ANG PUE & COMPANY, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, defendant-appellee. G.R. No.

L-17295 July 30, 1962

Action for declaratory relief filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo by Ang Pue & Company, Ang Pue and Tan Siong against the Secretary of Commerce and Industry to secure judgment "declaring that plaintiffs could extend for five years the term of the partnership pursuant to the provisions of plaintiffs' Amendment to the Article of Co-partnership." The answer filed by the defendant alleged, in substance, that the extension for another five years of the term of the plaintiffs' partnership would be in violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 1180. It appears that on May 1, 1953, Ang Pue and Tan Siong, both Chinese citizens, organized the partnership Ang Pue & Company for a term of five years from May 1, 1953, extendible by their mutual consent. The purpose of the partnership was "to maintain the business of general merchandising, buying and selling at wholesale and retail, particularly of lumber, hardware and other construction materials for commerce, either native or foreign." The corresponding articles of partnership (Exhibit B) were registered in the Office of the Securities & Exchange Commission on June 16, 1953. On June 19, 1954 Republic Act No. 1180 was enacted to regulate the retail business. It provided, among other things, that, after its enactment, a partnership not wholly formed by Filipinos could continue to engage in the retail business until the expiration of its term. On April 15, 1958 prior to the expiration of the five-year term of the partnership Ang Pue & Company, but after the enactment of the Republic Act 1180, the partners already mentioned amended the original articles of part ownership (Exhibit B) so as to extend the term of life of the partnership to another five years. When the amended articles

were presented for registration in the Office of the Securities & Exchange Commission on April 16, 1958, registration was refused upon the ground that the extension was in violation of the aforesaid Act. From the decision of the lower court dismissing the action, with costs, the plaintiffs interposed this appeal. The question before us is too clear to require an extended discussion. To organize a corporation or a partnership that could claim a juridical personality of its own and transact business as such, is not a matter of absolute right but a privilege which may be enjoyed only under such terms as the State may deem necessary to impose. That the State, through Congress, and in the manner provided by law, had the right to enact Republic Act No. 1180 and to provide therein that only Filipinos and concerns wholly owned by Filipinos may engage in the retail business can not be seriously disputed. That this provision was clearly intended to apply to partnership already existing at the time of the enactment of the law is clearly showing by its provision giving them the right to continue engaging in their retail business until the expiration of their term or life. To argue that because the original articles of partnership provided that the partners could extend the term of the partnership, the provisions of Republic Act 1180 cannot be adversely affect appellants herein, is to erroneously assume that the aforesaid provision constitute a property right of which the partners can not be deprived without due process or without their consent. The agreement contain therein must be deemed subject to the law existing at the time when the partners came to agree regarding the extension. In the present case, as already stated, when the partners amended the articles of partnership, the provisions of Republic Act 1180 were already in force, and there can be not the slightest doubt that the right claimed by appellants to extend the original term of their partnership to another five years would be in violation of the clear intent and purpose of the law aforesaid. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

LORENZO T. OA and HEIRS OF JULIA BUALES, namely: RODOLFO B. OA, MARIANO B. OA, LUZ B. OA, VIRGINIA B. OA and LORENZO B. OA, JR., petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. G.R. No. L-19342 May 25, 1972

BARREDO, J.:p Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 617, similarly entitled as above, holding that petitioners have constituted an unregistered partnership and are, therefore, subject to the payment of the deficiency corporate income taxes assessed against them by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the years 1955 and 1956 in the total sum of P21,891.00, plus 5% surcharge and 1% monthly interest from December 15, 1958, subject to the provisions of Section 51 (e) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 2343 and the costs of the suit, 1 as well as the resolution of said court denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of said decision. The facts are stated in the decision of the Tax Court as follows: Julia Buales died on March 23, 1944, leaving as heirs her surviving spouse, Lorenzo T. Oa and her five children. In 1948, Civil Case No. 4519 was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the settlement of her estate. Later, Lorenzo T. Oa the surviving spouse was appointed administrator of the estate of said deceased (Exhibit 3, pp. 34-41, BIR rec.). On April 14, 1949, the administrator submitted the project of partition, which was approved by the Court on May 16, 1949 (See Exhibit K). Because three of the heirs, namely Luz, Virginia and Lorenzo, Jr., all surnamed Oa, were still minors when the project of partition was approved, Lorenzo T. Oa, their father and administrator of the estate, filed a petition in Civil Case No. 9637 of the Court of First

Instance of Manila for appointment as guardian of said minors. On November 14, 1949, the Court appointed him guardian of the persons and property of the aforenamed minors (See p. 3, BIR rec.). The project of partition (Exhibit K; see also pp. 77-70, BIR rec.) shows that the heirs have undivided one-half (1/2) interest in ten parcels of land with a total assessed value of P87,860.00, six houses with a total assessed value of P17,590.00 and an undetermined amount to be collected from the War Damage Commission. Later, they received from said Commission the amount of P50,000.00, more or less. This amount was not divided among them but was used in the rehabilitation of properties owned by them in common (t.s.n., p. 46). Of the ten parcels of land aforementioned, two were acquired after the death of the decedent with money borrowed from the Philippine Trust Company in the amount of P72,173.00 (t.s.n., p. 24; Exhibit 3, pp. 31-34 BIR rec.). The project of partition also shows that the estate shares equally with Lorenzo T. Oa, the administrator thereof, in the obligation of P94,973.00, consisting of loans contracted by the latter with the approval of the Court (see p. 3 of Exhibit K; or see p. 74, BIR rec.). Although the project of partition was approved by the Court on May 16, 1949, no attempt was made to divide the properties therein listed. Instead, the properties remained under the management of Lorenzo T. Oa who used said properties in business by leasing or selling them and investing the income derived therefrom and the proceeds from the sales thereof in real properties and securities. As a result, petitioners' properties and investments gradually increased from P105,450.00 in 1949 to P480,005.20 in 1956. From said investments and properties petitioners derived such incomes as profits from installment sales of subdivided lots, profits from sales of stocks, dividends, rentals and interests (see p. 3 of Exhibit 3; p. 32, BIR rec.; t.s.n., pp. 37-38). The said incomes are recorded in the books of account kept by Lorenzo T. Oa where the corresponding shares of the petitioners in the net income for the year are also known. Every year,

petitioners returned for income tax purposes their shares in the net income derived from said properties and securities and/or from transactions involving them (Exhibit 3, supra; t.s.n., pp. 25-26). However, petitioners did not actually receive their shares in the yearly income. (t.s.n., pp. 25-26, 40, 98, 100). The income was always left in the hands of Lorenzo T. Oa who, as heretofore pointed out, invested them in real properties and securities. (See Exhibit 3, t.s.n., pp. 50, 102104). On the basis of the foregoing facts, respondent (Commissioner of Internal Revenue) decided that petitioners formed an unregistered partnership and therefore, subject to the corporate income tax, pursuant to Section 24, in relation to Section 84(b), of the Tax Code. Accordingly, he assessed against the petitioners the amounts of P8,092.00 and P13,899.00 as corporate income taxes for 1955 and 1956, respectively. (See Exhibit 5, amended by Exhibit 17, pp. 50 and 86, BIR rec.). Petitioners protested against the assessment and asked for reconsideration of the ruling of respondent that they have formed an unregistered partnership. Finding no merit in petitioners' request, respondent denied it (See Exhibit 17, p. 86, BIR rec.). (See pp. 1-4, Memorandum for Respondent, June 12, 1961). The original assessment was as follows: 1955 Net income as per investigation ................ P40,209.89 Income tax due thereon ............................... 8,042.00 25% surcharge .............................................. 2,010.50 Compromise for non-filing .......................... 50.00 Total ............................................................... P10,102.50 1956 Net income as per investigation ................ P69,245.23

Income tax due thereon ............................... 13,849.00 25% surcharge .............................................. 3,462.25 Compromise for non-filing .......................... 50.00 Total ............................................................... P17,361.25 (See Exhibit 13, page 50, BIR records) Upon further consideration of the case, the 25% surcharge was eliminated in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Collector v. Batangas Transportation Co., G.R. No. L-9692, Jan. 6, 1958, so that the questioned assessment refers solely to the income tax proper for the years 1955 and 1956 and the "Compromise for non-filing," the latter item obviously referring to the compromise in lieu of the criminal liability for failure of petitioners to file the corporate income tax returns for said years. (See Exh. 17, page 86, BIR records). (Pp. 1-3, Annex C to Petition) Petitioners have assigned the following as alleged errors of the Tax Court: I. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS FORMED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP; II. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES INHERITED AND (THE) PROFITS DERIVED FROM TRANSACTIONS THEREFROM (sic); III.

THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS WERE LIABLE FOR CORPORATE INCOME TAXES FOR 1955 AND 1956 AS AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP; IV. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PETITIONERS CONSTITUTED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP TO THE EXTENT ONLY THAT THEY INVESTED THE PROFITS FROM THE PROPERTIES OWNED IN COMMON AND THE LOANS RECEIVED USING THE INHERITED PROPERTIES AS COLLATERALS; V. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DEDUCTING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS PAID BY THE PETITIONERS AS INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX ON THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES OF THE PROFITS ACCRUING FROM THE PROPERTIES OWNED IN COMMON, FROM THE DEFICIENCY TAX OF THE UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP. In other words, petitioners pose for our resolution the following questions: (1) Under the facts found by the Court of Tax Appeals, should petitioners be considered as co-owners of the properties inherited by them from the deceased Julia Buales and the profits derived from transactions involving the same, or, must they be deemed to have formed an unregistered partnership subject to tax under Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code? (2) Assuming they have formed an unregistered partnership, should this not be only in the sense that they invested as a common fund the profits earned by the properties owned by them in common and the loans granted to them upon the security of the said properties, with the result that as far as their respective shares in the inheritance are concerned,

the total income thereof should be considered as that of co-owners and not of the unregistered partnership? And (3) assuming again that they are taxable as an unregistered partnership, should not the various amounts already paid by them for the same years 1955 and 1956 as individual income taxes on their respective shares of the profits accruing from the properties they owned in common be deducted from the deficiency corporate taxes, herein involved, assessed against such unregistered partnership by the respondent Commissioner? Pondering on these questions, the first thing that has struck the Court is that whereas petitioners' predecessor in interest died way back on March 23, 1944 and the project of partition of her estate was judicially approved as early as May 16, 1949, and presumably petitioners have been holding their respective shares in their inheritance since those dates admittedly under the administration or management of the head of the family, the widower and father Lorenzo T. Oa, the assessment in question refers to the later years 1955 and 1956. We believe this point to be important because, apparently, at the start, or in the years 1944 to 1954, the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue did treat petitioners as co-owners, not liable to corporate tax, and it was only from 1955 that he considered them as having formed an unregistered partnership. At least, there is nothing in the record indicating that an earlier assessment had already been made. Such being the case, and We see no reason how it could be otherwise, it is easily understandable why petitioners' position that they are co-owners and not unregistered co-partners, for the purposes of the impugned assessment, cannot be upheld. Truth to tell, petitioners should find comfort in the fact that they were not similarly assessed earlier by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The Tax Court found that instead of actually distributing the estate of the deceased among themselves pursuant to the project of partition approved in 1949, "the properties remained under the management of Lorenzo T. Oa who used said properties in business by leasing or selling them and investing the income derived therefrom and the proceed from the sales thereof in real properties and securities," as a result of which said properties and investments steadily increased yearly

from P87,860.00 in "land account" and P17,590.00 in "building account" in 1949 to P175,028.68 in "investment account," P135.714.68 in "land account" and P169,262.52 in "building account" in 1956. And all these became possible because, admittedly, petitioners never actually received any share of the income or profits from Lorenzo T. Oa and instead, they allowed him to continue using said shares as part of the common fund for their ventures, even as they paid the corresponding income taxes on the basis of their respective shares of the profits of their common business as reported by the said Lorenzo T. Oa. It is thus incontrovertible that petitioners did not, contrary to their contention, merely limit themselves to holding the properties inherited by them. Indeed, it is admitted that during the material years herein involved, some of the said properties were sold at considerable profit, and that with said profit, petitioners engaged, thru Lorenzo T. Oa, in the purchase and sale of corporate securities. It is likewise admitted that all the profits from these ventures were divided among petitioners proportionately in accordance with their respective shares in the inheritance. In these circumstances, it is Our considered view that from the moment petitioners allowed not only the incomes from their respective shares of the inheritance but even the inherited properties themselves to be used by Lorenzo T. Oa as a common fund in undertaking several transactions or in business, with the intention of deriving profit to be shared by them proportionally, such act was tantamonut to actually contributing such incomes to a common fund and, in effect, they thereby formed an unregistered partnership within the purview of the above-mentioned provisions of the Tax Code. It is but logical that in cases of inheritance, there should be a period when the heirs can be considered as co-owners rather than unregistered co-partners within the contemplation of our corporate tax laws aforementioned. Before the partition and distribution of the estate of the deceased, all the income thereof does belong commonly to all the heirs, obviously, without them becoming thereby unregistered copartners, but it does not necessarily follow that such status as coowners continues until the inheritance is actually and physically

