proper for the years 1955 and 1956 and the "Compromise for non-filing," the latter item obviously referring to the compromise in lieu

of the criminal liability for failure of petitioners to file the corporate income tax returns for said years. (See Exh. 17, page 86, BIR records). (Pp. 1-3, Annex C to Petition)

Petitioners have assigned the following as alleged errors of the Tax Court:

I.

THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS FORMED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP;

II.

THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES INHERITED AND (THE) PROFITS DERIVED FROM TRANSACTIONS THEREFROM (sic);

III.

THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS WERE LIABLE FOR CORPORATE INCOME TAXES FOR 1955 AND 1956 AS AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP;

IV.

ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PETITIONERS CONSTITUTED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP TO THE EXTENT ONLY THAT THEY INVESTED THE PROFITS FROM THE PROPERTIES OWNED IN COMMON AND THE LOANS RECEIVED USING THE INHERITED PROPERTIES AS COLLATERALS;

V .

ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DEDUCTING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS PAID BY THE PETITIONERS AS INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX ON THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES OF THE PROFITS ACCRUING FROM THE PROPERTIES OWNED IN COMMON, FROM THE DEFICIENCY TAX OF THE UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP.

In other words, petitioners pose for our resolution the following questions: (1) Under the facts found by the Court of Tax Appeals, should petitioners be considered as co-owners of the properties inherited by them from the deceased Julia Buñales and the profits derived from transactions involving the same, or, must they be deemed to have formed an unregistered partnership subject to tax under Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code? (2) Assuming they have formed an unregistered partnership, should this not be only in the sense that they invested as a common fund the profits earned by the properties owned by them in common and the loans granted to them upon the security of the said properties, with the result

that as far as their respective shares in the inheritance are concerned, the total income thereof should be considered as that of co-owners and not of the unregistered partnership? And (3) assuming again that they are taxable as an unregistered partnership, should not the various amounts already paid by them for the same years 1955 and 1956 as individual income taxes on their respective shares of the profits accruing from the properties they owned in common be deducted from the deficiency corporate taxes, herein involved, assessed against such unregistered partnership by the respondent Commissioner?

Pondering on these questions, the first thing that has struck the Court is that whereas petitioners' predecessor in interest died way back on March 23, 1944 and the project of partition of her estate was judicially approved as early as May 16, 1949, and presumably petitioners have been holding their respective shares in their inheritance since those dates admittedly under the administration or management of the head of the family, the widower and father Lorenzo T. Oña, the assessment in question refers to the later years 1955 and 1956. We believe this point to be important because, apparently, at the start, or in the years 1944 to 1954, the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue did treat petitioners as co-owners, not liable to corporate tax, and it was only from 1955 that he considered them as having formed an unregistered partnership. At least, there is nothing in the record indicating that an earlier assessment had already been made. Such being the case, and We see no reason how it could be otherwise, it is easily understandable why petitioners' position that they are co-owners and not unregistered co-partners, for the purposes of the impugned assessment, cannot be upheld. Truth to tell, petitioners should find comfort in the fact that they were not similarly assessed earlier by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

The Tax Court found that instead of actually distributing the estate of the deceased among themselves pursuant to the project of partition approved in 1949, "the properties remained under the management of Lorenzo T. Oña who used said properties in business by leasing or selling them and investing the income derived therefrom and the proceed from the sales thereof in real properties and securities," as a result of which said properties and investments steadily increased yearly from P87,860.00 in "land account" and P17,590.00 in "building account" in 1949 to P175,028.68 in "investment account," P135.714.68 in "land account" and P169,262.52 in "building account" in 1956. And all these became possible because, admittedly, petitioners never actually received any share of the income or profits from Lorenzo T. Oña and instead, they allowed him to continue using said shares as part of the common fund for their ventures, even as they paid the corresponding income taxes on the basis of their respective shares of the profits of their common business as reported by the said Lorenzo T. Oña.

It is thus incontrovertible that petitioners did not, contrary to their contention, merely limit themselves to holding the properties inherited by them. Indeed, it is admitted that during the material years herein involved, some of the said properties were sold at considerable profit, and that with said profit, petitioners engaged, thru Lorenzo T. Oña, in the purchase and sale of corporate securities. It is likewise admitted that all the profits from these ventures were divided among petitioners proportionately in accordance with their respective shares in the inheritance. In these circumstances, it is Our considered view that from the moment petitioners allowed not only the incomes from their respective shares of the inheritance but even the inherited properties themselves to be used by Lorenzo T. Oña as a common fund in undertaking several transactions or in business, with the intention of deriving profit to be shared by them proportionally, such act was tantamonut to actually contributing such incomes to a common fund and, in effect, they thereby

formed an unregistered partnership within the purview of the above-mentioned provisions of the Tax Code.

It is but logical that in cases of inheritance, there should be a period when the heirs can be considered as co-owners rather than unregistered co-partners within the contemplation of our corporate tax laws aforementioned. Before the partition and distribution of the estate of the deceased, all the income thereof does belong commonly to all the heirs, obviously, without them becoming thereby unregistered co-partners, but it does not necessarily follow that such status as co-owners continues until the inheritance is actually and physically distributed among the heirs, for it is easily conceivable that after knowing their respective shares in the partition, they might decide to continue holding said shares under the common management of the administrator or executor or of anyone chosen by them and engage in business on that basis. Withal, if this were to be allowed, it would be the easiest thing for heirs in any inheritance to circumvent and render meaningless Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code.

It is true that in Evangelista vs. Collector, 102 Phil. 140, it was stated, among the reasons for holding the appellants therein to be unregistered co-partners for tax purposes, that their common fund "was not something they found already in existence" and that "it was not a property inherited by them pro indiviso," but it is certainly far fetched to argue therefrom, as petitioners are doing here, that ergo, in all instances where an inheritance is not actually divided, there can be no unregistered co-partnership. As already indicated, for tax purposes, the co-ownership of inherited properties is automatically converted into an unregistered partnership the moment the said common properties and/or the incomes derived therefrom are used as a common fund with intent to produce profits for the heirs in proportion to their respective shares in the inheritance as determined in a project partition either duly executed in an extrajudicial settlement or approved by the court in the corresponding testate or intestate proceeding. The reason for this is simple. From the moment of such partition, the heirs are entitled already to their respective definite shares of the estate and the incomes thereof, for each of them to manage and dispose of as exclusively his own without the intervention of the other heirs, and, accordingly he becomes liable individually for all taxes in connection therewith. If after such partition, he allows his share to be held in common with his co-heirs under a single management to be used with the intent of making profit thereby in proportion to his share, there can be no doubt that, even if no document or instrument were executed for the purpose, for tax purposes, at least, an unregistered partnership is formed. This is exactly what happened to petitioners in this case.

