Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    PARTNERSHIP Digest

    Uploaded by

    Romar Bernard Alejandro
    The case involves a complaint by Antonieta Jarantilla against several individuals for an accounting of assets and income from an alleged partnership, as well as a partition of her claimed 8% share. Antonieta claimed she entered into an agreement in 1946 to engage in business through a document acknowledging her participating capital. While the respondents did not deny the agreement's existence, they claimed Antonieta's share was limited to the businesses specified in the document, not certain real properties. The court found the partnership agreement clearly enumerated the three covered businesses, and there was no evidence the real properties were partnership assets. Thus, the court denied the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    PARTNERSHIP Digest

    Uploaded by

    Romar Bernard Alejandro
    12 views1 page
    The case involves a complaint by Antonieta Jarantilla against several individuals for an accounting of assets and income from an alleged partnership, as well as a partition of her claimed 8% share. Antonieta claimed she entered into an agreement in 1946 to engage in business through a document acknowledging her participating capital. While the respondents did not deny the agreement's existence, they claimed Antonieta's share was limited to the businesses specified in the document, not certain real properties. The court found the partnership agreement clearly enumerated the three covered businesses, and there was no evidence the real properties were partnership assets. Thus, the court denied the petition.

    Original Description:

    Jarantilla case

    Original Title

    PARTNERSHIP_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?

    The case involves a complaint by Antonieta Jarantilla against several individuals for an accounting of assets and income from an alleged partnership, as well as a partition of her claimed 8% share. Antonieta claimed she entered into an agreement in 1946 to engage in business through a document acknowledging her participating capital. While the respondents did not deny the agreement's existence, they claimed Antonieta's share was limited to the businesses specified in the document, not certain real properties. The court found the partnership agreement clearly enumerated the three covered businesses, and there was no evidence the real properties were partnership assets. Thus, the court denied the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    PARTNERSHIP Digest

    Uploaded by

    Romar Bernard Alejandro
    The case involves a complaint by Antonieta Jarantilla against several individuals for an accounting of assets and income from an alleged partnership, as well as a partition of her claimed 8% share. Antonieta claimed she entered into an agreement in 1946 to engage in business through a document acknowledging her participating capital. While the respondents did not deny the agreement's existence, they claimed Antonieta's share was limited to the businesses specified in the document, not certain real properties. The court found the partnership agreement clearly enumerated the three covered businesses, and there was no evidence the real properties were partnership assets. Thus, the court denied the petition.

    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

    PARTNERSHIP CASE DIGEST: JARANTILLA, JR. vs. JARANTILLA G.R. No.

    154486, December
    1, 2010,

    FACTS:
    The case stems from the complaint by Antonieta Jarantilla against Buenaventura Remotigue, Cynthia
    Remotigue, Federico Jarantilla, Jr., Doroteo Jarantilla and Tomas Jarantilla, for the accounting of the
    assets and income of the co-ownership, for its partition and the delivery of her share corresponding to
    eight percent (8%), and for damages.
    Antonieta claimed that in 1946, she had entered into an agreement with the defendants to engage in
    business through the execution of a document denominated as "Acknowledgement of Participating
    Capital”.
    Antonieta also alleged that she had helped in the management of the business they co-owned without
    receiving any salary. Antonieta further claimed co-ownership of certain properties (the subject real
    properties) in the name of the defendants since the only way the defendants could have purchased
    these properties were through the partnership as they had no other source of income. The
    respondents did not deny the existence and validity of the "Acknowledgement of Participating Capital"
    and in fact used this as evidence to support their claim that Antonieta’s 8% share was limited to the
    businesses enumerated therein.
    The respondents denied using the partnership’s income to purchase the subject real properties.
    During the course of the trial at the RTC, petitioner Federico Jarantilla, Jr., who was one of the
    original defendants, entered into a compromise agreement with Antonieta Jarantilla wherein he
    supported Antonieta’s claims and asserted that he too was entitled to six percent (6%) of the
    supposed partnership in the same manner as Antonieta was.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the partnership subject of the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital funded the
    subject real properties.

    HELD:
    Under Article 1767 of the Civil Code, there are two essential elements in a contract of partnership:
    (a) An agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to
    divide the profits among the contracting parties.
    The first element is undoubtedly present in the case at bar, for, admittedly, all the parties in this case
    have agreed to, and did, contribute money and property to a common fund.

    Hence, the issue narrows down to their intent in acting as they did. It is not denied that all the parties
    in this case have agreed to contribute capital to a common fund to be able to later on share its profits.
    They have admitted this fact, agreed to its veracity, and even submitted one common documentary
    evidence to prove such partnership - the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital. The petitioner
    himself claims his share to be 6%, as stated in the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital.
    However, petitioner fails to realize that this document specifically enumerated the businesses covered
    by the partnership: Manila Athletic Supply, Remotigue Trading in Iloilo City and Remotigue Trading in
    Cotabato City. Since there was a clear agreement that the capital the partners contributed went to the
    three businesses, then there is no reason to deviate from such agreement and go beyond the
    stipulations in the document. There is no evidence that the subject real properties were assets of the
    partnership referred to in the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital. Petition denied.

    You might also like