distributed among the heirs, for it is easily conceivable that after knowing their respective shares in the partition, they might decide to continue holding said shares under the common management of the administrator or executor or of anyone chosen by them and engage in business on that basis. Withal, if this were to be allowed, it would be the easiest thing for heirs in any inheritance to circumvent and render meaningless Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code. It is true that in Evangelista vs. Collector, 102 Phil. 140, it was stated, among the reasons for holding the appellants therein to be unregistered co-partners for tax purposes, that their common fund "was not something they found already in existence" and that "it was not a property inherited by them pro indiviso," but it is certainly far fetched to argue therefrom, as petitioners are doing here, that ergo, in all instances where an inheritance is not actually divided, there can be no unregistered co-partnership. As already indicated, for tax purposes, the co-ownership of inherited properties is automatically converted into an unregistered partnership the moment the said common properties and/or the incomes derived therefrom are used as a common fund with intent to produce profits for the heirs in proportion to their respective shares in the inheritance as determined in a project partition either duly executed in an extrajudicial settlement or approved by the court in the corresponding testate or intestate proceeding. The reason for this is simple. From the moment of such partition, the heirs are entitled already to their respective definite shares of the estate and the incomes thereof, for each of them to manage and dispose of as exclusively his own without the intervention of the other heirs, and, accordingly he becomes liable individually for all taxes in connection therewith. If after such partition, he allows his share to be held in common with his co-heirs under a single management to be used with the intent of making profit thereby in proportion to his share, there can be no doubt that, even if no document or instrument were executed for the purpose, for tax purposes, at least, an unregistered partnership is formed. This is exactly what happened to petitioners in this case.

10

In this connection, petitioners' reliance on Article 1769, paragraph (3), of the Civil Code, providing that: "The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived," and, for that matter, on any other provision of said code on partnerships is unavailing. In Evangelista, supra, this Court clearly differentiated the concept of partnerships under the Civil Code from that of unregistered partnerships which are considered as "corporations" under Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Justice Roberto Concepcion, now Chief Justice, elucidated on this point thus: To begin with, the tax in question is one imposed upon "corporations", which, strictly speaking, are distinct and different from "partnerships". When our Internal Revenue Code includes "partnerships" among the entities subject to the tax on "corporations", said Code must allude, therefore, to organizations which are not necessarily "partnerships", in the technical sense of the term. Thus, for instance, section 24 of said Code exempts from the aforementioned tax "duly registered general partnerships," which constitute precisely one of the most typical forms of partnerships in this jurisdiction. Likewise, as defined in section 84(b) of said Code, "the term corporation includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized." This qualifying expression clearly indicates that a joint venture need not be undertaken in any of the standard forms, or in confirmity with the usual requirements of the law on partnerships, in order that one could be deemed constituted for purposes of the tax on corporation. Again, pursuant to said section 84(b),the term "corporation" includes, among others, "joint accounts,(cuentas en participacion)" and "associations", none of which has a legal personality of its own, independent of that of its members. Accordingly, the lawmaker could not have regarded that personality as a condition essential to the existence of the partnerships therein referred to. In fact, as above stated, "duly registered general co-partnerships" which are possessed of the aforementioned personality have been expressly excluded by law (sections 24 and 84[b]) from the connotation of the term "corporation." ....

11

xxx xxx xxx Similarly, the American Law ... provides its own concept of a partnership. Under the term "partnership" it includes not only a partnership as known in common law but, as well, a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization which carries on any business, financial operation, or venture, and which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust, estate, or a corporation. ... . (7A Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 789; emphasis ours.) The term "partnership" includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on. ... . (8 Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 562 Note 63; emphasis ours.) For purposes of the tax on corporations, our National Internal Revenue Code includes these partnerships with the exception only of duly registered general copartnerships within the purview of the term "corporation." It is, therefore, clear to our mind that petitioners herein constitute a partnership, insofar as said Code is concerned, and are subject to the income tax for corporations. We reiterated this view, thru Mr. Justice Fernando, in Reyes vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G. R. Nos. L-24020-21, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 198, wherein the Court ruled against a theory of coownership pursued by appellants therein. As regards the second question raised by petitioners about the segregation, for the purposes of the corporate taxes in question, of their inherited properties from those acquired by them subsequently, We consider as justified the following ratiocination of the Tax Court in denying their motion for reconsideration:

12

In connection with the second ground, it is alleged that, if there was an unregistered partnership, the holding should be limited to the business engaged in apart from the properties inherited by petitioners. In other words, the taxable income of the partnership should be limited to the income derived from the acquisition and sale of real properties and corporate securities and should not include the income derived from the inherited properties. It is admitted that the inherited properties and the income derived therefrom were used in the business of buying and selling other real properties and corporate securities. Accordingly, the partnership income must include not only the income derived from the purchase and sale of other properties but also the income of the inherited properties. Besides, as already observed earlier, the income derived from inherited properties may be considered as individual income of the respective heirs only so long as the inheritance or estate is not distributed or, at least, partitioned, but the moment their respective known shares are used as part of the common assets of the heirs to be used in making profits, it is but proper that the income of such shares should be considered as the part of the taxable income of an unregistered partnership. This, We hold, is the clear intent of the law. Likewise, the third question of petitioners appears to have been adequately resolved by the Tax Court in the aforementioned resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the decision of said court. Pertinently, the court ruled this wise: In support of the third ground, counsel for petitioners alleges: Even if we were to yield to the decision of this Honorable Court that the herein petitioners have formed an unregistered partnership and, therefore, have to be taxed as such, it might be recalled that the petitioners in their individual income tax returns reported their shares of the profits of the unregistered partnership. We think it only fair and equitable that the various amounts paid by the individual petitioners as income tax on their respective shares of the unregistered partnership

13

should be deducted from the deficiency income tax found by this Honorable Court against the unregistered partnership. (page 7, Memorandum for the Petitioner in Support of Their Motion for Reconsideration, Oct. 28, 1961.) In other words, it is the position of petitioners that the taxable income of the partnership must be reduced by the amounts of income tax paid by each petitioner on his share of partnership profits. This is not correct; rather, it should be the other way around. The partnership profits distributable to the partners (petitioners herein) should be reduced by the amounts of income tax assessed against the partnership. Consequently, each of the petitioners in his individual capacity overpaid his income tax for the years in question, but the income tax due from the partnership has been correctly assessed. Since the individual income tax liabilities of petitioners are not in issue in this proceeding, it is not proper for the Court to pass upon the same. Petitioners insist that it was error for the Tax Court to so rule that whatever excess they might have paid as individual income tax cannot be credited as part payment of the taxes herein in question. It is argued that to sanction the view of the Tax Court is to oblige petitioners to pay double income tax on the same income, and, worse, considering the time that has lapsed since they paid their individual income taxes, they may already be barred by prescription from recovering their overpayments in a separate action. We do not agree. As We see it, the case of petitioners as regards the point under discussion is simply that of a taxpayer who has paid the wrong tax, assuming that the failure to pay the corporate taxes in question was not deliberate. Of course, such taxpayer has the right to be reimbursed what he has erroneously paid, but the law is very clear that the claim and action for such reimbursement are subject to the bar of prescription. And since the period for the recovery of the excess income taxes in the case of herein petitioners has already lapsed, it would not seem right to virtually disregard prescription merely upon the ground that the reason for the delay is precisely because the taxpayers failed to make the proper return and payment of the corporate taxes legally due from them. In

14

principle, it is but proper not to allow any relaxation of the tax laws in favor of persons who are not exactly above suspicion in their conduct vis-a-vis their tax obligation to the State. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals appealed from is affirm with costs against petitioners.

15

G.R. No. L-1147

September 24, 1903

ESCOLASTICO DUTERTE Y ROSALES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FLORENTINO RALLOS, defendant-appellee.

WILLARD, J.: The plaintiff-appellant claimed that he, the defendant, and one Castro were partners in the management of a cockpit. The defendant denied this. The court found that no such partnership existed and ordered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied. To this order and the judgment he excepted and has brought here the evidence on which the court below based its finding. We have examined the evidence and are of the opinion that said finding, so far as the existence of the copartnership to September 1, 1901, is concerned, is plainly and manifestly against the evidence. We reach this conclusion chiefly from the documents written by the defendant and sent to the plaintiff. It is not contradicted that the plaintiff demanded by letter of the defendant a settlement of their accounts. These demands the defendant answered with the following letter: MY DEAR BOY: I am working at these accounts. Perhaps I will have them ready tomorrow morning. But I have no money, unless Mr. Spitz comes on one of these boats, when we will have funds. Yours, FLORENTINO RALLOS. April 13, 1902. On May 7 the defendant wrote another letter to the plaintiff which is in part as follows: CEBU, May 7, 1902.

16

Seor Don Escolastico Duterte. DEAR BOY: In your letter which I received this afternoon, you designate me as a little less than embezzler. I have in my possession the money of no one but myself. If I have not called you an embezzler or something worse on account of all that you have done and are doing with me, reflect whether you have reason to write me in the manner you do. I have done you a favor in admitting you into the cockpit partnership, as the only manner in which I might collect what you owe me. I think you have made a mistake, and I will frankly refresh your memory. You are indebted to me clearly one thousand pesos, advanced for your former market contract. In the preceding year, the defendant sent to the plaintiff statements of the business for the months of June, July, and August. They are in legal effect the same. Ticoy stands for the plaintiff. That the plaintiff rendered services in the management of the cockpit, and that the defendant paid him money on account of the cockpit, is undisputed. The defendant, after denying that the plaintiff was his partner, testified, among other things, as follows: The profits were divided. A portion was given to two friends, Seores Duterte and Castro, but not as partners. A portion was given to Seor Duterte solely because he was a friend who aided and encouraged the cockpit. I did not have an agreement with them. As a private individual, he had no duty to perform, except when he had to preside at the cockpit. I am not aware that they, or either of them, rendered other services. I did not tell them the reason why I gave them a share. I paid them for my pleasure, as friends, Duterte had no legal interest.

17

Seor Duterte had not authority to employ any person in the cockpit; this function was exercised solely by Seor Isabelo Alburo, since I gave Seor Duterte a portion only as a friend. Castro, the other supposed partner, and a witness for the defendant, denied that he was such a partner, but his testimony is in part as follows: I do not remember what the profit was, but, as I have said, Seor Rallos sent me $20 or $30. I did not keep any account. I did not receive money monthly, but on Mondays Seor Rallos would send me some money. Seor Rallos began to send me money from 20 to 30 pesos, and this money was what obtained on the preceding Sunday in the cockpit. I think Seor Rallos sent it to me as a present for the reason that he could not be present at the cockpit. I am not a servant or employee of the cockpit. I have not any conversation with Seor Rallos with reference to I am not a servant or employee of the cockpit. I have not the business. When Seor Rallos sent me that money he sent me no letter. He sent it to me by a messenger. I think that Seor Rallos sent me that money because I went to the cockpit and helped the president on account of the former. Seor Rallos asked me to go to the cockpit. Yes, I have had a conversation with Seor Rallos. In this conversation Seor Rallos said nothing to me about money. Seor Rallos asked me to go to the cockpit to aid the president. It is not true, as I went to the cockpit only to do him a favor. We have, then, the testimony of the plaintiff that he made a verbal contract of partnership with the defendant for this business, uncontradicted evidence that he performed services in connection with it; that the defendant paid him the money on account thereof and sent him accounts for three months showing his interest to be one-third of the profits in addition to the $5 each day, and wrote him a letter in which he said that he admitted the plaintiff into the partnership in order to collect what the plaintiff owed him on another transaction.