In this connection, petitioners' reliance on Article 1769, paragraph (3), of the Civil Code, providing that: "The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived," and, for that matter, on any other provision of said code on partnerships is unavailing. In Evangelista, supra, this Court clearly differentiated the concept of partnerships under the Civil Code from that of unregistered partnerships which are considered as "corporations" under Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Justice Roberto Concepcion, now Chief Justice, elucidated on this point thus:

To begin with, the tax in question is one imposed upon "corporations", which, strictly speaking, are distinct and different from "partnerships". When our Internal Revenue Code includes "partnerships" among the entities subject to the tax on "corporations", said Code must allude, therefore, to organizations which are not necessarily "partnerships", in the

technical sense of the term. Thus, for instance, section 24 of said Code exempts from the aforementioned tax "duly registered general partnerships," which constitute precisely one of the most typical forms of partnerships in this jurisdiction. Likewise, as defined in section 84(b) of said Code, "the term corporation includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized." This qualifying expression clearly indicates that a joint venture need not be undertaken in any of the standard forms, or in confirmity with the usual requirements of the law on partnerships, in order that one could be deemed constituted for purposes of the tax on corporation. Again, pursuant to said section 84(b),the term "corporation" includes, among others, "joint accounts,(cuentas en participacion)" and "associations", none of which has a legal personality of its own, independent of that of its members. Accordingly, the lawmaker could not have regarded that personality as a condition essential to the existence of the partnerships therein referred to. In fact, as above stated, "duly registered general co-partnerships" — which are possessed of the aforementioned personality — have been expressly excluded by law (sections 24 and 84[b]) from the connotation of the term "corporation." ....

xxx xxx xxx

Similarly, the American Law

... provides its own concept of a partnership. Under the term "partnership" it includes not only a partnership as known in common law but, as well, a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization which carries on any business, financial operation, or venture, and which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust, estate, or a corporation. ... . (7A Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 789; emphasis ours.)

The term "partnership" includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on. ... . (8 Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 562 Note 63; emphasis ours.)

For purposes of the tax on corporations, our National Internal Revenue Code includes these partnerships — with the exception only of duly registered general copartnerships — within the purview of the term "corporation." It is, therefore, clear to our mind that petitioners herein constitute a partnership, insofar as said Code is concerned, and are subject to the income tax for corporations.

We reiterated this view, thru Mr. Justice Fernando, in Reyes vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G. R. Nos. L-24020-21, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 198, wherein the Court ruled against a theory of co-ownership pursued by appellants therein.

As regards the second question raised by petitioners about the segregation, for the purposes of the corporate taxes in question, of their inherited properties from those acquired by them subsequently, We consider as justified the following ratiocination of the Tax Court in denying their motion for reconsideration:

In connection with the second ground, it is alleged that, if there was an unregistered partnership, the holding should be limited to the business engaged in apart from the properties inherited by petitioners. In other words, the taxable income of the partnership should be limited to the income derived from the acquisition and sale of real properties and corporate securities and should not include the income derived from the inherited properties. It is admitted that the inherited properties and the income derived therefrom were used in the business of buying and selling other real properties and corporate securities. Accordingly, the partnership income must include not only the income derived from the purchase and sale of other properties but also the income of the inherited properties.

Besides, as already observed earlier, the income derived from inherited properties may be considered as individual income of the respective heirs only so long as the inheritance or estate is not distributed or, at least, partitioned, but the moment their respective known shares are used as part of the common assets of the heirs to be used in making profits, it is but proper that the income of such shares should be considered as the part of the taxable income of an unregistered partnership. This, We hold, is the clear intent of the law.

Likewise, the third question of petitioners appears to have been adequately resolved by the Tax Court in the aforementioned resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the decision of said court. Pertinently, the court ruled this wise:

In support of the third ground, counsel for petitioners alleges:

Even if we were to yield to the decision of this Honorable Court that the herein petitioners have formed an unregistered partnership and, therefore, have to be taxed as such, it might be recalled that the petitioners in their individual income tax returns reported their shares of the profits of the unregistered partnership. We think it only fair and equitable that the various amounts paid by the individual petitioners as income tax on their respective shares of the unregistered partnership should be deducted from the deficiency income tax found by this Honorable Court against the unregistered partnership. (page 7, Memorandum for the Petitioner in Support of Their Motion for Reconsideration, Oct. 28, 1961.)

In other words, it is the position of petitioners that the taxable income of the partnership must be reduced by the amounts of income tax paid by each petitioner on his share of partnership profits. This is not correct; rather, it should be the other way around. The partnership profits distributable to the partners (petitioners herein) should be reduced by the amounts of income tax assessed against the partnership. Consequently, each of the petitioners in his individual capacity overpaid his income tax for the years in question, but the income tax due from the partnership has been correctly assessed. Since the individual income tax liabilities of petitioners are not in issue in this proceeding, it is not proper for the Court to pass upon the same.

Petitioners insist that it was error for the Tax Court to so rule that whatever excess they might have paid as individual income tax cannot be credited as part payment of the taxes herein in question. It is argued that to sanction the view of the Tax Court is to oblige petitioners to pay double income tax on the same income, and, worse, considering the time that has lapsed since they paid their individual income taxes, they may already be barred by prescription from recovering their overpayments in a separate action. We do not agree. As We see it, the case of petitioners as regards the point under discussion is simply that of a taxpayer who has paid the wrong tax, assuming that the failure to pay the corporate taxes in question was not deliberate. Of course, such taxpayer has the right to be reimbursed what he has erroneously paid, but the law is very clear that the claim and action for such reimbursement are subject to the bar of prescription. And since the period for the recovery of the excess income taxes in the case of herein petitioners has already lapsed, it would not seem right to virtually disregard prescription merely upon the ground that the reason for the delay is precisely because the taxpayers failed to make the proper return and payment of the corporate taxes legally due from them. In principle, it is but proper not to allow any relaxation of the tax laws in favor of persons who are not exactly above suspicion in their conduct vis-a-vis their tax obligation to the State.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals appealed from is affirm with costs against petitioners.

G.R. No. L-68118 October 29, 1985

JOSE P. OBILLOS, JR., SARAH P. OBILLOS, ROMEO P. OBILLOS and REMEDIOS P. OBILLOS, brothers and sisters, petitioners vs.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

Demosthenes B. Gadioma for petitioners.

 

AQUINO, J.:

This case is about the income tax liability of four brothers and sisters who sold two parcels of land which they had acquired from their father.

On March 2, 1973 Jose Obillos, Sr. completed payment to Ortigas & Co., Ltd. on two lots with areas of 1,124 and 963 square meters located at Greenhills, San Juan, Rizal. The next day he transferred his rights to his four children, the petitioners, to enable them to build their residences. The company sold the two lots to petitioners for P178,708.12 on March 13 (Exh. A and B, p. 44, Rollo). Presumably, the Torrens titles issued to them would show that they were co-owners of the two lots.

