Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 158 views

    Pastor Vs Gaspar Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    ybun
    On November 1900, Macario Nicasio and Gaspar entered into a partnership to operate a steam launch named Luisa. In November 24, 1900, Nicasio and Gaspar secured a loan of P28,000 from Pastor and four others to purchase six additional launches. Pastor alleged the contract created a partnership rather than a loan. However, the Supreme Court ruled it was a loan based on features of the contract stating Nicasio and Gaspar were the only partners, the money was furnished as a loan, and they were bound to repay the amount. While Pastor was to share profits and losses, loans can include profit sharing and this did not make it a partnership between the parties.

    Copyright:

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

    Pastor Vs Gaspar Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    ybun
    158 views2 pages
    On November 1900, Macario Nicasio and Gaspar entered into a partnership to operate a steam launch named Luisa. In November 24, 1900, Nicasio and Gaspar secured a loan of P28,000 from Pastor and four others to purchase six additional launches. Pastor alleged the contract created a partnership rather than a loan. However, the Supreme Court ruled it was a loan based on features of the contract stating Nicasio and Gaspar were the only partners, the money was furnished as a loan, and they were bound to repay the amount. While Pastor was to share profits and losses, loans can include profit sharing and this did not make it a partnership between the parties.

    Original Title

    270478099 Pastor vs Gaspar Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    On November 1900, Macario Nicasio and Gaspar entered into a partnership to operate a steam launch named Luisa. In November 24, 1900, Nicasio and Gaspar secured a loan of P28,000 from Pastor and four others to purchase six additional launches. Pastor alleged the contract created a partnership rather than a loan. However, the Supreme Court ruled it was a loan based on features of the contract stating Nicasio and Gaspar were the only partners, the money was furnished as a loan, and they were bound to repay the amount. While Pastor was to share profits and losses, loans can include profit sharing and this did not make it a partnership between the parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    158 views2 pages

    Pastor Vs Gaspar Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    ybun
    On November 1900, Macario Nicasio and Gaspar entered into a partnership to operate a steam launch named Luisa. In November 24, 1900, Nicasio and Gaspar secured a loan of P28,000 from Pastor and four others to purchase six additional launches. Pastor alleged the contract created a partnership rather than a loan. However, the Supreme Court ruled it was a loan based on features of the contract stating Nicasio and Gaspar were the only partners, the money was furnished as a loan, and they were bound to repay the amount. While Pastor was to share profits and losses, loans can include profit sharing and this did not make it a partnership between the parties.

    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 2

    Pastor vs.

    Gaspar

    Facts:

     On November 1900, Macario Nicasio and the defendant Gaspar entered into a contract of
    partnership under the name “Nicasio and Gaspar.”
     The said partnership owned the steam launch Luisa, and its only business was relating to this
    launch.
     On November 24, 1900, with the desire to enlarge their business, a contract was made between
    the firm of Nicasio and Gaspar on the one side, and on the other side the plaintiff and 4 others
    from whom N and G secured a sum of P28, 000 in order to finance the purchase of 6 additional
    launches.
     In the contract, N and G undertakes to return the amount loaned to the plaintiff within a period
    of ten years from the date of the instrument and to guarantee the fulfillment of the said
    payment they pledge to the same parties the 6 launches.
     Barely 7 months after the execution of the contract, it was terminated and was sold by mutual
    consent.
     The plaintiff brought action alleging that the contract was one of partnership, and that the
    consent of his agent to terminate the contract and the sale of the launches was obtained by
    fraud and the dissolution of the partnership was null and void.

    Issue: WON the transaction between the parties a loan or a contract of partnership.

    Ruling: It was a LOAN in view of the ff. features contained in the contract as found by the SC:

    (a) It is twice stated positively that N and G are the only partners and the only persons interested in the
    partnership of N and G, to which statements Pastor and his associates assented to when he signed the
    document;

    (b) It is stated, also distinctly and positively, that the money has been furnished as a loan;

    (c) N and G bind themselves in the contract to repay the amount something that they would not be
    bound to do were the contract one of partnership;

    (d) In the contract, N and G create in favor of Pastor and his associates a right of pledge over the
    launches, a thing inconsistent with the idea of partnership;

    (e) N and G are to be considered as consignees only as long as they do not pay the debt. This indicates
    that they had a right to pay it;

    (f) They bind themselves not to alienate the launches until they had paid the debt indicating clearly that
    by paying the debt they could do so, a thing inconsistent with the idea of a partnership; and

    (g) It is also stated that the launch Luisa is not included in the contract.
    It was also ruled that, the fact that Pastor et. al., was to share in the profits and losses of the business
    and that N and G should answer for the payment of the debt only with the launches and not with their
    property, indicate that the petitioner was a partner. But these provisions are not conclusive. The rights
    of third persons are not concerned. The parties could, in making the contract, if they choose, take some
    provisions from the law of partnership and others from the law of loans. Loans with a right to receive a
    part of the profits in lieu of interests are not uncommon. As between the parties, such a contract is not
    one of a partnership.

    You might also like