18

The reason which the defendant gives for paying the plaintiff money is not credible. We see no way of explaining the accounts submitted by the defendant to plaintiff on any theory other than that there was a partnership between them up to September 1, 1901, at least. The letter of the defendant, in which he says that he admitted the plaintiff into the partnership, can be explained on no other theory. That there was an agreement to share the profits is clearly proved by the accounts submitted. The plaintiff testified that the profits and losses were to be shared equally. But even omitting this testimony, the case is covered by article 1689 of the Civil Code, which provides that, in the absence of agreement as to the losses, they shall be shared as the gains are. Article 1668 of the Civil Code is not applicable to the case. No real estate was contributed by any member. The partnership did not become the owner of the cockpit. It is undisputed that this was owned by the defendant and that the partnership paid him ten dollars a day for the use of it. Neither can the judgment be sustained on the ground stated by the court in its decision and relied upon by counsel for the appellee here, namely, that Castro should have been joined as a party to the suit. One of the grounds for demurrer mentioned in section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure is "that there is a defect or misjoinder of parties plaintiff or defendants." No demurrer was interposed on this or in any other ground, and by the terms of section 93 of the same Code, by omitting to demur on this ground the defendant waived the objection which he now makes. The finding of fact by the court below, that there was no partnership, at least to September 1, 1901, was plainly and manifestly against the evidence, and for that reason a new trial of this case must be had. In this new trial, if the evidence is the same as upon the first trial, the plaintiff will be entitled to an accounting, at least to September 1, 1901,

19

and for such further term as the proof upon the new trial shows, in the opinion of the court below, that the partnership existed; that accounting can be had in this suit and a final judgment rendered for the plaintiff if any balance appears in his favor. No second or other suit will be necessary. The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial, with the costs of this instance against the appellee, and after the expiration of twenty days, reckoned from the date of this decision, judgment shall be rendered accordingly, and the case is returned to the court below for compliance therewith.

20

G.R. No. L-49982 April 27, 1988 ELIGIO ESTANISLAO, JR., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, REMEDIOS ESTANISLAO, EMILIO and LEOCADIO SANTIAGO, respondents.

GANCAYCO, J.: By this petition for certiorari the Court is asked to determine if a partnership exists between members of the same family arising from their joint ownership of certain properties. Petitioner and private respondents are brothers and sisters who are coowners of certain lots at the corner of Annapolis and Aurora Blvd., QuezonCity which were then being leased to the Shell Company of the Philippines Limited (SHELL). They agreed to open and operate a gas station thereat to be known as Estanislao Shell Service Station with an initial investment of P 15,000.00 to be taken from the advance rentals due to them from SHELL for the occupancy of the said lots owned in common by them. A joint affidavit was executed by them on April 11, 1966 which was prepared byAtty. Democrito Angeles 1 They agreed to help their brother, petitioner herein, by allowing him to operate and manage the gasoline service station of the family. They negotiated with SHELL. For practical purposes and in order not to run counter to the company's policy of appointing only one dealer, it was agreed that petitioner would apply for the dealership. Respondent Remedios helped in managing the bussiness with petitioner from May 3, 1966 up to February 16, 1967. On May 26, 1966, the parties herein entered into an Additional Cash Pledge Agreement with SHELL wherein it was reiterated that the P 15,000.00 advance rental shall be deposited with SHELL to cover advances of fuel to petitioner as dealer with a proviso that said

21

agreement "cancels and supersedes the Joint Affidavit dated 11 April 1966 executed by the co-owners." 2 For sometime, the petitioner submitted financial statements regarding the operation of the business to private respondents, but therafter petitioner failed to render subsequent accounting. Hence through Atty. Angeles, a demand was made on petitioner to render an accounting of the profits. The financial report of December 31, 1968 shows that the business was able to make a profit of P 87,293.79 and that by the year ending 1969, a profit of P 150,000.00 was realized. 3 Thus, on August 25, 1970 private respondents filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against petitioner praying among others that the latter be ordered: 1. to execute a public document embodying all the provisions of the partnership agreement entered into between plaintiffs and defendant as provided in Article 1771 of the New Civil Code; 2. to render a formal accounting of the business operation covering the period from May 6, 1966 up to December 21, 1968 and from January 1, 1969 up to the time the order is issued and that the same be subject to proper audit; 3. to pay the plaintiffs their lawful shares and participation in the net profits of the business in an amount of no less than P l50,000.00 with interest at the rate of 1% per month from date of demand until full payment thereof for the entire duration of the business; and 4. to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P 10,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs of the suit (pp. 13-14 Record on Appeal.) After trial on the merits, on October 15, 1975, Hon. Lino Anover who was then the temporary presiding judge of Branch IV of the trial court,

22

rendered judgment dismissing the complaint and counterclaim and ordering private respondents to pay petitioner P 3,000.00 attorney's fee and costs. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision. On December 10, 1975, Hon. Ricardo Tensuan who was the newly appointed presiding judge of the same branch, set aside the aforesaid derision and rendered another decision in favor of said respondents. The dispositive part thereof reads as follows: WHEREFORE, the Decision of this Court dated October 14, 1975 is hereby reconsidered and a new judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and as against the defendant: (1) Ordering the defendant to execute a public instrument embodying all the provisions of the partnership agreement entered into between plaintiffs and defendant as provided for in Article 1771, Civil Code of the Philippines; (2) Ordering the defendant to render a formal accounting of the business operation from April 1969 up to the time this order is issued, the same to be subject to examination and audit by the plaintiff, (3) Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiffs their lawful shares and participation in the net profits of the business in the amount of P 150,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate of One (1%) Per Cent per month from date of demand until full payment thereof; (4) Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P 5,000.00 by way of attorney's fees of plaintiffs' counsel; as well as the costs of suit. (pp. 161-162. Record on Appeal). Petitioner then interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals enumerating seven (7) errors allegedly committed by the trial court. In due course, a decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals on

23

November 28,1978 affirming in toto the decision of the lower court with costs against petitioner. * A motion for reconsideration of said decision filed by petitioner was denied on January 30, 1979. Not satisfied therewith, the petitioner now comes to this court by way of this petition for certiorari alleging that the respondent court erred: 1. In interpreting the legal import of the Joint Affidavit (Exh. 'A') vis-a-vis the Additional Cash Pledge Agreement (Exhs. "B-2","6", and "L"); and 2. In declaring that a partnership was established by and among the petitioner and the private respondents as regards the ownership and or operation of the gasoline service station business. Petitioner relies heavily on the provisions of the Joint Affidavit of April 11, 1966 (Exhibit A) and the Additional Cash Pledge Agreement of May 20, 1966 (Exhibit 6) which are herein reproduced(a) The joint Affidavit of April 11, 1966, Exhibit A reads: (1) That we are the Lessors of two parcels of land fully describe in Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 45071 and 71244 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, in favor of the LESSEE - SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES LIMITED a corporation duly licensed to do business in the Philippines; (2) That we have requested the said SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINE LIMITED advanced rentals in the total amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P l5,000.00) Philippine Currency, so that we can use the said amount to augment our capital investment in the operation of that gasoline station constructed ,by the said company on our two lots aforesaid by virtue of an outstanding Lease Agreement we have entered into with the said company;

24

(3) That the and SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINE LIMITED out of its benevolence and desire to help us in aumenting our capital investment in the operation of the said gasoline station, has agreed to give us the said amount of P 15,000.00, which amount will partake the nature of ADVANCED RENTALS; (4) That we have freely and voluntarily agreed that upon receipt of the said amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P l6,000.00) from he SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES LIMITED, the said sum as ADVANCED RENTALS to us be applied as monthly rentals for the sai two lots under our Lease Agreement starting on the 25th of May, 1966 until such time that the said of P 15,000.00 be applicable, which time to our estimate and one-half months from May 25, 1966 or until the 10th of October, 1966 more or less; (5) That we have likewise agreed among ourselves that the SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES LIMITED execute an instrument for us to sign embodying our conformity that the said amount that it will generously grant us as requested be applied as ADVANCED RENTALS; and (6) FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NOT., (b) The Additional Cash Pledge Agreement of May 20,1966, Exhibit 6, is as follows: WHEREAS, under the lease Agreement dated 13th November, 1963 (identified as doc. Nos. 491 & 1407, Page Nos. 99 & 66, Book Nos. V & III, Series of 1963 in the Notarial Registers of Notaries Public Rosauro Marquez, and R.D. Liwanag, respectively) executed in favour of SHELL by the herein CO-OWNERS and another Lease Agreement dated 19th March 1964 . . . also executed in favour of SHELL by CO-OWNERS Remedios and MARIA ESTANISLAO for the lease of adjoining portions of two parcels of land at Aurora Blvd./ Annapolis, Quezon City, the CO OWNERS RECEIVE a total monthly rental of PESOS THREE

25

THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO AND 29/100 (P 3,382.29), Philippine Currency; WHEREAS, CO-OWNER Eligio Estanislao Jr. is the Dealer of the Shell Station constructed on the leased land, and as Dealer under the Cash Pledge Agreement dated llth May 1966, he deposited to SHELL in cash the amount of PESOS TEN THOUSAND (P 10,000), Philippine Currency, to secure his purchase on credit of Shell petroleum products; . .. WHEREAS, said DEALER, in his desire, to be granted an increased the limit up to P 25,000, has secured the conformity of his CO-OWNERS to waive and assign to SHELL the total monthly rentals due to all of them to accumulate the equivalent amount of P 15,000, commencing 24th May 1966, this P 15,000 shall be treated as additional cash deposit to SHELL under the same terms and conditions of the aforementioned Cash Pledge Agreement dated llth May 1966. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises,and the mutual covenants among the CO-OWNERS herein and SHELL, said parties have agreed and hereby agree as follows: l. The CO-OWNERS dohere by waive in favor of DEALER the monthly rentals due to all CO-OWNERS, collectively, under the above describe two Lease Agreements, one dated 13th November 1963 and the other dated 19th March 1964 to enable DEALER to increase his existing cash deposit to SHELL, from P 10,000 to P 25,000, for such purpose, the SHELL CO-OWNERS and DEALER hereby irrevocably assign to SHELL the monthly rental of P 3,382.29 payable to them respectively as they fall due, monthly, commencing 24th May 1966, until such time that the monthly rentals accumulated, shall be equal to P l5,000. 2. The above stated monthly rentals accumulated shall be treated as additional cash deposit by DEALER to SHELL, thereby in increasing his credit limit from P 10,000 to P 25,000. This agreement, therefore,

26

cancels and supersedes the Joint affidavit dated 11 April 1966 executed by the CO-OWNERS. 3. Effective upon the signing of this agreement, SHELL agrees to allow DEALER to purchase from SHELL petroleum products, on credit, up to the amount of P 25,000. 4. This increase in the credit shall also be subject to the same terms and conditions of the above-mentioned Cash Pledge Agreement dated llth May 1966. (Exhs. "B-2," "L," and "6"; emphasis supplied) In the aforesaid Joint Affidavit of April 11, 1966 (Exhibit A), it is clearly stipulated by the parties that the P 15,000.00 advance rental due to them from SHELL shall augment their "capital investment" in the operation of the gasoline station, which advance rentals shall be credited as rentals from May 25, 1966 up to four and one-half months or until 10 October 1966, more or less covering said P 15,000.00. In the subsequent document entitled "Additional Cash Pledge Agreement" above reproduced (Exhibit 6), the private respondents and petitioners assigned to SHELL the monthly rentals due them commencing the 24th of May 1966 until such time that the monthly rentals accumulated equal P 15,000.00 which private respondents agree to be a cash deposit of petitioner in favor of SHELL to increase his credit limit as dealer. As above-stated it provided therein that "This agreement, therefore, cancels and supersedes the Joint Affidavit dated 11 April 1966 executed by the CO-OWNERS." Petitioner contends that because of the said stipulation cancelling and superseding that previous Joint Affidavit, whatever partnership agreement there was in said previous agreement had thereby been abrogated. We find no merit in this argument. Said cancelling provision was necessary for the Joint Affidavit speaks of P 15,000.00 advance rentals starting May 25, 1966 while the latter agreement also refers to advance rentals of the same amount starting May 24, 1966. There is, therefore, a duplication of reference to the P 15,000.00 hence the need

27

to provide in the subsequent document that it "cancels and supersedes" the previous one. True it is that in the latter document, it is silent as to the statement in the Joint Affidavit that the P 15,000.00 represents the "capital investment" of the parties in the gasoline station business and it speaks of petitioner as the sole dealer, but this is as it should be for in the latter document SHELL was a signatory and it would be against its policy if in the agreement it should be stated that the business is a partnership with private respondents and not a sole proprietorship of petitioner. Moreover other evidence in the record shows that there was in fact such partnership agreement between the parties. This is attested by the testimonies of private respondent Remedies Estanislao and Atty. Angeles. Petitioner submitted to private respondents periodic accounting of the business. 4 Petitioner gave a written authority to private respondent Remedies Estanislao, his sister, to examine and audit the books of their "common business' aming negosyo). 5 Respondent Remedios assisted in the running of the business. There is no doubt that the parties hereto formed a partnership when they bound themselves to contribute money to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. 6 The sole dealership by the petitioner and the issuance of all government permits and licenses in the name of petitioner was in compliance with the afore-stated policy of SHELL and the understanding of the parties of having only one dealer of the SHELL products. Further, the findings of facts of the respondent court are conclusive in this proceeding, and its conclusion based on the said facts are in accordance with the applicable law. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto with costs against petitioner. This decision is immediately executory and no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration shag be entertained. SO ORDERED.