In 1974, or after having held the two lots for more than a year, the petitioners resold them to the Walled City Securities Corporation and Olga Cruz Canda for the total sum of P313,050 (Exh. C and D). They derived from the sale a total profit of P134,341.88 or P33,584 for each of them. They treated the profit as a capital gain and paid an income tax on one-half thereof or of P16,792.

In April, 1980, or one day before the expiration of the five-year prescriptive period, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue required the four petitioners to pay corporate income tax on the total profit of P134,336 in addition to individual income tax on their shares thereof He assessed P37,018 as corporate income tax, P18,509 as 50% fraud surcharge and P15,547.56 as 42% accumulated interest, or a total of P71,074.56.

Not only that. He considered the share of the profits of each petitioner in the sum of P33,584 as a " taxable in full (not a mere capital gain of which ½ is taxable) and required them to pay deficiency income taxes aggregating P56,707.20 including the 50% fraud surcharge and the accumulated interest.

Thus, the petitioners are being held liable for deficiency income taxes and penalties totalling P127,781.76 on their profit of P134,336, in addition to the tax on capital gains already paid by them.

The Commissioner acted on the theory that the four petitioners had formed an unregistered partnership or joint venture within the meaning of sections 24(a) and 84(b) of the Tax Code (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Batangas Trans. Co., 102 Phil. 822).

The petitioners contested the assessments. Two Judges of the Tax Court sustained the same. Judge Roaquin dissented. Hence, the instant appeal.

We hold that it is error to consider the petitioners as having formed a partnership under article 1767 of the Civil Code simply because they allegedly contributed P178,708.12 to buy the two lots, resold the same and divided the profit among themselves.

To regard the petitioners as having formed a taxable unregistered partnership would result in oppressive taxation and confirm the dictum that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. That eventuality should be obviated.

As testified by Jose Obillos, Jr., they had no such intention. They were co-owners pure and simple. To consider them as partners would obliterate the distinction between a co-ownership and a partnership. The petitioners were not engaged in any joint venture by reason of that isolated transaction.

Their original purpose was to divide the lots for residential purposes. If later on they found it not feasible to build their residences on the lots because of the high cost of construction, then they had no choice but to resell the same to dissolve the co-ownership. The division of the profit was merely incidental to the dissolution of the co-ownership which was in the nature of things a temporary state. It had to be terminated sooner or later. Castan Tobeñas says:

Como establecer el deslinde entre la comunidad ordinaria o copropiedad y la sociedad?

El criterio diferencial-segun la doctrina mas generalizada-esta: por razon del origen, en que la sociedad presupone necesariamente la convencion, mentras que la comunidad puede existir y existe ordinariamente sin ela; y por razon del fin objecto, en que el objeto de la sociedad es obtener lucro, mientras que el de la indivision es solo mantener en su integridad la cosa comun y favorecer su conservacion.

Reflejo de este criterio es la sentencia de 15 de Octubre de 1940, en la que se dice que si en nuestro Derecho positive se ofrecen a veces dificultades al tratar de fijar la linea divisoria entre comunidad de bienes y contrato de sociedad, la moderna orientacion de la doctrina cientifica señala como nota fundamental de diferenciacion aparte del origen de fuente de que surgen, no siempre uniforme, la finalidad perseguida por los interesados: lucro comun partible en la sociedad, y mera conservacion y aprovechamiento en la comunidad. (Derecho Civil Espanol, Vol. 2, Part 1, 10 Ed., 1971, 328- 329).

Article 1769(3) of the Civil Code provides that "the sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived". There must be an unmistakable intention to form a partnership or joint venture.*

Such intent was present in Gatchalian vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 67 Phil. 666, where 15 persons contributed small amounts to purchase a two-peso sweepstakes ticket with the agreement that they would divide the prize The ticket won the third prize of P50,000. The 15 persons were held liable for income tax as an unregistered partnership.

The instant case is distinguishable from the cases where the parties engaged in joint ventures for profit. Thus, in Oña vs.

** This view is supported by the following rulings of respondent Commissioner:

Co-owership distinguished from partnership.—We find that the case at bar is fundamentally similar to the De Leon case. Thus, like the De Leon heirs, the Longa heirs inherited the 'hacienda' in questionpro-indiviso from their deceased parents; they did not contribute or invest additional ' capital to increase or expand the inherited properties; they merely continued dedicating the property to the use to which it had been put by their forebears; they individually reported in their tax returns their corresponding shares in the income and expenses of the 'hacienda', and they continued for many years the status of co-ownership in order, as conceded by respondent, 'to preserve its (the 'hacienda') value and to continue the existing contractual relations with the Central Azucarera de Bais for milling purposes. Longa vs. Aranas, CTA Case No. 653, July 31, 1963).

All co-ownerships are not deemed unregistered pratnership.—Co-Ownership who own properties which produce income should not automatically be considered partners of an unregistered

partnership, or a corporation, within the purview of the income tax law. To hold otherwise, would be to subject the income of all co-ownerships of inherited properties to the tax on corporations, inasmuch as if a property does not produce an income at all, it is not subject to any kind of income tax, whether the income tax on individuals or the income tax on corporation. (De Leon vs. CI R, CTA Case No. 738, September 11, 1961, cited in Arañas, 1977 Tax Code Annotated, Vol. 1, 1979 Ed., pp. 77-78).

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-19342, May 25, 1972, 45 SCRA 74, where after an extrajudicial settlement the co-heirs used the inheritance or the incomes derived therefrom as a common fund to produce profits for themselves, it was held that they were taxable as an unregistered partnership.

It is likewise different from Reyes vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 24 SCRA 198, where father and son purchased a lot and building, entrusted the administration of the building to an administrator and divided equally the net income, and from Evangelista vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 102 Phil. 140, where the three Evangelista sisters bought four pieces of real property which they leased to various tenants and derived rentals therefrom. Clearly, the petitioners in these two cases had formed an unregistered partnership.

In the instant case, what the Commissioner should have investigated was whether the father donated the two lots to the petitioners and whether he paid the donor's tax (See Art. 1448, Civil Code). We are not prejudging this matter. It might have already prescribed.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Tax Court is reversed and set aside. The assessments are cancelled. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 136448 November 3, 1999

LIM TONG LIM, petitioner, vs.PHILIPPINE FISHING GEAR INDUSTRIES, INC., respondent.

 

A partnership may be deemed to exist among parties who agree to borrow money to pursue a business and to divide the profits or losses that may arise therefrom, even if it is shown that they have not contributed any capital of their own to a "common fund." Their contribution may be in the form of credit or industry, not necessarily cash or fixed assets. Being partner, they are all liable for debts incurred by or on behalf of the partnership. The liability for a contract entered into on behalf of an unincorporated association or ostensible corporation may lie in a person who may not have directly transacted on its behalf, but reaped benefits from that contract.

