Jarantilla Jr. V. Jarantilla Facts

JARANTILLA JR. V.
JARANTILLA
Facts:
● Spouses Jarantilla were survived by 8 children. Petitioner in this case is the son of one
of these children, Federico Sr. Jarantilla Jr also has 2 brothers, Doroteo and Tomas.
● Petitioner was one of the defendants in the complaint before the RTC while his aunt
Antonieta was the plaintiff therein:
○ The Jarantilla heirs extrajudicially partitioned amongst themselves real properties
of their deceased parents.
○ With the exception of the real property of one of the siblings, the heirs also
agreed to allot the produce of the said real properties for the year 1947-1949 for
the studies of their siblings, Rafael and Antonieta Jarantilla.
○ Some of the siblings (Rosita and Conchita), together with their respective
spouses, entered into an agreement to provide mutual assistance to each other
by way of financial support to any commercial or agricultural activity on a joint
business agreement.
○ The business relationship proved to be successful, but they decided to
completely dissolve the agreement in 1973.
○ Conchita and her husband executed a document wherein they acknowledged
that while registered in her husband’s name (Buenaventura Remotigue) they
were not the only owners of the capital of the businesses Manila Athletic Supply,
Remotigue Trading Iloilo, and Remotigue Trading Cotabato.
○ In this Acknowledgement of Participating Capital, they stated the participating
capital their co-owners:
■ Antonieta Jarantilla- Php 8,000
■ Federico Jarantilla Jr.- Php 5,000
● The case at bar stems from the amended complaint filed by Antonieta Jarantilla against
several defendants including Buenaventura and Francisco Jr. for accounting of the
assets and income of the coownership, its partition and the delivery of her share
corresponding to 8% and for damages, claiming that:
○ She entered into an agreement with Conchita and Buenaventura, as well as
Francisco Jr and several other defendants (guys di ko na sali lahat ng names
kasi ang dami masyadong involved ang confusing huhu) to engage in business.
○ The initial contribution of property and money came from the heirs’ inheritance
and her subsequent annual investment of Php 7,500 as additional capital came
from the proceeds of her farm.
○ She helped manage the business they co-owned without any salary. Her salary
was supposedly rolled back into the business as additional investments in her
behalf.
○ She also claimed co-ownership of several properties in the name of defendants,
since the only way they could have purchased these is through the partnership
as they had no other source of income.
● Respondents denied having formed a partnership with Antonieta:
○ They claimed that she was still in school at that time, and that in fact, the
proceeds of the land they partitioned were devoted to her studies.
○ While she may have helped in the business, she was paid her due salary.
○ They admitted the existence of the Acknowledgement and used this as evidence
to support their claim that Antonieta’s 8% share was limited to the businesses
therein.
○ They also argue that her claim should be limited to the number of her shares as
specified in the respective articles of incorporation.
○ They also denied using the partnership’s income to purchase the subject real
properties.
● During the course of the RTC proceedings, Federico Jr entered into a compromise
agreement wherein he supported Antonieta’s claim and asserted that he was also
entitled to 6% of the supposed partnership in the same manner as Antonieta.
● RTC: approved the joint motion to approve compromise agreement and also ruled in
favor of Antonieta.
● CA: Agreed to some of the RTC’s factual findings but established that Antonieta was not
part of the partnership and that her 8% share was limited to the businesses enumerated
in the Acknowledgement.
● Hence, Antonieta filed the instant petition for certiorari.
Issue and Held:

● WoN the partnership subject of the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital funded the
subject real properties- NO.
○ RTC: An unregistered partnership existed since 1946 which was affirmed in the
document. The RTC used this as basis for giving Antonieta an 8% share in the 3
businesses therein and in the other businesses and real property of the
respondents as they had allegedly acquired these through funds from the
partnership.
○ CA: Agreed with the RTC as to Antonieta’s 8% share in the business enumerated
but not as to her share in the other corporations and real properties.
○ Under the Civil Code, there are 2 essential elements in a contract of partnership:
■ Agreement to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund
■ Intent to divide the profits among the contracting parties
○ There is no doubt as to the presence of the first element, hence, the issue boils
down to their intent in acting as they did.
○ It is clear from the Art. 1797 of the NCC that a partner is only entitled to his share
as agreed upon, or in the absence of such stipulation, then to his share in
proportion to his contribution to the partnership.
○ Petitioner claims 6% but fails to realize that the Acknowledgement specifically
enumerated the businesses covered by the partnership: Manila Athletic Supply,
Remotigue Trading in Iloilo and Cotabato.
○ Since there was a clear agreement that the capital the partners contributed went
to the 3 businesses, then there is no reason deviate from such agreement and go
beyond the stipulations of the contract.
○ Petitioner’s claim that he is entitled to respondents’ properties based on the
concept of trust is untenable. As a rule, the burden of proving the existence of a
trust is on the party asserting its existence. Petitioner failed to prove that there
exists a trust over the subject real properties aside from his bare allegation.
○ Even assuming arguendo that some partnership income was used to acquire
these properties, the petitioner should have successfully shown that these funds
came from his share in the partnership profits.
Ruling:
● Petition dismissed.

Jarantilla Jr. V. Jarantilla Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jarantilla Jr. V. Jarantilla Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jarantilla Jr. V. Jarantilla Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JARANTILLA JR. V.

Issue and Held:

You might also like