28

G.R. No. L-9996

October 15, 1957

EUFEMIA EVANGELISTA, MANUELA EVANGELISTA, and FRANCISCA EVANGELISTA, petitioners, vs. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

CONCEPCION, J.: This is a petition filed by Eufemia Evangelista, Manuela Evangelista and Francisca Evangelista, for review of a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, the dispositive part of which reads: FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, we hold that the petitioners are liable for the income tax, real estate dealer's tax and the residence tax for the years 1945 to 1949, inclusive, in accordance with the respondent's assessment for the same in the total amount of P6,878.34, which is hereby affirmed and the petition for review filed by petitioner is hereby dismissed with costs against petitioners. It appears from the stipulation submitted by the parties: 1. That the petitioners borrowed from their father the sum of P59,1400.00 which amount together with their personal monies was used by them for the purpose of buying real properties,. 2. That on February 2, 1943, they bought from Mrs. Josefina Florentino a lot with an area of 3,713.40 sq. m. including improvements thereon from the sum of P100,000.00; this property has an assessed value of P57,517.00 as of 1948; 3. That on April 3, 1944 they purchased from Mrs. Josefa Oppus 21 parcels of land with an aggregate area of 3,718.40 sq. m. including

29

improvements thereon for P130,000.00; this property has an assessed value of P82,255.00 as of 1948; 4. That on April 28, 1944 they purchased from the Insular Investments Inc., a lot of 4,353 sq. m. including improvements thereon for P108,825.00. This property has an assessed value of P4,983.00 as of 1948; 5. That on April 28, 1944 they bought form Mrs. Valentina Afable a lot of 8,371 sq. m. including improvements thereon for P237,234.34. This property has an assessed value of P59,140.00 as of 1948; 6. That in a document dated August 16, 1945, they appointed their brother Simeon Evangelista to 'manage their properties with full power to lease; to collect and receive rents; to issue receipts therefor; in default of such payment, to bring suits against the defaulting tenants; to sign all letters, contracts, etc., for and in their behalf, and to endorse and deposit all notes and checks for them; 7. That after having bought the above-mentioned real properties the petitioners had the same rented or leases to various tenants; 8. That from the month of March, 1945 up to an including December, 1945, the total amount collected as rents on their real properties was P9,599.00 while the expenses amounted to P3,650.00 thereby leaving them a net rental income of P5,948.33; 9. That on 1946, they realized a gross rental income of in the sum of P24,786.30, out of which amount was deducted in the sum of P16,288.27 for expenses thereby leaving them a net rental income of P7,498.13; 10. That in 1948, they realized a gross rental income of P17,453.00 out of the which amount was deducted the sum of P4,837.65 as expenses, thereby leaving them a net rental income of P12,615.35.

30

Said letter of demand and corresponding assessments were delivered to petitioners on December 3, 1954, whereupon they instituted the present case in the Court of Tax Appeals, with a prayer that "the decision of the respondent contained in his letter of demand dated September 24, 1954" be reversed, and that they be absolved from the payment of the taxes in question, with costs against the respondent. After appropriate proceedings, the Court of Tax Appeals the abovementioned decision for the respondent, and a petition for reconsideration and new trial having been subsequently denied, the case is now before Us for review at the instance of the petitioners. The issue in this case whether petitioners are subject to the tax on corporations provided for in section 24 of Commonwealth Act. No. 466, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code, as well as to the residence tax for corporations and the real estate dealers fixed tax. With respect to the tax on corporations, the issue hinges on the meaning of the terms "corporation" and "partnership," as used in section 24 and 84 of said Code, the pertinent parts of which read: SEC. 24. Rate of tax on corporations.There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources by every corporation organized in, or existing under the laws of the Philippines, no matter how created or organized but not including duly registered general co-partnerships (compaias colectivas), a tax upon such income equal to the sum of the following: . . . SEC. 84 (b). The term 'corporation' includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized, joint-stock companies, joint accounts (cuentas en participacion), associations or insurance companies, but does not include duly registered general copartnerships. (compaias colectivas). Article 1767 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides:

31

By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, properly, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Pursuant to the article, the essential elements of a partnership are two, namely: (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, petitioners 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. Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, we are fully satisfied that their purpose was to engage in real estate transactions for monetary gain and then divide the same among themselves, because: 1. Said common fund was not something they found already in existence. It was not property inherited by them pro indiviso. They created it purposely. What is more they jointly borrowed a substantial portion thereof in order to establish said common fund. 2. They invested the same, not merely not merely in one transaction, but in a series of transactions. On February 2, 1943, they bought a lot for P100,000.00. On April 3, 1944, they purchased 21 lots for P18,000.00. This was soon followed on April 23, 1944, by the acquisition of another real estate for P108,825.00. Five (5) days later (April 28, 1944), they got a fourth lot for P237,234.14. The number of lots (24) acquired and transactions undertaken, as well as the brief interregnum between each, particularly the last three purchases, is strongly indicative of a pattern or common design that was not limited to the conservation and preservation of the aforementioned common fund or even of the property acquired by the petitioners in February, 1943. In other words, one cannot but perceive a character of habitually peculiar to business transactions engaged in the purpose of gain. 3. The aforesaid lots were not devoted to residential purposes, or to other personal uses, of petitioners herein. The properties were leased

32

separately to several persons, who, from 1945 to 1948 inclusive, paid the total sum of P70,068.30 by way of rentals. Seemingly, the lots are still being so let, for petitioners do not even suggest that there has been any change in the utilization thereof. 4. Since August, 1945, the properties have been under the management of one person, namely Simeon Evangelista, with full power to lease, to collect rents, to issue receipts, to bring suits, to sign letters and contracts, and to indorse and deposit notes and checks. Thus, the affairs relative to said properties have been handled as if the same belonged to a corporation or business and enterprise operated for profit. 5. The foregoing conditions have existed for more than ten (10) years, or, to be exact, over fifteen (15) years, since the first property was acquired, and over twelve (12) years, since Simeon Evangelista became the manager. 6. Petitioners have not testified or introduced any evidence, either on their purpose in creating the set up already adverted to, or on the causes for its continued existence. They did not even try to offer an explanation therefor. Although, taken singly, they might not suffice to establish the intent necessary to constitute a partnership, the collective effect of these circumstances is such as to leave no room for doubt on the existence of said intent in petitioners herein. Only one or two of the aforementioned circumstances were present in the cases cited by petitioners herein, and, hence, those cases are not in point. Petitioners insist, however, that they are mere co-owners, not copartners, for, in consequence of the acts performed by them, a legal entity, with a personality independent of that of its members, did not come into existence, and some of the characteristics of partnerships are lacking in the case at bar. This pretense was correctly rejected by the Court of Tax Appeals.

33

To begin with, the tax in question is one imposed upon "corporations", which, strictly speaking, are distinct and different from "partnerships". When our Internal Revenue Code includes "partnerships" among the entities subject to the tax on "corporations", said Code must allude, therefore, to organizations which are not necessarily "partnerships", in the technical sense of the term. Thus, for instance, section 24 of said Code exempts from the aforementioned tax "duly registered general partnerships which constitute precisely one of the most typical forms of partnerships in this jurisdiction. Likewise, as defined in section 84(b) of said Code, "the term corporation includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized." This qualifying expression clearly indicates that a joint venture need not be undertaken in any of the standard forms, or in conformity with the usual requirements of the law on partnerships, in order that one could be deemed constituted for purposes of the tax on corporations. Again, pursuant to said section 84(b), the term "corporation" includes, among other, joint accounts, (cuentas en participation)" and "associations," none of which has a legal personality of its own, independent of that of its members. Accordingly, the lawmaker could not have regarded that personality as a condition essential to the existence of the partnerships therein referred to. In fact, as above stated, "duly registered general copartnerships" which are possessed of the aforementioned personality have been expressly excluded by law (sections 24 and 84 [b] from the connotation of the term "corporation" It may not be amiss to add that petitioners' allegation to the effect that their liability in connection with the leasing of the lots above referred to, under the management of one person even if true, on which we express no opinion tends to increase the similarity between the nature of their venture and that corporations, and is, therefore, an additional argument in favor of the imposition of said tax on corporations. Under the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States, "corporations" are taxed differently from "partnerships". By specific provisions of said laws, such "corporations" include "associations, joint-stock companies and insurance companies." However, the term "association" is not used in the aforementioned laws.

34

. . . in any narrow or technical sense. It includes any organization, created for the transaction of designed affairs, or the attainment of some object, which like a corporation, continues notwithstanding that its members or participants change, and the affairs of which, like corporate affairs, are conducted by a single individual, a committee, a board, or some other group, acting in a representative capacity. It is immaterial whether such organization is created by an agreement, a declaration of trust, a statute, or otherwise. It includes a voluntary association, a jointstock corporation or company, a 'business' trusts a 'Massachusetts' trust, a 'common law' trust, and 'investment' trust (whether of the fixed or the management type), an interinsuarance exchange operating through an attorney in fact, a partnership association, and any other type of organization (by whatever name known) which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust or an estate, or a partnership. (7A Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 788; emphasis supplied.). Similarly, the American Law. . . . provides its own concept of a partnership, under the term 'partnership 'it includes not only a partnership as known at common law but, as well, a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organizations which carries on any business financial operation, or venture, and which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust, estate, or a corporation. . . (7A Merten's Law of Federal Income taxation, p. 789; emphasis supplied.) The term 'partnership' includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on, . . .. ( 8 Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 562 Note 63; emphasis supplied.) . For purposes of the tax on corporations, our National Internal Revenue Code, includes these partnerships with the exception only of duly registered general copartnerships within the purview of the term "corporation." It is, therefore, clear to our mind that petitioners herein

35

constitute a partnership, insofar as said Code is concerned and are subject to the income tax for corporations. As regards the residence of tax for corporations, section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 465 provides in part: Entities liable to residence tax.-Every corporation, no matter how created or organized, whether domestic or resident foreign, engaged in or doing business in the Philippines shall pay an annual residence tax of five pesos and an annual additional tax which in no case, shall exceed one thousand pesos, in accordance with the following schedule: . . . The term 'corporation' as used in this Act includes joint-stock company, partnership, joint account (cuentas en participacion), association or insurance company, no matter how created or organized. (emphasis supplied.) Considering that the pertinent part of this provision is analogous to that of section 24 and 84 (b) of our National Internal Revenue Code (commonwealth Act No. 466), and that the latter was approved on June 15, 1939, the day immediately after the approval of said Commonwealth Act No. 465 (June 14, 1939), it is apparent that the terms "corporation" and "partnership" are used in both statutes with substantially the same meaning. Consequently, petitioners are subject, also, to the residence tax for corporations. Lastly, the records show that petitioners have habitually engaged in leasing the properties above mentioned for a period of over twelve years, and that the yearly gross rentals of said properties from June 1945 to 1948 ranged from P9,599 to P17,453. Thus, they are subject to the tax provided in section 193 (q) of our National Internal Revenue Code, for "real estate dealers," inasmuch as, pursuant to section 194 (s) thereof: 'Real estate dealer' includes any person engaged in the business of buying, selling, exchanging, leasing, or renting property or his own

36

account as principal and holding himself out as a full or part time dealer in real estate or as an owner of rental property or properties rented or offered to rent for an aggregate amount of three thousand pesos or more a year. . . (emphasis supplied.) Wherefore, the appealed decision of the Court of Tax appeals is hereby affirmed with costs against the petitioners herein. It is so ordered.