The Case

In the Petition for Review on Certiorari before us, Lim Tong Lim assails the November 26, 1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV41477, 1 which disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, [there being] no reversible error in the appealed decision, the same is hereby affirmed. 2

The decretal portion of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling, which was affirmed by the CA, reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court rules:

1. That plaintiff is entitled to the writ of preliminary attachment issued by this Court on September 20, 1990;

2. That defendants are jointly liable to plaintiff for the following amounts, subject to the modifications as hereinafter made by reason of the special and unique facts and circumstances and the proceedings that transpired during the trial of this case;

a. P532,045.00 representing [the] unpaid purchase price of the fishing nets covered by the Agreement plus P68,000.00 representing the unpaid price of the floats not covered by said Agreement;

b. 12% interest per annum counted from date of plaintiff's invoices and computed on their respective amounts as follows:

i. Accrued interest of P73,221.00 on Invoice No. 14407 for P385,377.80 dated February 9, 1990;

ii. Accrued interest for P27,904.02 on Invoice No. 14413 for P146,868.00 dated February 13, 1990;

iii. Accrued interest of P12,920.00 on Invoice No. 14426 for P68,000.00 dated February 19, 1990;

c. P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees, plus P8,500.00 representing P500.00 per appearance in court;

d. P65,000.00 representing P5,000.00 monthly rental for storage charges on the nets counted from September 20, 1990 (date of attachment) to September 12, 1991 (date of auction sale);

e. Cost of suit.

With respect to the joint liability of defendants for the principal obligation or for the unpaid price of nets and floats in the amount of P532,045.00 and P68,000.00, respectively, or for the total amount P600,045.00, this Court

noted that these items were attached to guarantee any judgment that may be rendered in favor of the plaintiff but, upon agreement of the parties, and, to avoid further deterioration of the nets during the pendency of this case, it was ordered sold at public auction for not less than P900,000.00 for which the plaintiff was the sole and winning bidder. The proceeds of the sale paid for by plaintiff was deposited in court. In effect, the amount of P900,000.00 replaced the attached property as a guaranty for any judgment that plaintiff may be able to secure in this case with the ownership and possession of the nets and floats awarded and delivered by the sheriff to plaintiff as the highest bidder in the public auction sale. It has also been noted that ownership of the nets [was] retained by the plaintiff until full payment [was] made as stipulated in the invoices; hence, in effect, the plaintiff attached its own properties. It [was] for this reason also that this Court earlier ordered the attachment bond filed by plaintiff to guaranty damages to defendants to be cancelled and for the P900,000.00 cash bidded and paid for by plaintiff to serve as its bond in favor of defendants.

From the foregoing, it would appear therefore that whatever judgment the plaintiff may be entitled to in this case will have to be satisfied from the amount of P900,000.00 as this amount replaced the attached nets and floats. Considering, however, that the total judgment obligation as computed above would amount to only P840,216.92, it would be inequitable, unfair and unjust to award the excess to the defendants who are not entitled to damages and who did not put up a single centavo to raise the amount of P900,000.00 aside from the fact that they are not the owners of the nets and floats. For this reason, the defendants are hereby relieved from any and all liabilities arising from the monetary judgment obligation enumerated above and for plaintiff to retain possession and ownership of the nets and floats and for the reimbursement of the P900,000.00 deposited by it with the Clerk of Court.

SO ORDERED. 3

The Facts

On behalf of "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation," Antonio Chua and Peter Yao entered into a Contract dated February 7, 1990, for the purchase of fishing nets of various sizes from the Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, Inc. (herein respondent). They claimed that they were engaged in a business venture with Petitioner Lim Tong Lim, who however was not a signatory to the agreement. The total price of the nets amounted to P532,045. Four hundred pieces of floats worth P68,000 were also sold to the Corporation. 4

The buyers, however, failed to pay for the fishing nets and the floats; hence, private respondents filed a collection suit against Chua, Yao and Petitioner Lim Tong Lim with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. The suit was brought against the three in their capacities as general partners, on the allegation that "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation" was a nonexistent corporation as shown by a Certification from the Securities and Exchange Commission. 5 On September 20, 1990, the lower court issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment, which the sheriff enforced by attaching the fishing nets on board F/B Lourdes which was then docked at the Fisheries Port, Navotas, Metro Manila.

Instead of answering the Complaint, Chua filed a Manifestation admitting his liability and requesting a reasonable time within which to pay. He also turned over to

respondent some of the nets which were in his possession. Peter Yao filed an Answer, after which he was deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence on his behalf, because of his failure to appear in subsequent hearings. Lim Tong Lim, on the other hand, filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim and moved for the lifting of the Writ of Attachment. 6The trial court maintained the Writ, and upon motion of private respondent, ordered the sale of the fishing nets at a public auction. Philippine Fishing Gear Industries won the bidding and deposited with the said court the sales proceeds of P900,000. 7

On November 18, 1992, the trial court rendered its Decision, ruling that Philippine Fishing Gear Industries was entitled to the Writ of Attachment and that Chua, Yao and Lim, as general partners, were jointly liable to pay respondent. 8

The trial court ruled that a partnership among Lim, Chua and Yao existed based (1) on the testimonies of the witnesses presented and (2) on a Compromise Agreement executed by the three 9 in Civil Case No. 1492-MN which Chua and Yao had brought against Lim in the RTC of Malabon, Branch 72, for (a) a declaration of nullity of commercial documents; (b) a reformation of contracts; (c) a declaration of ownership of fishing boats; (d) an injunction and (e) damages. 10 The Compromise Agreement provided:

a) That the parties plaintiffs & Lim Tong Lim agree to have the four (4) vessels sold in the amount of P5,750,000.00 including the fishing net. This P5,750,000.00 shall be applied as full payment for P3,250,000.00 in favor of JL Holdings Corporation and/or Lim Tong Lim;

b) If the four (4) vessel[s] and the fishing net will be sold at a higher price than P5,750,000.00 whatever will be the excess will be divided into 3: 1/3 Lim Tong Lim; 1/3 Antonio Chua; 1/3 Peter Yao;

c) If the proceeds of the sale the vessels will be less than P5,750,000.00 whatever the deficiency shall be shouldered and paid to JL Holding Corporation by 1/3 Lim Tong Lim; 1/3 Antonio Chua; 1/3 Peter Yao. 11

The trial court noted that the Compromise Agreement was silent as to the nature of their obligations, but that joint liability could be presumed from the equal distribution of the profit and loss. 21

Lim appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which, as already stated, affirmed the RTC.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In affirming the trial court, the CA held that petitioner was a partner of Chua and Yao in a fishing business and may thus be held liable as a such for the fishing nets and floats purchased by and for the use of the partnership. The appellate court ruled:

The evidence establishes that all the defendants including herein appellant Lim Tong Lim undertook a partnership for a specific undertaking, that is for commercial fishing . . . . Oviously, the ultimate undertaking of the defendants was to divide the profits among themselves which is what a partnership essentially is . . . . By a contract of partnership, two or more

persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves (Article 1767, New Civil Code). 13

Hence, petitioner brought this recourse before this Court. 14

The Issues

In his Petition and Memorandum, Lim asks this Court to reverse the assailed Decision on the following grounds:

I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING, BASED ON A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT THAT CHUA, YAO AND PETITIONER LIM ENTERED INTO IN A SEPARATE CASE, THAT A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT EXISTED AMONG THEM.

