Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Mauricio Agad vs. Severino Mabato

    Uploaded by

    Aldrin Gerente
    Mauricio Agad and Severino Mabato established a fishpond business partnership through a public instrument. Agad contributed P1,000 and was entitled to 50% of profits, while Mabato managed the partnership funds but failed to provide accounts from 1957-1963. Agad sued for his share of profits but Mabato claimed no partnership existed as Agad did not contribute P1,000. The court initially dismissed the complaint, finding Article 1773 applied as no fishpond inventory was attached. However, the Supreme Court ruled Article 1773 did not apply, as the partnership was to operate, not own, a fishpond, with monetary contributions, not real property. Thus, the complaint's

    Copyright:

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

    Mauricio Agad vs. Severino Mabato

    Uploaded by

    Aldrin Gerente
    32 views1 page
    Mauricio Agad and Severino Mabato established a fishpond business partnership through a public instrument. Agad contributed P1,000 and was entitled to 50% of profits, while Mabato managed the partnership funds but failed to provide accounts from 1957-1963. Agad sued for his share of profits but Mabato claimed no partnership existed as Agad did not contribute P1,000. The court initially dismissed the complaint, finding Article 1773 applied as no fishpond inventory was attached. However, the Supreme Court ruled Article 1773 did not apply, as the partnership was to operate, not own, a fishpond, with monetary contributions, not real property. Thus, the complaint's

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mauricio Agad and Severino Mabato established a fishpond business partnership through a public instrument. Agad contributed P1,000 and was entitled to 50% of profits, while Mabato managed the partnership funds but failed to provide accounts from 1957-1963. Agad sued for his share of profits but Mabato claimed no partnership existed as Agad did not contribute P1,000. The court initially dismissed the complaint, finding Article 1773 applied as no fishpond inventory was attached. However, the Supreme Court ruled Article 1773 did not apply, as the partnership was to operate, not own, a fishpond, with monetary contributions, not real property. Thus, the complaint's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views1 page

    Mauricio Agad vs. Severino Mabato

    Uploaded by

    Aldrin Gerente
    Mauricio Agad and Severino Mabato established a fishpond business partnership through a public instrument. Agad contributed P1,000 and was entitled to 50% of profits, while Mabato managed the partnership funds but failed to provide accounts from 1957-1963. Agad sued for his share of profits but Mabato claimed no partnership existed as Agad did not contribute P1,000. The court initially dismissed the complaint, finding Article 1773 applied as no fishpond inventory was attached. However, the Supreme Court ruled Article 1773 did not apply, as the partnership was to operate, not own, a fishpond, with monetary contributions, not real property. Thus, the complaint's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    MAURICIO AGAD VS.

    SEVERINO MABATO
    GR No. L – 24193, June 28, 1968

    FACTS: Mauricio Agad and Severino Mabato established a public instrument for a fishpond
    business. Agad contributed P1,000 with the rights to receive 50% of the profits. Mabato is the
    one who is responsible with the partnership funds. However, Mabato had failed and refused to
    render accounts for the years 1957 to 1963. Agad consequently filed a complaint for the payment
    of his share in profit but was contradicted by Mabato as he contended that no partnership was
    formed due to the failure of Agad to contribute the P1,000. The complaint filed by Agad was
    dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and as it is void due to the violation of Article
    1773 because no inventory of the fishpond had been attached to the instrument.

    ISSUE: Does the provisions of Article 1773 of the Civil Code apply?

    RULING: No, the Court held that Article 1773 cannot apply. The public instrument stated that
    the partnership was established to “operate a fishpond”, not to “not to engage in fishpond
    business”. Moreover, none of the parties contributed either a fishpond or a real right to any
    fishpond. Their contributions were limited to the sum of P1,000 each. Thus, Article 1771 and
    1773 are inapplicable as a basis for the dismissal of the complaint since no immovable property
    or real rights were contributed.

    You might also like