37

G.R. No. L-18010

June 21, 1922

BASILIO BORJA, petitioner-appellee, vs. P. W. ADDISON, ADELINA FERRER, VITALIANA BELISARIO, EUGENIO BELISARIO, and AURENO BELISARIO, objectorsappellants. OSTRAND, J.: This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan ordering the registration, under Act No. 496, of two parcels of land in the name of the petitioner Basilio Borja. The parcels are situated in the barrio of San Francisco, municipality of Umingan, Pangasinan, and contain a total of over 326 hectares. At the trial of the case, a large number of opponents presented themselves but only two of them, P. W. Addison and Adelina Ferrer have appealed. The latter appears for herself and her three children, Vitaliana, Eugenio, and Aureno. The evidence established the following facts:

(1) That one Eulalio Belisario acquired the two parcels of land in question through information posesoria proceedings, instituted in accordance with the provisions of articles 19-21 of the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, and recorded under the provision of the Mortgage Law. The record of the proceedings show that Belisario occupied and began to cultivate the smaller parcel of land in 1880 and the larger one in 1882. According to the somewhat vague testimony of the witness Francisco Ira, Belisario was married to Paula Ira when he took possession of the parcels which therefore probably were community property of the marriage, but this fact does not appear from the record of

38

the informacion posesoria proceedings or from any other document presented in evidence. (2) That on December 20, 1909, Eulalio Belisario conveyed the two parcels mentioned to one Jose Castillo, reserving the right to repurchase the lands for the sum of P550 within the term of five months and two days from the date of the sale. (3) That Paula Ira, the wife of Eulalio Belisario, died on February 13, 1913, leaving as her sole heir their son Maximo Belisario. (4) That after the death of the said Paula Ira, Eulalio and Maximo Belisario occupied and administered the two parcels of land in common. (5) That on August 25, 1913, and upon certain dates subsequent thereto, the lands in question were forfeited to and confiscated by the Government for the non-payment of taxes. (6) That on July 5, 1916, in civil case No. 435 in the court of the justice of the peace of Dagupan, C. H. McClure vs. Maximo Belisario and Eulalio Belisario, an order for attachment was issued against the lands described in certain land tax declarations of which tax Nos. 5437, 5348, and 5351 refer to parts of the land inscribed in the registry of deeds as finca No. 334, and of which tax No. 5352 refers to that land inscribed in the registry of deeds as finca No. 335. (7) That on July 31, 1916, the aforesaid order and notice of attachment were served upon Maximo Belisario and Eulalio Belisario; and on August 5, 1916, the deputy provincial sheriff presented the said order and notice of attachment to the register of deeds for record, but no entries appear to have been made in the book of the registry. (8) That on October 14, 1916, pursuant to a writ of execution issued upon final judgment in said civil case No. 435, the attached lands, as specified in paragraph (6) hereof , we sold to the judgment creditor C. H.

39

McClure, represented by Peter W. Addison. The sale was not recorded in the registry of deeds. (9) That on October 14, 1916, pursuant to a writ of execution issued upon final judgment of the court of the justice of the peace of Dagupan, in civil case No. 450, C. H. McClure vs. Felix Belisario and Eulalio Belisario, the statutory right of redemption belonging to Eulalio Belisario, of the land sold under execution in said case No. 435, was sold by the sheriff at public auction to the judgment creditor C. H. McClure, represented by Peter W. Addison. No record of this sale appears to have been made in the registry of deeds. (10) That on September 19, 1916, a writ of execution was issued upon final judgment of the court of the justice of the peace of Dagupan, in civil case No. 454, C. H. McClure vs. Eulalio Belisario, pursuant to which, on November 14, 1916, levy was made upon the undivided half of the two parcels of land in question, belonging to Eulalio Belisario and upon all right, title, and interest which he had or might have therein. (11) That on December 13, 1916, in conformity with a decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, in the case of the Castillo vs. Belisario (35 Phil., 89). Jose Castillo executed in favor of Eulalio Belisario a deed of resale of the two parcels of land conveyed in the sale with right to repurchase mentioned in paragraph (2) hereof. (12) That on January 11, 1917, an alias writ of execution was issued in the said civil case No. 454, mentioned in paragraph (10) hereof, pursuant to which on February 10, 1917, the judgment creditor C. H. McClure, represented by P. W. Addison, purchased at execution sale the undivided half of the two parcels of land in question, belonging to the said Eulalio Belisario, and all rights, title, interests, and ownership which the defendant in execution had or might have in and to both of said parcels of land in their entirely. This sale was duly presented for record in the registry of deed on March 1, 1917, and recorded on the 14th of the same month.

40

(13) That on January 19, 1917, Eulalio Belisario executed in favor of Basilio Borja a deed of sale of the two parcels of land in question for P7,500, reserving the right to repurchase the lands for the same price within the term of eighteen months from the date thereof. (14) That on January 26, 1917, the said deed of sale with right to repurchase was presented for record in the registry of deeds, but inscription was refused and the deed was returned on February 5, 1917, with an official communication from the register of deeds to the effect that it favor of Jose Castillo, mentioned in paragraph (2) hereof, had not been cancelled on the record. (15) That on February 13, 1917, the deed of resale from Jose Castillo to Eulalio Belisario, mentioned in paragraph (11) hereof, was presented for record in the registry of deeds and was recorded on February 26, 1917. (16) That on March 5, 1917, an alias writ of execution was issued in civil case No. 499 of the court of the justice of the peace of Dagupan, C. H. McClure vs. Maximo Belisario and Eulalio Belisario, pursuant to which, levy was made upon all the remaining interest belonging to said defendants, in and to the two parcels of lands in question, as specified in paragraph (19) and that notice of said levy was duly presented for record and entered upon the daybook of the register of deeds on March 7, 1917. (17) That on March 27, 1917, the deed of sale with right to repurchase executed by Eulalio Belisario in favor of Basilio Borja, mentioned in paragraph (13) hereof, was entered upon the day-book of the register of deed for the first time, this entry being cancelled on April 4, 1917. (18) That on March 30, 1917, Peter W. Addison purchased at the sheriff's sale under the execution in civil case No. 499, mentioned in paragraph (16) hereof, the undivided half of the two parcels of land in question, belonging to Maximo Belisario, and all the rights, title, interests and ownership which both of the defendants in execution, Maximo

41

Belisario and Eulalio Belisario, had or might have in and to both of the said parcels of land in their entirely (19) That on April 4, 1917, Peter W. Addison presented the certificate for the property and interest acquired at execution sale in civil case No. 499, for record in the registry of deed, the document being recorded on April 18, 1917. (20) That on November 12, 1917, in conformity with instructions received from the Judge of the Fourth Sala of the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, the deed of sale with right to repurchase executed by Eulalio Belisario in favor of Basilio Borja and mentioned in paragraphs (13) and (18) hereof, was reinstated in the day-book and recorded in the registry of deems. (21) That on January 23, 1918, the attorney for Basilio Borja transmitted to the provincial sheriff of Pangasinan the sum of P230 for the redemption of the property and interest sold under execution in civil case No. 454, mentioned in paragraph (12) hereof. (22) That on February 11, 1918, the attorney for Basilio Borja was informed by the said sheriff the redemption mentioned in the preceding paragraph would be allowed only upon the condition that the right of redemption be exercised in the execution sales in civil cases Nos. 435, 499, and 450, mentioned in paragraphs (8), (9), and (18) hereof. (23) That on February 16, 1918, the affidavit of C. H. McClure for the consolidacion de dominio in civil case No. 454 was presented for record in the registry of deeds, and inscribed in the registry on February 19, 1919. (24) That on June 24, 1918, the provincial sheriff of Pangasinan signed final deeds of sale for the property and interest, mentioned in paragraph (12) and (18) hereof, in favor of C. H. McClure and Peter W. Addison, the respective purchasers at execution sales in civil cases Nos. 454 and 499.

42

(25) The on June 25, 1918, possession was delivered by the provincial sheriff of Pangasinan to Peter W. Addison, in his own representation and that of C. H. McClure, of the two parcels of land in question, sold under execution in civil cases Nos. 454 and 499. (26) That on July 3, 1918, the affidavit of Peter W. Addison for the consolidacion de dominio in civil case No. 499 was entered upon the day-book in the registry of deeds, and recorded in the registry on March 11, 1919. (27) That on July 12, 1918, C. H. McClure executed a quit-claim deed to Peter W. Addison, for all right, title, and interest that he had in the two parcels of land in question. (28) That on July 31, 1918, the deeds of sale executed by the provincial sheriff of Pangasinan, in favor of C. H. McClure in civil cases No. 454, as mentioned in paragraph (25) hereof, and the quit-claim deed executed by C. H. McClure in favor of Peter W. Addison, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, were entered on the day-book of the registry of deeds, and inscribed in the registry on March 10, 1919. (29) That on January 21, 1919, the Director of Lands authorized Peter W. Addison to repurchase the lands in question, which had been forfeited to an confiscated by the Government, as mentioned in paragraph (5) hereof This repurchase was made under the last proviso of section 19 of Act No. 1791 and was not purchased with the formalities required for the sale of public lands by Act No. 926. (30) That on June 4, 1919, the provincial treasurer of Pangasinan issued a certificate of repurchase to Peter W. Addison, for the confiscated lands mentioned in the preceding paragraph, pursuant to which the said lands were reassessed for taxation in his name. (31) That on March 12, 1919, Eulalio Belisario not having exercised his right of repurchase reserved in the sale of Basilio Borja mentioned in

43

paragraph (13) hereof, the affidavit of Basilio Borja for the consolidacion de dominio was presented for record in the registry of deeds and recorded in the registry on the same date. (32) The Maximo Belisario left a widow, the opponent Adelina Ferrer and three minor children, Vitaliana, Eugenio, and Aureno Belisario as his only heirs. (33) That in the execution and sales thereunder, in which C. H. McClure appears as the judgment creditor, he was represented by the opponent Peter W. Addison, who prepared and had charge of publication of the notices of the various sales and that in none of the sales was the notice published more than twice in a newspaper. The claims of the opponent-appellant Addison have been very fully and ably argued by his counsel but may, we think, be disposed of in comparatively few words. As will be seen from the foregoing statement of facts, he rest his title (1) on the sales under the executions issued in cases Nos. 435, 450, 454, and 499 of the court of the justice of the peace of Dagupan with the priority of inscription of the last two sales in the registry of deeds, and (2) on a purchase from the Director of Lands after the land in question had been forfeited to the Government for nonpayment of taxes under Act No. 1791. The sheriff's sales under the execution mentioned are fatally defective for what of sufficient publication of the notice of sale. Section 454 of the Code of civil Procedure reads in part as follows: SEC. 454. Before the sale of property on execution, notice thereof must be given, as follows: 1. In case of perishable property, by posing written notice of the time and place of the sale in three public places of the municipality or city where the sale is to take place, for such time as may be reasonable, considering the character and condition of the property;

44

2. * * * * * * * 3. In cases of real property, by posting a similar notice particularly describing the property, for twenty days in three public places of the municipality or city where the property is situated, and also where the property is to be sold, and publishing a copy thereof once a week, for the same period, in some newspaper published or having general circulation in the province, if there be one. If there are newspaper published in the province in both the Spanish and English languages, then a like publication for a like period shall be made in one newspaper published in the Spanish language, and in one published in the English language: Provided, however, That such publication in a newspaper will not be required when the assessed valuation of the property does not exceed four hundred pesos; 4. * * * * * * * Examining the record, we find that in cases Nos. 435 and 450 the sales took place on October 14, 1916; the notice first published gave the date of the sale as October 15th, but upon discovering that October 15th was a Sunday, the date was changed to October 14th. The correct notice was published twice in a local newspaper, the first publication was made on October 7th and the second and last on October 14th, the date of the sale itself. The newspaper is a weekly periodical published every Saturday afternoon. In case No. 454 there were only two publications of the notice in a newspaper, the first publication being made only fourteen days before the date of the sale. In case No. 499, there were also only two publications, the first of which was made thirteen days before the sale. In the last case the sale was advertised for the hours of from 8:30 in the morning until 4:30 in the afternoon, in violation of section 457 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In cases Nos. 435 and 450 the hours advertised were from 9:00 in the morning until 4.30 in the afternoon. In all of the cases the notices of the sale were prepared by the judgment

45

creditor or his agent, who also took charged of the publication of such notices. In the case of Campomanes vs. Bartolome and Germann & Co. (38 Phil., 808), this court held that if a sheriff sells without the notice prescribe by the Code of Civil Procedure induced thereto by the judgment creditor and the purchaser at the sale is the judgment creditor, the sale is absolutely void and not title passes. This must now be regarded as the settled doctrine in this jurisdiction whatever the rule may be elsewhere. It appears affirmatively from the evidence in the present case that there is a newspaper published in the province where the sale in question took place and that the assessed valuation of the property disposed of at each sale exceeded P400. Comparing the requirements of section 454, supra, with what was actually done, it is self-evident that notices of the sales mentioned were not given as prescribed by the statute and taking into consideration that in connection with these sales the appellant Addison was either the judgment creditor or else occupied a position analogous to that of a judgment creditor, the sales must be held invalid. The conveyance or reconveyance of the land from the Director of Lands is equally invalid. The provisions of Act No. 1791 pertinent to the purchase or repurchase of land confiscated for non-payment of taxes are found in section 19 of the Act and read: . . . In case such redemption be not made within the time above specified the Government of the Philippine Islands shall have an absolute, indefeasible title to said real property. Upon the expiration of the said ninety days, if redemption be not made, the provincial treasurer shall immediately notify the Director of Lands of the forfeiture and furnish him with a description of the property, and said Director of Lands shall have full control and custody thereof to lease or sell the same or any portion thereof in the same manner as other public lands are leased or sold: Provided, That the original owner, or his legal representative,