II SINCE IT WAS ONLY CHUA WHO REPRESENTED THAT HE WAS ACTING FOR OCEAN QUEST FISHING CORPORATION WHEN HE BOUGHT THE NETS FROM PHILIPPINE FISHING, THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN IMPUTING LIABILITY TO PETITIONER LIM AS WELL.

III THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ORDERED THE SEIZURE AND ATTACHMENT OF PETITIONER LIM'S GOODS.

In determining whether petitioner may be held liable for the fishing nets and floats from respondent, the Court must resolve this key issue: whether by their acts, Lim, Chua and Yao could be deemed to have entered into a partnership.

This Court's Ruling

The Petition is devoid of merit.

First and Second Issues:Existence of a Partnership and Petitioner's Liability

In arguing that he should not be held liable for the equipment purchased from respondent, petitioner controverts the CA finding that a partnership existed between him, Peter Yao and Antonio Chua. He asserts that the CA based its finding on the Compromise Agreement alone. Furthermore, he disclaims any direct participation in the purchase of the nets, alleging that the negotiations were conducted by Chua and Yao only, and that he has not even met the representatives of the respondent company. Petitioner further argues that he was a lessor, not a partner, of Chua and Yao, for the "Contract of Lease " dated February 1, 1990, showed that he had merely leased to the two the main asset of the purported partnership — the fishing boat F/B Lourdes. The lease was for six months, with a monthly rental of P37,500 plus 25 percent of the gross catch of the boat.

We are not persuaded by the arguments of petitioner. The facts as found by the two lower courts clearly showed that there existed a partnership among Chua, Yao and him, pursuant to Article 1767 of the Civil Code which provides:

Art. 1767 — By the contract of partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.

Specifically, both lower courts ruled that a partnership among the three existed based on the following factual findings: 15

(1) That Petitioner Lim Tong Lim requested Peter Yao who was engaged in commercial fishing to join him, while Antonio Chua was already Yao's partner;

(2) That after convening for a few times, Lim, Chua, and Yao verbally agreed to acquire two fishing boats, the FB Lourdes and the FB Nelson for the sum of P3.35 million;

(3) That they borrowed P3.25 million from Jesus Lim, brother of Petitioner Lim Tong Lim, to finance the venture.

(4) That they bought the boats from CMF Fishing Corporation, which executed a Deed of Sale over these two (2) boats in favor of Petitioner Lim Tong Lim only to serve as security for the loan extended by Jesus Lim;

(5) That Lim, Chua and Yao agreed that the refurbishing, re-equipping, repairing, dry docking and other expenses for the boats would be shouldered by Chua and Yao;

(6) That because of the "unavailability of funds," Jesus Lim again extended a loan to the partnership in the amount of P1 million secured by a check, because of which, Yao and Chua entrusted the ownership papers of two other boats, Chua's FB Lady Anne Mel and Yao's FB Tracy to Lim Tong Lim.

(7) That in pursuance of the business agreement, Peter Yao and Antonio Chua bought nets from Respondent Philippine Fishing Gear, in behalf of "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation," their purported business name.

(8) That subsequently, Civil Case No. 1492-MN was filed in the Malabon RTC, Branch 72 by Antonio Chua and Peter Yao against Lim Tong Lim for (a) declaration of nullity of commercial documents; (b) reformation of contracts; (c) declaration of ownership of fishing boats; (4) injunction; and (e) damages.

(9) That the case was amicably settled through a Compromise Agreement executed between the parties-litigants the terms of which are already enumerated above.

From the factual findings of both lower courts, it is clear that Chua, Yao and Lim had decided to engage in a fishing business, which they started by buying boats worth P3.35 million, financed by a loan secured from Jesus Lim who was petitioner's brother. In their Compromise Agreement, they subsequently revealed their intention to pay the loan with the proceeds of the sale of the boats, and to divide equally among them the excess or loss. These boats, the purchase and the repair of which were financed with borrowed money, fell under the term "common fund" under Article 1767. The contribution to such fund need not be cash or fixed assets; it could be an intangible like credit or industry. That the parties agreed that any loss or profit

from the sale and operation of the boats would be divided equally among them also shows that they had indeed formed a partnership.

Moreover, it is clear that the partnership extended not only to the purchase of the boat, but also to that of the nets and the floats. The fishing nets and the floats, both essential to fishing, were obviously acquired in furtherance of their business. It would have been inconceivable for Lim to involve himself so much in buying the boat but not in the acquisition of the aforesaid equipment, without which the business could not have proceeded.

Given the preceding facts, it is clear that there was, among petitioner, Chua and Yao, a partnership engaged in the fishing business. They purchased the boats, which constituted the main assets of the partnership, and they agreed that the proceeds from the sales and operations thereof would be divided among them.

We stress that under Rule 45, a petition for review like the present case should involve only questions of law. Thus, the foregoing factual findings of the RTC and the CA are binding on this Court, absent any cogent proof that the present action is embraced by one of the exceptions to the rule. 16 In assailing the factual findings of the two lower courts, petitioner effectively goes beyond the bounds of a petition for review under Rule 45.

Compromise Agreement: Not the Sole Basis of Partnership

Petitioner argues that the appellate court's sole basis for assuming the existence of a partnership was the Compromise Agreement. He also claims that the settlement was entered into only to end the dispute among them, but not to adjudicate their preexisting rights and obligations. His arguments are baseless. The Agreement was but an embodiment of the relationship extant among the parties prior to its execution.

A proper adjudication of claimants' rights mandates that courts must review and thoroughly appraise all relevant facts. Both lower courts have done so and have found, correctly, a preexisting partnership among the parties. In implying that the lower courts have decided on the basis of one piece of document alone, petitioner fails to appreciate that the CA and the RTC delved into the history of the document and explored all the possible consequential combinations in harmony with law, logic and fairness. Verily, the two lower courts' factual findings mentioned above nullified petitioner's argument that the existence of a partnership was based only on the Compromise Agreement.

Petitioner Was a Partner, Not a Lessor

We are not convinced by petitioner's argument that he was merely the lessor of the boats to Chua and Yao, not a partner in the fishing venture. His argument allegedly finds support in the Contract of Lease and the registration papers showing that he was the owner of the boats, including F/B Lourdes where the nets were found.

His allegation defies logic. In effect, he would like this Court to believe that he consented to the sale of his own boats to pay a debt of Chua and Yao, with the excess of the proceeds to be divided among the three of them. No lessor would do what petitioner did. Indeed, his consent to the sale proved that there was a preexisting partnership among all three.

