G.R. No. 172690 March 3, 2010
FACTS
Petitioners are the heirs of
the late Jose Lim. Sometime in 1980, Jose, together with his friends
Jimmy Yu and Norberto Uy, formed a partnership to engage in the trucking
business. Initially, with a contribution of P50,000.00 each, they purchased a truck to be used
in the hauling and transport of lumber of the sawmill. Jose managed the
operations of this trucking business until his death. Thereafter, Jose's
heirs, including Elfledo, and partners agreed to continue the business under
the management of Elfledo. The shares in the partnership profits and income that formed
part of the estate of Jose were held in trust by Elfledo, with petitioners'
authority for Elfledo to use, purchase or acquire properties using said funds.
Petitioners alleged that, at that time, Elfledo was a fresh commerce graduate
serving as his fathers driver in the trucking business. He was
never a partner or an investor in the business and merely supervised the
purchase of additional trucks using the income from the trucking business of
the partners. By the time the partnership ceased, it had nine trucks, which
were all registered in Elfledo's name. Petitioners asseverated that it was also
through Elfledos management of the partnership that he was able to purchase
numerous real properties by using the profits derived therefrom, all of which
were registered in his name and that of respondent. In addition to the nine
trucks, Elfledo also acquired five other motor vehicles.
Elfledo died, leaving
respondent as his sole surviving heir. Petitioners claimed that respondent took
over the administration of the aforementioned properties, which belonged to the
estate of Jose, without their consent and approval. Claiming that they are
co-owners of the properties, petitioners required respondent to submit an
accounting of all income, profits and rentals received from the estate of
Elfledo, and to surrender the administration thereof. Respondent refused;
thus, the filing of this case.
Respondent traversed
petitioners' allegations and claimed that Elfledo was himself a partner of
Norberto and Jimmy. Respondent also stressed that Jose left no
properties that Elfledo could have held in trust. Respondent maintained that
all the properties involved in this case were purchased and acquired through
her and her husbands joint efforts and hard work, and without any participation
or contribution from petitioners or from Jose. Respondent submitted that these
are conjugal partnership properties; and thus, she had the right to refuse to
render an accounting for the income or profits of their own business.
ISSUE
Whether or not Elfledo is a partner
RULING
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 among them. However, a careful
review of the records persuades us that the evidence presented by petitioners
falls short of the quantum of proof required to establish that: (1) Jose was
the partner and not Elfledo; and (2) all the properties acquired by Elfledo and
respondent form part of the estate of Jose, having been derived from the
alleged partnership.
Therein, the Court cited
Article 1769 of the Civil Code. Applying the legal provision to the
facts of this case, the following circumstances tend to prove that Elfledo was himself the partner of Jimmy
and Norberto: 1) Cresencia testified that Jose gave Elfledo P50,000.00, as share in the partnership, on a date that
coincided with the payment of the initial capital in the partnership; (2) Elfledo ran the affairs of the
partnership, wielding absolute control, power and
authority, without any intervention or opposition whatsoever from any of
petitioners herein; (3)
all of the properties, particularly the nine trucks of the partnership, were
registered in the name of Elfledo; (4) Jimmy testified that Elfledo did not
receive wages or salaries from the partnership, indicating that what he
actually received were shares of the profits of the business; and (5) none of the petitioners, as
heirs of Jose, the alleged partner, demanded
periodic accounting from Elfledo during his lifetime. Furthermore,
petitioners failed to adduce any evidence to show that the real and personal
properties acquired and registered in the names of Elfledo and respondent
formed part of the estate of Jose, having been derived from Jose's alleged
partnership with Jimmy and Norberto.
Comments
Post a Comment