46

shall have the right to repurchase the entire amount of his said real property, at any time before a sale or contract of sale has been made by the director of Lands to a third party, by paying therefore the whole sum due thereon at the time of ejectment together with a penalty of ten per centum . . . . The appellant Addison repurchased under the final proviso of the section quoted and was allowed to do so as the successor in interest of the original owner under the execution sale above discussed. As we have seen, he acquired no rights under these sales, was therefore not the successor of the original owner and could only have obtained a valid conveyance of such titles as the Government might have by following the procedure prescribed by the Public Land Act for the sale of public lands. he is entitled to reimbursement for the money paid for the redemption of the land, with interest, but has acquired no title through the redemption. The question of the priority of the record of the sheriff's sales over that of the sale from Belisario to Borja is extensively argued in the briefs, but from our point of view is of no importance; void sheriff's or execution sales cannot be validated through inscription in the Mortgage Law registry. The opposition of Adelina Ferrer must also be overruled. She maintained that the land in question was community property of the marriage of Eulalio Belisario and Paula Ira: that upon the death of Paula Ira in 1913, Maximo Belisario, the only son and heir of the spouses, entered into the joint administration of the property with his father; that this joint administration was equivalent to the formation of a new community of property between father and son and that it succeeded and extinguished the preexisting community of property between the spouses; that the special rights of the surviving husband as liquidator of the community property of the marriage thereupon also terminated; that, therefore, the surviving husband had not right to sell or otherwise dispose of more than his own undivided share of such community property and that, consequently, the right Maximo Belisario as the sole

47

heir of his mother to one-half of the community property was unaffected by the sale made by his father to the petitioner Borja. This court held in the cases of Nable Jose vs. Nable Jose (41 Phil., 713) and Manuel and Laxamana vs. Losano (41 Phil., 855), that "in the absence of fraud and collusion, sales or mortgages of community property, either real or personal, made by a husband-administrator clothed with the insignia of ownership and in whose name the property is held, after the death of his spouse, are valid and effective. the purchaser being entitled to presume that such sales or mortgages are executed for the purpose of securing money to pay community debts and that the vendor has authority to dispose of the property thus administered by him and held in his name. . . ." Though this rule is, perhaps, not in harmony with the views of various commentators upon the Civil Code, it is the main supported by a line of decisions of the supreme court of Spain and until the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code are amended, will probably not be greatly modified by future decisions of this court. There is no reason in a law why the heirs of the deceased wife may not form a partnership with the surviving husband for the management and control of the community property of the marriage and conceivably such a partnership, or rather community of property, between the heirs and the surviving husband might be formed without a written agreement. But, in the absence of the formalities prescribed by the Code of Commerce or by articles 1667 and 1668 of the Civil Code, knowledge of the existence of the new partnership or community of property must, at least, be brought home to third persons dealing with the surviving husband in regard to community real property in order to bind them by the community agreement. In the present case the land was recorded in the real property register in the name of Eulalio Belisario and there is not a scintilla of evidence to show that the petitioner herein, Basilio Borja, had any notice of the fact that Maximo Belisario participated in the administration of the property or claimed any rights or ownership therein. The case, therefore, falls

48

squarely within the rule laid down in the cases above cited and the deed from Eulalio Belisario to Basilio Borja must be held to have conveyed to the latter the whole fee of the land in question. The decision appealed from is affirmed without costs. The registration of the land will be made subject to the lien of P. W. Addison for the sums of money expended for the redemption of the land from the forfeiture for nonpayment of taxes. So ordered.

49

G.R. No. 3186

March 7, 1907

THE GREAT COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE IMPROVED ORDER OF RED MEN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE VETERAN ARMY OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendant-appellant. Hartigan, Rohde, & Gutierrez for appellant. W. A. Kincaid for appellee. WILLAR, J.: Article 3 of the Constitution of the Veteran Army of the Philippines provides as follows: The object of this association shall be to perpetuate the spirit of patriotism and fraternity those men who upheld the Stars and Stripes in the Philippine Islands during the Spanish war and the Philippine insurrection, and to promote the welfare of its members in every just and honorable way; to assist the sick and afflicted and to bury the dead, to maintain among its members in time of peace the same union and harmony with which they served their country in times of war and insurrection. Article 5 provides that: This association shall be composed of (a) A department. (b) Two or more posts. It is provided in article 6 that the department shall be composed of a department commander, fourteen officers, and the commander of each post, or some member of the post appointed by him. Six members of the department constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

50

The Constitution also provides for the organization of posts. Among the posts thus organized is the General Henry W. Lawton Post, No. 1. On the 1st day of March, 1903, a contract of lease of parts of a certain buildings in the city of Manila was signed by W.W. Lewis, E.C. Stovall, and V.O., Hayes, as trustees of the Apache Tribe, No. 1, Improved Order of Red Men, as lessors, and Albert E. McCabe, citing for and on behalf of Lawton Post, Veteran Army of the Philippines as lessee. The lease was for the term of two years commencing February 1, 903, and ending February 28, 1905. The Lawton Post occupied the premises in controversy for thirteen months, and paid the rent for that time. It them abandoned them and this action was commenced to recover the rent for the unexpired term. Judgment was rendered in the court below on favor of the defendant McCabe, acquitting him of the complaint. Judgment was rendered also against the Veteran Army of the Philippines for P1,738.50, and the costs. From this judgment, the last named defendant has appealed. The plaintiff did not appeal from the judgment acquitting defendant McCabe of the complaint. It is claimed by the appellant that the action can not be maintained by the plaintiff, The Great Council of the United States of the Improved Order of Red Men, as this organization did not make the contract of lease. It is also claimed that the action can not be maintained against the Veteran Army of the Philippines because it never contradicted, either with the plaintiff or with Apach Tribe, No. 1, and never authorized anyone to so contract in its name. We do not find it necessary to consider the first point because we think the contention of the appellant on the second point must be sustained. It is difficult to determine the exact nature of the defendant organization. It is of course not a mercantile partnership. There is some doubt as to whether it is a civil partnership, in view of the definition of the term in article 1665 of the Civil Code. That article is as follows:

51

Partnership is a contract by which two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. It seems to be the opinion of the commentators that where the society is not constituted for the purpose of gain. it does not fall within this article of the Civil Code. Such an organization is fully covered by the Law of Associations of 1887, but that law was never extended to the Philippine Islands. According to some commentators it would be governed by the provisions relating to the community of property. However, the questions thus presented we do not find necessary to , and to not resolve. The view most favorable to the appellee is the one that makes the appellant a civil partnership. Assuming that is such, and is covered by the provisions of title 8, book 4 of the Civil Code, it is necessary for the appellee to prove that the contract in question was executed by some authorized to so by the Veteran Army of the Philippines. Article 1695 of the Civil Code provides as follows: Should no agreement have been made with regard to the form of management, the following rules shall be observed: 1 All the partners shall be considered as agents, and whatever any one of them may do by himself shall bind the partnership; but each one may oppose the act of the others before they may have produced any legal effect. One partner, therefore, is empowered to contract in the name of the partnership only when the articles of partnership make no provision for the management of the partnership business. In the case at bar we think that the articles of the Veteran Army of the Philippines do so provide. It is true that an express disposition to that effect is not found therein, but we think one may be fairly deduced from the contents of those articles. They declare what the duties of the several officers are. In these various provisions there is nothing said about the power of making contracts,

52

and that faculty is not expressly given to any officer. We think that it was, therefore, reserved to the department as a whole; that is, that in any case not covered expressly by the rules prescribing the duties of the officers, the department were present. It is hardly conceivable that the members who formed this organization should have had the intention of giving to any one of the sixteen or more persons who composed the department the power to make any contract relating to the society which that particular officer saw fit to make, or that a contract when so made without consultation with, or knowledge of the other members of the department should bind it. We therefore, hold, that no contract, such as the one in question, is binding on the Veteran Army of the Philippines unless it was authorized at a meeting of the department. No evidence was offered to show that the department had never taken any such action. In fact, the proof shows that the transaction in question was entirely between Apache Tribe, No. 1, and the Lawton Post, and there is nothing to show that any member of the department ever knew anything about it, or had anything to do with it. The liability of the Lawton Post is not presented in this appeal. Judgment against the appellant is reversed, and the Veteran Army of the Philippines is acquitted of the complaint. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court. After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be rendered in accordance to the lower court for proper action. So ordered.

53

G.R. No. 126881

October 3, 2000

HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and BENGUET LUMBER COMPANY, represented by its President TAN ENG LAY, respondents. DE LEON, JR., J.: In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners pray for the reversal of the Decision1 dated March 13, 1996 of the former Fifth Division2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47937, the dispositive portion of which states: THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the appealed decision is hereby set aside, and the complaint dismissed. The facts are: Following the death of Tan Eng Kee on September 13, 1984, Matilde Abubo, the common-law spouse of the decedent, joined by their children Teresita, Nena, Clarita, Carlos, Corazon and Elpidio, collectively known as herein petitioners HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, filed suit against the decedent's brother TAN ENG LAY on February 19, 1990. The complaint,3 docketed as Civil Case No. 1983-R in the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City was for accounting, liquidation and winding up of the alleged partnership formed after World War II between Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay. On March 18, 1991, the petitioners filed an amended complaint4 impleading private respondent herein BENGUET LUMBER COMPANY, as represented by Tan Eng Lay. The amended complaint was admitted by the trial court in its Order dated May 3, 1991.5 The amended complaint principally alleged that after the second World War, Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay, pooling their resources and industry together, entered into a partnership engaged in the business of selling lumber and hardware and construction supplies. They named

54

their enterprise "Benguet Lumber" which they jointly managed until Tan Eng Kee's death. Petitioners herein averred that the business prospered due to the hard work and thrift of the alleged partners. However, they claimed that in 1981, Tan Eng Lay and his children caused the conversion of the partnership "Benguet Lumber" into a corporation called "Benguet Lumber Company." The incorporation was purportedly a ruse to deprive Tan Eng Kee and his heirs of their rightful participation in the profits of the business. Petitioners prayed for accounting of the partnership assets, and the dissolution, winding up and liquidation thereof, and the equal division of the net assets of Benguet Lumber. After trial, Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 7 rendered judgment6 on April 12, 1995, to wit: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered: a) Declaring that Benguet Lumber is a joint venture which is akin to a particular partnership; b) Declaring that the deceased Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay are joint adventurers and/or partners in a business venture and/or particular partnership called Benguet Lumber and as such should share in the profits and/or losses of the business venture or particular partnership; c) Declaring that the assets of Benguet Lumber are the same assets turned over to Benguet Lumber Co. Inc. and as such the heirs or legal representatives of the deceased Tan Eng Kee have a legal right to share in said assets; d) Declaring that all the rights and obligations of Tan Eng Kee as joint adventurer and/or as partner in a particular partnership have descended to the plaintiffs who are his legal heirs. e) Ordering the defendant Tan Eng Lay and/or the President and/or General Manager of Benguet Lumber Company Inc. to render an

55

accounting of all the assets of Benguet Lumber Company, Inc. so the plaintiffs know their proper share in the business; f) Ordering the appointment of a receiver to preserve and/or administer the assets of Benguet Lumber Company, Inc. until such time that said corporation is finally liquidated are directed to submit the name of any person they want to be appointed as receiver failing in which this Court will appoint the Branch Clerk of Court or another one who is qualified to act as such. g) Denying the award of damages to the plaintiffs for lack of proof except the expenses in filing the instant case. h) Dismissing the counter-claim of the defendant for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Private respondent sought relief before the Court of Appeals which, on March 13, 1996, rendered the assailed decision reversing the judgment of the trial court. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration7 was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution8 dated October 11, 1996. Hence, the present petition. As a side-bar to the proceedings, petitioners filed Criminal Case No. 78856 against Tan Eng Lay and Wilborn Tan for the use of allegedly falsified documents in a judicial proceeding. Petitioners complained that Exhibits "4" to "4-U" offered by the defendants before the trial court, consisting of payrolls indicating that Tan Eng Kee was a mere employee of Benguet Lumber, were fake, based on the discrepancy in the signatures of Tan Eng Kee. They also filed Criminal Cases Nos. 7885778870 against Gloria, Julia, Juliano, Willie, Wilfredo, Jean, Mary and Willy, all surnamed Tan, for alleged falsification of commercial documents by a private individual. On March 20, 1999, the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 1, wherein the charges were filed, rendered judgment9 dismissing the cases for insufficiency of evidence.