Verily, as found by the lower courts, petitioner entered into a business agreement with Chua and Yao, in which debts were undertaken in order to finance the acquisition and the upgrading of the vessels which would be used in their fishing business. The sale of the boats, as well as the division among the three of the balance remaining after the payment of their loans, proves beyond cavil that F/B Lourdes, though registered in his name, was not his own property but an asset of the partnership. It is not uncommon to register the properties acquired from a loan in the name of the person the lender trusts, who in this case is the petitioner himself. After all, he is the brother of the creditor, Jesus Lim.

We stress that it is unreasonable — indeed, it is absurd — for petitioner to sell his property to pay a debt he did not incur, if the relationship among the three of them was merely that of lessor-lessee, instead of partners.

Corporation by EstoppelPetitioner argues that under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel, liability can be imputed only to Chua and Yao, and not to him. Again, we disagree.

Sec. 21 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines provides:

Sec. 21. Corporation by estoppel. — All persons who assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result thereof: Provided however, That when any such ostensible corporation is sued on any transaction entered by it as a corporation or on any tort committed by it as such, it shall not be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate personality.

One who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as such, cannot resist performance thereof on the ground that there was in fact no corporation.

Thus, even if the ostensible corporate entity is proven to be legally nonexistent, a party may be estopped from denying its corporate existence. "The reason behind this doctrine is obvious — an unincorporated association has no personality and would be incompetent to act and appropriate for itself the power and attributes of a corporation as provided by law; it cannot create agents or confer authority on another to act in its behalf; thus, those who act or purport to act as its representatives or agents do so without authority and at their own risk. And as it is an elementary principle of law that a person who acts as an agent without authority or without a principal is himself regarded as the principal, possessed of all the right and subject to all the liabilities of a principal, a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of a corporation which has no valid existence assumes such privileges and obligations and becomes personally liable for contracts entered into or for other acts performed as such agent. 17

The doctrine of corporation by estoppel may apply to the alleged corporation and to a third party. In the first instance, an unincorporated association, which represented itself to be a corporation, will be estopped from denying its corporate capacity in a suit against it by a third person who relied in good faith on such representation. It cannot allege lack of personality to be sued to evade its responsibility for a contract it entered into and by virtue of which it received advantages and benefits.

On the other hand, a third party who, knowing an association to be unincorporated, nonetheless treated it as a corporation and received benefits from it, may be barred from denying its corporate existence in a suit brought against the alleged

corporation. In such case, all those who benefited from the transaction made by the ostensible corporation, despite knowledge of its legal defects, may be held liable for contracts they impliedly assented to or took advantage of.

There is no dispute that the respondent, Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, is entitled to be paid for the nets it sold. The only question here is whether petitioner should be held jointly 18 liable with Chua and Yao. Petitioner contests such liability, insisting that only those who dealt in the name of the ostensible corporation should be held liable. Since his name does not appear on any of the contracts and since he never directly transacted with the respondent corporation, ergo, he cannot be held liable.

Unquestionably, petitioner benefited from the use of the nets found inside F/B Lourdes, the boat which has earlier been proven to be an asset of the partnership. He in fact questions the attachment of the nets, because the Writ has effectively stopped his use of the fishing vessel.

It is difficult to disagree with the RTC and the CA that Lim, Chua and Yao decided to form a corporation. Although it was never legally formed for unknown reasons, this fact alone does not preclude the liabilities of the three as contracting parties in representation of it. Clearly, under the law on estoppel, those acting on behalf of a corporation and those benefited by it, knowing it to be without valid existence, are held liable as general partners.

Technically, it is true that petitioner did not directly act on behalf of the corporation. However, having reaped the benefits of the contract entered into by persons with whom he previously had an existing relationship, he is deemed to be part of said association and is covered by the scope of the doctrine of corporation by estoppel. We reiterate the ruling of the Court in Alonso v. Villamor: 19

A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather, a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There should be no vested rights in technicalities.

Third Issue:Validity of Attachment

Finally, petitioner claims that the Writ of Attachment was improperly issued against the nets. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this issue is now moot and academic. As previously discussed, F/B Lourdes was an asset of the partnership and that it was placed in the name of petitioner, only to assure payment of the debt he and his partners owed. The nets and the floats were specifically manufactured and tailor-made according to their own design, and were bought and used in the fishing venture they agreed upon. Hence, the issuance of the Writ to assure the payment of the price stipulated in the invoices is proper. Besides, by specific agreement, ownership of the nets remained with Respondent Philippine Fishing Gear, until full payment thereof.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

LIM TONG LIM VS. PHILIPPINE FISHING GEAR INDUSTRIES, INC.317 SCRA 728

FACTS:1. On behalf of Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation, Antonio Chua and Peter Yao entered into a contract for the purchase of fishing nets from Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, Inc.2. They claimed that they were engaged in a business venture with petitioner Lim Tong Lim, who was however not a signatory to the agreement.3. 400 floats were also sold to the Corporation.4. The buyers failed to pay for the fishing nets and floats hence, private respondent filed a collection suit against Chua, Yao and petitioner Lim with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment.5. The suit was brought against the three in their capacities as general partners, on the allegation that “Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation” was a non-existence corporation as shown by a Certification from the SEC.6. The lower court issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment, which the sheriff enforced by attaching the fishing nets on board F/B Lourdes.7. Upon motion of private respondent, the trial court ordered the sale of the fishing nets at a public auction.8. Private respondents won the biding.9. The trial court ruled that private respondent was entitled to the Writ of Attachment and that Chua, Yao, and Lim, as general partners, were jointly liable to pay private respondent.10. The court ruled that a partnership among Lao, Chua, and Yao existed based on a) testimonies of witnesses presented and 2) on a Compromise Agreement executed by the three 11. Lim appealed to the CA contending that no partnership existed between him and Chua.12. Petitioner likewise argues that under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel, liability can be imputed only to Chua and Yao, and not to him.13. The CA affirmed the trial court, holding that petitioner was a partner of Chua and Yao in a fishing business and may thus be held liable for the fishing nets and floats purchased by and for the use of the partnership.14. Hence this petition.

ISSUES:Does a partnership exist between Chua, Yao and Lim?

Is there a corporation by estoppel in this case?

Can liability can be imputed on Lim under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel?

HELD:From the actual findings of both lower courts, it is clear that Chua, Yao and Lim had decided to engage in a fishing business, which they started by securing boats worth

P 3.35 million, financed by a loan secured from Jesus Lim who was petitioner’s brother. In their Compromise Agreement, they subsequently revealed their intention to pay the loan with the proceeds of the sale of the boats, and to divide equally among them the excess of loss. These boats, the purchase and the repair of which were financed with borrowed money, fell under the term “common fund” under Article 1767. The contribution to such fund need no be case of fixed assets; it could be an intangible like credit or industry. That the parties agreed that any loss or profits from the sale and operation of the boats would be divided early among them also shows that they had indeed formed a partnership.

Even if the ostensible corporate entity is proven to be legally non-existent, a party may be estopped from denying its corporate existence. “The reason behind this doctrine is obvious – an unincorporated association has no personality and would be incompetent to act and appropriate for itself the power and attributes of a corporation as provided by law; it cannot create agents or confer authority on another to act in its behalf; thus, those who act or purport to act as its representatives or agents do so without authority and at their own risk. And as it is an elementary principle of law that a person who acts as an agent without authority oar without a principal is himself regarded as the principal, possessed of all the rights and subject to all the liabilities of a principal, a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of a corporation which has no valid existence assumes such privileges and obligations and becomes personally liable for contracts entered into or for other acts performed as such agent.

The doctrine of corporation by estoppel may apply to the alleged corporation and to a third party. An unincorporated association, which represented itself to be a corporation, will be estopped from denying its corporate capacity in a suit against it by a third person who relied in good faith on such representation. It cannot allege lack of personality to be sued to evade its responsibility for a contact it entered into and by virtue of which it received advantages and benefits.

A third party who, knowing an association to be unincorporated nonetheless treated it as a corporation and received benefits from it, may be barred from denying its corporate existence in a suit brought against the alleged corporation. In such case, all those who benefited from the transaction made the ostensible corporation, despite knowledge of its legal defects, may be held liable for contracts they impliedly assented to or took advantage of.

Unquestionably, petitioner benefited from the nets found in F/B Lourdes, the boat which has earlier been proven to be an asset of the partnership. He in fact questions the attachment of the nets, because the Writ has effectively stopped his use of the fishing vessel.

Technically, it is true that petitioner did not directly act on behalf of the corporation. However, having reaped the benefits of the contract entered into by person with whom he previously had an existing relationship, he is deemed to be part of said association and is covered by the scope of the doctrine of corporation by estoppel.

G.R. No. 109248 July 3, 1995

GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, TOMAS O. DEL CASTILLO, JR., and BENJAMIN T. BACORRO, petitioners, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and JOAQUIN L. MISA,respondents.

 

VITUG, J.:

The instant petition seeks a review of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals, dated 26 February 1993, in CA-G.R. SP No. 24638 and No. 24648 affirming in toto that of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in SEC AC 254.

The antecedents of the controversy, summarized by respondent Commission and quoted at length by the appellate court in its decision, are hereunder restated.

The law firm of ROSS, LAWRENCE, SELPH and CARRASCOSO was duly registered in the Mercantile Registry on 4 January 1937 and reconstituted with the Securities and Exchange Commission on 4 August 1948. The SEC records show that there were several subsequent amendments to the articles of partnership on 18 September 1958, to change the firm [name] to ROSS, SELPH and CARRASCOSO; on 6 July 1965 . . . to ROSS, SELPH, SALCEDO, DEL ROSARIO, BITO & MISA; on 18 April 1972 to SALCEDO, DEL ROSARIO, BITO, MISA & LOZADA; on 4 December 1972 to SALCEDO, DEL ROSARIO, BITO, MISA & LOZADA; on 11 March 1977 to DEL ROSARIO, BITO, MISA & LOZADA; on 7 June 1977 to BITO, MISA & LOZADA; on 19 December 1980, [Joaquin L. Misa] appellees Jesus B. Bito and Mariano M. Lozada associated themselves together, as senior partners with respondents-appellees Gregorio F. Ortega, Tomas O. del Castillo, Jr., and Benjamin Bacorro, as junior partners.

On February 17, 1988, petitioner-appellant wrote the respondents-appellees a letter stating:

I am withdrawing and retiring from the firm of Bito, Misa and Lozada, effective at the end of this month.

"I trust that the accountants will be instructed to make the proper liquidation of my participation in the firm."

On the same day, petitioner-appellant wrote respondents-appellees another letter stating:

"Further to my letter to you today, I would like to have a meeting with all of you with regard to the mechanics of liquidation, and more particularly, my interest in the two floors of this building. I would like to have this resolved soon because it has to do with my own plans."

On 19 February 1988, petitioner-appellant wrote respondents-appellees another letter stating:

"The partnership has ceased to be mutually satisfactory because of the working conditions of our employees including the assistant attorneys. All my efforts to ameliorate the below subsistence level of the pay scale of our employees have been thwarted by the other partners. Not only have they refused to give meaningful increases to the employees, even attorneys, are dressed down publicly in a loud voice in a manner that deprived them of their self-respect. The result of such policies is the formation of the union, including the assistant attorneys."

On 30 June 1988, petitioner filed with this Commission's Securities Investigation and Clearing Department (SICD) a petition for dissolution and liquidation of partnership, docketed as SEC Case No. 3384 praying that the Commission:

"1. Decree the formal dissolution and order the immediate liquidation of (the partnership of) Bito, Misa & Lozada;

"2. Order the respondents to deliver or pay for petitioner's share in the partnership assets plus the profits, rent or interest attributable to the use of his right in the assets of the dissolved partnership;

"3. Enjoin respondents from using the firm name of Bito, Misa & Lozada in any of their correspondence, checks and pleadings and to pay petitioners damages for the use thereof despite the dissolution of the partnership in the amount of at least P50,000.00;

"4. Order respondents jointly and severally to pay petitioner attorney's fees and expense of litigation in such amounts as maybe proven during the trial and which the Commission may deem just and equitable under the premises but in no case less than ten (10%) per cent of the value of the shares of petitioner or P100,000.00;

"5. Order the respondents to pay petitioner moral damages with the amount of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of P200,000.00.

"Petitioner likewise prayed for such other and further reliefs that the Commission may deem just and equitable under the premises."

On 13 July 1988, respondents-appellees filed their opposition to the petition.

On 13 July 1988, petitioner filed his Reply to the Opposition.

On 31 March 1989, the hearing officer rendered a decision ruling that:

"[P]etitioner's withdrawal from the law firm Bito, Misa & Lozada did not dissolve the said law partnership. Accordingly, the petitioner and respondents are hereby enjoined to abide by the provisions of the Agreement relative to the matter governing the liquidation of the shares of any retiring or withdrawing partner in the partnership interest." 1

On appeal, the SEC en banc reversed the decision of the Hearing Officer and held that the withdrawal of Attorney Joaquin L. Misa had dissolved the partnership of "Bito, Misa & Lozada." The Commission ruled that, being a partnership at will, the law firm could be dissolved by any partner at anytime, such as by his withdrawal therefrom, regardless of good faith or bad faith, since no partner can be forced to continue in the partnership against his will. In its decision, dated 17 January 1990, the SEC held:

WHEREFORE, premises considered the appealed order of 31 March 1989 is hereby REVERSED insofar as it concludes that the partnership of Bito, Misa & Lozada has not been dissolved. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Hearing Officer for determination of the respective rights and obligations of the parties. 2

The parties sought a reconsideration of the above decision. Attorney Misa, in addition, asked for an appointment of a receiver to take over the assets of the dissolved partnership and to take charge of the winding up of its affairs. On 4 April 1991, respondent SEC issued an order denying reconsideration, as well as rejecting the petition for receivership, and reiterating the remand of the case to the Hearing Officer.