56

In their assignment of errors, petitioners claim that: I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE LATE TAN ENG KEE AND HIS BROTHER TAN ENG LAY BECAUSE: (A) THERE WAS NO FIRM ACCOUNT; (B) THERE WAS NO FIRM LETTERHEADS SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE; (C) THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF PARTNERSHIP; (D) THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT AS TO PROFITS AND LOSSES; AND (E) THERE WAS NO TIME FIXED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP (PAGE 13, DECISION). II THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RELYING SOLELY ON THE SELF-SERVING TESTIMONY OF RESPONDENT TAN ENG LAY THAT BENGUET LUMBER WAS A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP AND THAT TAN ENG KEE WAS ONLY AN EMPLOYEE THEREOF. III THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE FOLLOWING FACTS WHICH WERE DULY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF BOTH PARTIES DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTNERSHIP JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ARTICLES OF PARTNERSHIP DULY RECORDED BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION: a. THAT THE FAMILIES OF TAN ENG KEE AND TAN ENG LAY WERE ALL LIVING AT THE BENGUET LUMBER COMPOUND; b. THAT BOTH TAN ENG LAY AND TAN ENG KEE WERE COMMANDING THE EMPLOYEES OF BENGUET LUMBER;

57

c. THAT BOTH TAN ENG KEE AND TAN ENG LAY WERE SUPERVISING THE EMPLOYEES THEREIN; d. THAT TAN ENG KEE AND TAN ENG LAY WERE THE ONES DETERMINING THE PRICES OF STOCKS TO BE SOLD TO THE PUBLIC; AND e. THAT TAN ENG LAY AND TAN ENG KEE WERE THE ONES MAKING ORDERS TO THE SUPPLIERS (PAGE 18, DECISION). IV THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PARTNERSHIP JUST BECAUSE THE CHILDREN OF THE LATE TAN ENG KEE: ELPIDIO TAN AND VERONICA CHOI, TOGETHER WITH THEIR WITNESS BEATRIZ TANDOC, ADMITTED THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WHEN THE ESTABLISHMENT KNOWN IN BAGUIO CITY AS BENGUET LUMBER WAS STARTED AS A PARTNERSHIP (PAGE 16-17, DECISION). V THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE LATE TAN ENG KEE AND HIS BROTHER TAN ENG LAY BECAUSE THE PRESENT CAPITAL OR ASSETS OF BENGUET LUMBER IS DEFINITELY MORE THAN P3,000.00 AND AS SUCH THE EXECUTION OF A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT CREATING A PARTNERSHIP SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AND NO SUCH PUBLIC INSTRUMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLEES (PAGE 17, DECISION). As a premise, we reiterate the oft-repeated rule that findings of facts of the Court of Appeals will not be disturbed on appeal if such are supported by the evidence.10 Our jurisdiction, it must be emphasized, does not include review of factual issues. Thus:

58

Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.11 [emphasis supplied] Admitted exceptions have been recognized, though, and when present, may compel us to analyze the evidentiary basis on which the lower court rendered judgment. Review of factual issues is therefore warranted: (1) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory; (2) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (5) when the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts; (7) when the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;

59

(9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.12 In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals ruled, to wit: We note that the Court a quo over extended the issue because while the plaintiffs mentioned only the existence of a partnership, the Court in turn went beyond that by justifying the existence of a joint venture. When mention is made of a joint venture, it would presuppose parity of standing between the parties, equal proprietary interest and the exercise by the parties equally of the conduct of the business, thus: xxx xxx xxx

We have the admission that the father of the plaintiffs was not a partner of the Benguet Lumber before the war. The appellees however argued that (Rollo, p. 104; Brief, p. 6) this is because during the war, the entire stocks of the pre-war Benguet Lumber were confiscated if not burned by the Japanese. After the war, because of the absence of capital to start a lumber and hardware business, Lay and Kee pooled the proceeds of their individual businesses earned from buying and selling military supplies, so that the common fund would be enough to form a partnership, both in the lumber and hardware business. That Lay and Kee actually established the Benguet Lumber in Baguio City, was even testified to by witnesses. Because of the pooling of resources, the postwar Benguet Lumber was eventually established. That the father of the plaintiffs and Lay were partners, is obvious from the fact that: (1) they conducted the affairs of the business during Kee's lifetime, jointly, (2) they were the ones giving orders to the employees, (3) they were the ones preparing orders from the suppliers, (4) their families stayed

60

together at the Benguet Lumber compound, and (5) all their children were employed in the business in different capacities. xxx xxx xxx

It is obvious that there was no partnership whatsoever. Except for a firm name, there was no firm account, no firm letterheads submitted as evidence, no certificate of partnership, no agreement as to profits and losses, and no time fixed for the duration of the partnership. There was even no attempt to submit an accounting corresponding to the period after the war until Kee's death in 1984. It had no business book, no written account nor any memorandum for that matter and no license mentioning the existence of a partnership [citation omitted]. Also, the exhibits support the establishment of only a proprietorship. The certification dated March 4, 1971, Exhibit "2", mentioned co-defendant Lay as the only registered owner of the Benguet Lumber and Hardware. His application for registration, effective 1954, in fact mentioned that his business started in 1945 until 1985 (thereafter, the incorporation). The deceased, Kee, on the other hand, was merely an employee of the Benguet Lumber Company, on the basis of his SSS coverage effective 1958, Exhibit "3". In the Payrolls, Exhibits "4" to "4-U", inclusive, for the years 1982 to 1983, Kee was similarly listed only as an employee; precisely, he was on the payroll listing. In the Termination Notice, Exhibit "5", Lay was mentioned also as the proprietor. xxx xxx xxx

We would like to refer to Arts. 771 and 772, NCC, that a partner [sic] may be constituted in any form, but when an immovable is constituted, the execution of a public instrument becomes necessary. This is equally true if the capitalization exceeds P3,000.00, in which case a public instrument is also necessary, and which is to be recorded with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In this case at bar, we can easily assume that the business establishment, which from the language of the appellees, prospered (pars. 5 & 9, Complaint), definitely exceeded

61

P3,000.00, in addition to the accumulation of real properties and to the fact that it is now a compound. The execution of a public instrument, on the other hand, was never established by the appellees. And then in 1981, the business was incorporated and the incorporators were only Lay and the members of his family. There is no proof either that the capital assets of the partnership, assuming them to be in existence, were maliciously assigned or transferred by Lay, supposedly to the corporation and since then have been treated as a part of the latter's capital assets, contrary to the allegations in pars. 6, 7 and 8 of the complaint. These are not evidences supporting the existence of a partnership: 1) That Kee was living in a bunk house just across the lumber store, and then in a room in the bunk house in Trinidad, but within the compound of the lumber establishment, as testified to by Tandoc; 2) that both Lay and Kee were seated on a table and were "commanding people" as testified to by the son, Elpidio Tan; 3) that both were supervising the laborers, as testified to by Victoria Choi; and 4) that Dionisio Peralta was supposedly being told by Kee that the proceeds of the 80 pieces of the G.I. sheets were added to the business. Partnership presupposes the following elements [citation omitted]: 1) a contract, either oral or written. However, if it involves real property or where the capital is P3,000.00 or more, the execution of a contract is necessary; 2) the capacity of the parties to execute the contract; 3) money property or industry contribution; 4) community of funds and interest, mentioning equality of the partners or one having a proportionate share in the benefits; and 5) intention to divide the profits, being the true test of the partnership. The intention to join in the business venture for the purpose of obtaining profits thereafter to be divided, must be established. We cannot see these elements from the testimonial evidence of the appellees.

62

As can be seen, the appellate court disputed and differed from the trial court which had adjudged that TAN ENG KEE and TAN ENG LAY had allegedly entered into a joint venture. In this connection, we have held that whether a partnership exists is a factual matter; consequently, since the appeal is brought to us under Rule 45, we cannot entertain inquiries relative to the correctness of the assessment of the evidence by the court a quo.13 Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals and the trial court had reached conflicting conclusions, perforce we must examine the record to determine if the reversal was justified. The primordial issue here is whether Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay were partners in Benguet Lumber. A contract of partnership is defined by law as one where: . . . two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Two or more persons may also form a partnership for the exercise of a profession.14 Thus, in order to constitute a partnership, it must be established that (1) two or more persons bound themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, and (2) they intend to divide the profits among themselves.15 The agreement need not be formally reduced into writing, since statute allows the oral constitution of a partnership, save in two instances: (1) when immovable property or real rights are contributed,16 and (2) when the partnership has a capital of three thousand pesos or more.17 In both cases, a public instrument is required.18 An inventory to be signed by the parties and attached to the public instrument is also indispensable to the validity of the partnership whenever immovable property is contributed to the partnership.19 The trial court determined that Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay had entered into a joint venture, which it said is akin to a particular

63

partnership.20 A particular partnership is distinguished from a joint adventure, to wit: (a) A joint adventure (an American concept similar to our joint accounts) is a sort of informal partnership, with no firm name and no legal personality. In a joint account, the participating merchants can transact business under their own name, and can be individually liable therefor. (b) Usually, but not necessarily a joint adventure is limited to a SINGLE TRANSACTION, although the business of pursuing to a successful termination may continue for a number of years; a partnership generally relates to a continuing business of various transactions of a certain kind.21 A joint venture "presupposes generally a parity of standing between the joint co-ventures or partners, in which each party has an equal proprietary interest in the capital or property contributed, and where each party exercises equal rights in the conduct of the business."22 Nonetheless, in Aurbach, et. al. v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation, et. al.,23 we expressed the view that a joint venture may be likened to a particular partnership, thus: The legal concept of a joint venture is of common law origin. It has no precise legal definition, but it has been generally understood to mean an organization formed for some temporary purpose. (Gates v. Megargel, 266 Fed. 811 [1920]) It is hardly distinguishable from the partnership, since their elements are similar community of interest in the business, sharing of profits and losses, and a mutual right of control. (Blackner v. McDermott, 176 F. 2d. 498, [1949]; Carboneau v. Peterson, 95 P.2d., 1043 [1939]; Buckley v. Chadwick, 45 Cal. 2d. 183, 288 P.2d. 12 289 P.2d. 242 [1955]). The main distinction cited by most opinions in common law jurisdiction is that the partnership contemplates a general business with some degree of continuity, while the joint venture is formed for the execution of a single transaction, and is thus of a temporary nature. (Tufts v. Mann. 116 Cal. App. 170, 2 P. 2d. 500 [1931]; Harmon v. Martin, 395 Ill. 595, 71 NE 2d. 74 [1947]; Gates v.

64

Megargel 266 Fed. 811 [1920]). This observation is not entirely accurate in this jurisdiction, since under the Civil Code, a partnership may be particular or universal, and a particular partnership may have for its object a specific undertaking. (Art. 1783, Civil Code). It would seem therefore that under Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of partnership and should thus be governed by the law of partnerships. The Supreme Court has however recognized a distinction between these two business forms, and has held that although a corporation cannot enter into a partnership contract, it may however engage in a joint venture with others. (At p. 12, Tuazon v. Bolaos, 95 Phil. 906 [1954]) (Campos and Lopez-Campos Comments, Notes and Selected Cases, Corporation Code 1981). Undoubtedly, the best evidence would have been the contract of partnership itself, or the articles of partnership but there is none. The alleged partnership, though, was never formally organized. In addition, petitioners point out that the New Civil Code was not yet in effect when the partnership was allegedly formed sometime in 1945, although the contrary may well be argued that nothing prevented the parties from complying with the provisions of the New Civil Code when it took effect on August 30, 1950. But all that is in the past. The net effect, however, is that we are asked to determine whether a partnership existed based purely on circumstantial evidence. A review of the record persuades us that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the decision of the trial court. The evidence presented by petitioners falls short of the quantum of proof required to establish a partnership. Unfortunately for petitioners, Tan Eng Kee has passed away. Only he, aside from Tan Eng Lay, could have expounded on the precise nature of the business relationship between them. In the absence of evidence, we cannot accept as an established fact that Tan Eng Kee allegedly contributed his resources to a common fund for the purpose of establishing a partnership. The testimonies to that effect of petitioners' witnesses is directly controverted by Tan Eng Lay. It should be noted that it is not with the number of witnesses wherein preponderance lies;24 the quality of their testimonies is to be considered. None of

65

petitioners' witnesses could suitably account for the beginnings of Benguet Lumber Company, except perhaps for Dionisio Peralta whose deceased wife was related to Matilde Abubo.25 He stated that when he met Tan Eng Kee after the liberation, the latter asked the former to accompany him to get 80 pieces of G.I. sheets supposedly owned by both brothers.26 Tan Eng Lay, however, denied knowledge of this meeting or of the conversation between Peralta and his brother.27 Tan Eng Lay consistently testified that he had his business and his brother had his, that it was only later on that his said brother, Tan Eng Kee, came to work for him. Be that as it may, co-ownership or co-possession (specifically here, of the G.I. sheets) is not an indicium of the existence of a partnership.28 Besides, it is indeed odd, if not unnatural, that despite the forty years the partnership was allegedly in existence, Tan Eng Kee never asked for an accounting. The essence of a partnership is that the partners share in the profits and losses.29 Each has the right to demand an accounting as long as the partnership exists.30 We have allowed a scenario wherein "[i]f excellent relations exist among the partners at the start of the business and all the partners are more interested in seeing the firm grow rather than get immediate returns, a deferment of sharing in the profits is perfectly plausible."31 But in the situation in the case at bar, the deferment, if any, had gone on too long to be plausible. A person is presumed to take ordinary care of his concerns.32 As we explained in another case: In the first place, plaintiff did not furnish the supposed P20,000.00 capital. In the second place, she did not furnish any help or intervention in the management of the theatre. In the third place, it does not appear that she has even demanded from defendant any accounting of the expenses and earnings of the business. Were she really a partner, her first concern should have been to find out how the business was progressing, whether the expenses were legitimate, whether the earnings were correct, etc. She was absolutely silent with respect to any of the acts that a partner should have done; all that she did was to receive her share of P3,000.00 a month, which cannot be interpreted in