The parties filed with the appellate court separate appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 24638 and CA-G.R. SP No. 24648).

During the pendency of the case with the Court of Appeals, Attorney Jesus Bito and Attorney Mariano Lozada both died on, respectively, 05 September 1991 and 21 December 1991. The death of the two partners, as well as the admission of new partners, in the law firm prompted Attorney Misa to renew his application for receivership (in CA G.R. SP No. 24648). He expressed concern over the need to preserve and care for the partnership assets. The other partners opposed the prayer.

The Court of Appeals, finding no reversible error on the part of respondent Commission, AFFIRMED in toto the SEC decision and order appealed from. In fine,

the appellate court held, per its decision of 26 February 1993, (a) that Atty. Misa's withdrawal from the partnership had changed the relation of the parties and inevitably caused the dissolution of the partnership; (b) that such withdrawal was not in bad faith; (c) that the liquidation should be to the extent of Attorney Misa's interest or participation in the partnership which could be computed and paid in the manner stipulated in the partnership agreement; (d) that the case should be remanded to the SEC Hearing Officer for the corresponding determination of the value of Attorney Misa's share in the partnership assets; and (e) that the appointment of a receiver was unnecessary as no sufficient proof had been shown to indicate that the partnership assets were in any such danger of being lost, removed or materially impaired.

In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners confine themselves to the following issues:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals has erred in holding that the partnership of Bito, Misa & Lozada (now Bito, Lozada, Ortega & Castillo) is a partnership at will;

2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals has erred in holding that the withdrawal of private respondent dissolved the partnership regardless of his good or bad faith; and

3. Whether or not the Court of Appeals has erred in holding that private respondent's demand for the dissolution of the partnership so that he can get a physical partition of partnership was not made in bad faith;

to which matters we shall, accordingly, likewise limit ourselves.

A partnership that does not fix its term is a partnership at will. That the law firm "Bito, Misa & Lozada," and now "Bito, Lozada, Ortega and Castillo," is indeed such a partnership need not be unduly belabored. We quote, with approval, like did the appellate court, the findings and disquisition of respondent SEC on this matter; viz:

The partnership agreement (amended articles of 19 August 1948) does not provide for a specified period or undertaking. The "DURATION" clause simply states:

"5. DURATION. The partnership shall continue so long as mutually satisfactory and upon the death or legal incapacity of one of the partners, shall be continued by the surviving partners."

The hearing officer however opined that the partnership is one for a specific undertaking and hence not a partnership at will, citing paragraph 2 of the Amended Articles of Partnership (19 August 1948):

"2. Purpose. The purpose for which the partnership is formed, is to act as legal adviser and representative of any individual, firm and corporation engaged in commercial, industrial or other lawful businesses and occupations; to counsel and advise such persons and entities with respect to their legal and other affairs; and

to appear for and represent their principals and client in all courts of justice and government departments and offices in the Philippines, and elsewhere when legally authorized to do so."

The "purpose" of the partnership is not the specific undertaking referred to in the law. Otherwise, all partnerships, which necessarily must have a purpose, would all be considered as partnerships for a definite undertaking. There would therefore be no need to provide for articles on partnership at will as none would so exist. Apparently what the law contemplates, is a specific undertaking or "project" which has a definite or definable period of completion. 3

The birth and life of a partnership at will is predicated on the mutual desire and consent of the partners. The right to choose with whom a person wishes to associate himself is the very foundation and essence of that partnership. Its continued existence is, in turn, dependent on the constancy of that mutual resolve, along with each partner's capability to give it, and the absence of a cause for dissolution provided by the law itself. Verily, any one of the partners may, at his sole pleasure, dictate a dissolution of the partnership at will. He must, however, act in good faith, not that the attendance of bad faith can prevent the dissolution of the partnership 4 but that it can result in a liability for damages. 5

In passing, neither would the presence of a period for its specific duration or the statement of a particular purpose for its creation prevent the dissolution of any partnership by an act or will of a partner. 6 Among partners, 7 mutual agency arises and the doctrine of delectus personae allows them to have the power, although not necessarily theright, to dissolve the partnership. An unjustified dissolution by the partner can subject him to a possible action for damages.

The dissolution of a partnership is the change in the relation of the parties caused by any partner ceasing to be associated in the carrying on, as might be distinguished from the winding up of, the business. 8 Upon its dissolution, the partnership continues and its legal personality is retained until the complete winding up of its business culminating in its termination. 9

The liquidation of the assets of the partnership following its dissolution is governed by various provisions of the Civil Code; 10 however, an agreement of the partners, like any other contract, is binding among them and normally takes precedence to the extent applicable over the Code's general provisions. We here take note of paragraph 8 of the "Amendment to Articles of Partnership" reading thusly:

. . . In the event of the death or retirement of any partner, his interest in the partnership shall be liquidated and paid in accordance with the existing agreements and his partnership participation shall revert to the Senior Partners for allocation as the Senior Partners may determine; provided, however, that with respect to the two (2) floors of office condominium which the partnership is now acquiring, consisting of the 5th and the 6th floors of the Alpap Building, 140 Alfaro Street, Salcedo Village, Makati, Metro Manila, their true value at the time of such death or retirement shall be determined by two (2) independent appraisers, one to be appointed (by the partnership and the other by the) retiring partner or the heirs of a deceased partner, as the case may be. In the event of any disagreement between the said appraisers a third appraiser will be appointed by them whose decision shall be final. The share of the retiring or deceased partner

in the aforementioned two (2) floor office condominium shall be determined upon the basis of the valuation above mentioned which shall be paid monthly within the first ten (10) days of every month in installments of not less than P20,000.00 for the Senior Partners, P10,000.00 in the case of two (2) existing Junior Partners and P5,000.00 in the case of the new Junior Partner. 11

The term "retirement" must have been used in the articles, as we so hold, in a generic sense to mean the dissociation by a partner, inclusive of resignation or withdrawal, from the partnership that thereby dissolves it.

On the third and final issue, we accord due respect to the appellate court and respondent Commission on their common factual finding, i.e., that Attorney Misa did not act in bad faith. Public respondents viewed his withdrawal to have been spurred by "interpersonal conflict" among the partners. It would not be right, we agree, to let any of the partners remain in the partnership under such an atmosphere of animosity; certainly, not against their will. 12Indeed, for as long as the reason for withdrawal of a partner is not contrary to the dictates of justice and fairness, nor for the purpose of unduly visiting harm and damage upon the partnership, bad faith cannot be said to characterize the act. Bad faith, in the context here used, is no different from its normal concept of a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement on costs.

SO ORDERED.