66

any manner than a payment for the use of the premises which she had leased from the owners. Clearly, plaintiff had always acted in accordance with the original letter of defendant of June 17, 1945 (Exh. "A"), which shows that both parties considered this offer as the real contract between them.33 [emphasis supplied] A demand for periodic accounting is evidence of a partnership.34 During his lifetime, Tan Eng Kee appeared never to have made any such demand for accounting from his brother, Tang Eng Lay. This brings us to the matter of Exhibits "4" to "4-U" for private respondents, consisting of payrolls purporting to show that Tan Eng Kee was an ordinary employee of Benguet Lumber, as it was then called. The authenticity of these documents was questioned by petitioners, to the extent that they filed criminal charges against Tan Eng Lay and his wife and children. As aforesaid, the criminal cases were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Exhibits "4" to "4-U" in fact shows that Tan Eng Kee received sums as wages of an employee. In connection therewith, Article 1769 of the Civil Code provides: In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply: (1) Except as provided by Article 1825, persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons; (2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property; (3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property which the returns are derived; (4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is a prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment:

67

(a) As a debt by installment or otherwise; (b) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord; (c) As an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner; (d) As interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the business; (e) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by installments or otherwise. In the light of the aforequoted legal provision, we conclude that Tan Eng Kee was only an employee, not a partner. Even if the payrolls as evidence were discarded, petitioners would still be back to square one, so to speak, since they did not present and offer evidence that would show that Tan Eng Kee received amounts of money allegedly representing his share in the profits of the enterprise. Petitioners failed to show how much their father, Tan Eng Kee, received, if any, as his share in the profits of Benguet Lumber Company for any particular period. Hence, they failed to prove that Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay intended to divide the profits of the business between themselves, which is one of the essential features of a partnership. Nevertheless, petitioners would still want us to infer or believe the alleged existence of a partnership from this set of circumstances: that Tan Eng Lay and Tan Eng Kee were commanding the employees; that both were supervising the employees; that both were the ones who determined the price at which the stocks were to be sold; and that both placed orders to the suppliers of the Benguet Lumber Company. They also point out that the families of the brothers Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay lived at the Benguet Lumber Company compound, a privilege not extended to its ordinary employees. However, private respondent counters that:

68

Petitioners seem to have missed the point in asserting that the above enumerated powers and privileges granted in favor of Tan Eng Kee, were indicative of his being a partner in Benguet Lumber for the following reasons: (i) even a mere supervisor in a company, factory or store gives orders and directions to his subordinates. So long, therefore, that an employee's position is higher in rank, it is not unusual that he orders around those lower in rank. (ii) even a messenger or other trusted employee, over whom confidence is reposed by the owner, can order materials from suppliers for and in behalf of Benguet Lumber. Furthermore, even a partner does not necessarily have to perform this particular task. It is, thus, not an indication that Tan Eng Kee was a partner. (iii) although Tan Eng Kee, together with his family, lived in the lumber compound and this privilege was not accorded to other employees, the undisputed fact remains that Tan Eng Kee is the brother of Tan Eng Lay. Naturally, close personal relations existed between them. Whatever privileges Tan Eng Lay gave his brother, and which were not given the other employees, only proves the kindness and generosity of Tan Eng Lay towards a blood relative. (iv) and even if it is assumed that Tan Eng Kee was quarreling with Tan Eng Lay in connection with the pricing of stocks, this does not adequately prove the existence of a partnership relation between them. Even highly confidential employees and the owners of a company sometimes argue with respect to certain matters which, in no way indicates that they are partners as to each other.35 In the instant case, we find private respondent's arguments to be welltaken. Where circumstances taken singly may be inadequate to prove the intent to form a partnership, nevertheless, the collective effect of these circumstances may be such as to support a finding of the

69

existence of the parties' intent.36 Yet, in the case at bench, even the aforesaid circumstances when taken together are not persuasive indicia of a partnership. They only tend to show that Tan Eng Kee was involved in the operations of Benguet Lumber, but in what capacity is unclear. We cannot discount the likelihood that as a member of the family, he occupied a niche above the rank-and-file employees. He would have enjoyed liberties otherwise unavailable were he not kin, such as his residence in the Benguet Lumber Company compound. He would have moral, if not actual, superiority over his fellow employees, thereby entitling him to exercise powers of supervision. It may even be that among his duties is to place orders with suppliers. Again, the circumstances proffered by petitioners do not provide a logical nexus to the conclusion desired; these are not inconsistent with the powers and duties of a manager, even in a business organized and run as informally as Benguet Lumber Company. There being no partnership, it follows that there is no dissolution, winding up or liquidation to speak of. Hence, the petition must fail. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby denied, and the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

70

G.R. No. 75875 December 15, 1989 WOLRGANG AURBACH, JOHN GRIFFIN, DAVID P. WHITTINGHAM and CHARLES CHAMSAY, petitioners, vs. SANITARY WARES MANUFACTURING CORPORATOIN, ERNESTO V. LAGDAMEO, ERNESTO R. LAGDAMEO, JR., ENRIQUE R. LAGDAMEO, GEORGE F. LEE, RAUL A. BONCAN, BALDWIN YOUNG and AVELINO V. CRUZ, respondents. G.R. No. 75951 December 15, 1989 SANITARY WARES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ERNESTO R. LAGDAMEO, ENRIQUE B. LAGDAMEO, GEORGE FL .EE RAUL A. BONCAN, BALDWIN YOUNG and AVELINO V. CRUX, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, WOLFGANG AURBACH, JOHN GRIFFIN, DAVID P. WHITTINGHAM, CHARLES CHAMSAY and LUCIANO SALAZAR, respondents. G.R. Nos. 75975-76 December 15, 1989 LUCIANO E. SALAZAR, petitioner, vs. SANITARY WARES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ERNESTO V. LAGDAMEO, ERNESTO R. LAGDAMEO, JR., ENRIQUE R. LAGDAMEO, GEORGE F. LEE, RAUL A. BONCAN, BALDWIN YOUNG, AVELINO V. CRUZ and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Belo, Abiera & Associates for petitioners in 75875. Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for Luciano E. Salazar.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: These consolidated petitions seek the review of the amended decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 05604 and 05617 which set aside the earlier decision dated June 5, 1986, of the then Intermediate Appellate Court and directed that in all subsequent elections for directors of Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation (Saniwares), American Standard Inc. (ASI) cannot nominate more than three (3) directors; that the Filipino stockholders shall not interfere in ASI's choice

71

of its three (3) nominees; that, on the other hand, the Filipino stockholders can nominate only six (6) candidates and in the event they cannot agree on the six (6) nominees, they shall vote only among themselves to determine who the six (6) nominees will be, with cumulative voting to be allowed but without interference from ASI. The antecedent facts can be summarized as follows: In 1961, Saniwares, a domestic corporation was incorporated for the primary purpose of manufacturing and marketing sanitary wares. One of the incorporators, Mr. Baldwin Young went abroad to look for foreign partners, European or American who could help in its expansion plans. On August 15, 1962, ASI, a foreign corporation domiciled in Delaware, United States entered into an Agreement with Saniwares and some Filipino investors whereby ASI and the Filipino investors agreed to participate in the ownership of an enterprise which would engage primarily in the business of manufacturing in the Philippines and selling here and abroad vitreous china and sanitary wares. The parties agreed that the business operations in the Philippines shall be carried on by an incorporated enterprise and that the name of the corporation shall initially be "Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation." The Agreement has the following provisions relevant to the issues in these cases on the nomination and election of the directors of the corporation: 3. Articles of Incorporation (a) The Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation shall be substantially in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A and, insofar as permitted under Philippine law, shall specifically provide for (1) Cumulative voting for directors: xxx xxx xxx

72

5. Management (a) The management of the Corporation shall be vested in a Board of Directors, which shall consist of nine individuals. As long as AmericanStandard shall own at least 30% of the outstanding stock of the Corporation, three of the nine directors shall be designated by American-Standard, and the other six shall be designated by the other stockholders of the Corporation. (pp. 51 & 53, Rollo of 75875) At the request of ASI, the agreement contained provisions designed to protect it as a minority group, including the grant of veto powers over a number of corporate acts and the right to designate certain officers, such as a member of the Executive Committee whose vote was required for important corporate transactions. Later, the 30% capital stock of ASI was increased to 40%. The corporation was also registered with the Board of Investments for availment of incentives with the condition that at least 60% of the capital stock of the corporation shall be owned by Philippine nationals. The joint enterprise thus entered into by the Filipino investors and the American corporation prospered. Unfortunately, with the business successes, there came a deterioration of the initially harmonious relations between the two groups. According to the Filipino group, a basic disagreement was due to their desire to expand the export operations of the company to which ASI objected as it apparently had other subsidiaries of joint joint venture groups in the countries where Philippine exports were contemplated. On March 8, 1983, the annual stockholders' meeting was held. The meeting was presided by Baldwin Young. The minutes were taken by the Secretary, Avelino Cruz. After disposing of the preliminary items in the agenda, the stockholders then proceeded to the election of the members of the board of directors. The ASI group nominated three persons namely; Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin and David P. Whittingham. The Philippine investors nominated six, namely; Ernesto Lagdameo, Sr., Raul A. Boncan, Ernesto R. Lagdameo, Jr., George F. Lee, and Baldwin Young. Mr. Eduardo R,

73

Ceniza then nominated Mr. Luciano E. Salazar, who in turn nominated Mr. Charles Chamsay. The chairman, Baldwin Young ruled the last two nominations out of order on the basis of section 5 (a) of the Agreement, the consistent practice of the parties during the past annual stockholders' meetings to nominate only nine persons as nominees for the nine-member board of directors, and the legal advice of Saniwares' legal counsel. The following events then, transpired: ... There were protests against the action of the Chairman and heated arguments ensued. An appeal was made by the ASI representative to the body of stockholders present that a vote be taken on the ruling of the Chairman. The Chairman, Baldwin Young, declared the appeal out of order and no vote on the ruling was taken. The Chairman then instructed the Corporate Secretary to cast all the votes present and represented by proxy equally for the 6 nominees of the Philippine Investors and the 3 nominees of ASI, thus effectively excluding the 2 additional persons nominated, namely, Luciano E. Salazar and Charles Chamsay. The ASI representative, Mr. Jaqua protested the decision of the Chairman and announced that all votes accruing to ASI shares, a total of 1,329,695 (p. 27, Rollo, AC-G.R. SP No. 05617) were being cumulatively voted for the three ASI nominees and Charles Chamsay, and instructed the Secretary to so vote. Luciano E. Salazar and other proxy holders announced that all the votes owned by and or represented by them 467,197 shares (p. 27, Rollo, AC-G.R. SP No. 05617) were being voted cumulatively in favor of Luciano E. Salazar. The Chairman, Baldwin Young, nevertheless instructed the Secretary to cast all votes equally in favor of the three ASI nominees, namely, Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin and David Whittingham and the six originally nominated by Rogelio Vinluan, namely, Ernesto Lagdameo, Sr., Raul Boncan, Ernesto Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo, George F. Lee, and Baldwin Young. The Secretary then certified for the election of the following Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David Whittingham Ernesto Lagdameo, Sr., Ernesto Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo, George F. Lee, Raul A. Boncan, Baldwin Young. The representative of ASI then moved to recess the meeting which was duly seconded. There was also a motion to adjourn (p. 28, Rollo, AC-G.R. SP No. 05617). This

74

motion to adjourn was accepted by the Chairman, Baldwin Young, who announced that the motion was carried and declared the meeting adjourned. Protests against the adjournment were registered and having been ignored, Mr. Jaqua the ASI representative, stated that the meeting was not adjourned but only recessed and that the meeting would be reconvened in the next room. The Chairman then threatened to have the stockholders who did not agree to the decision of the Chairman on the casting of votes bodily thrown out. The ASI Group, Luciano E. Salazar and other stockholders, allegedly representing 53 or 54% of the shares of Saniwares, decided to continue the meeting at the elevator lobby of the American Standard Building. The continued meeting was presided by Luciano E. Salazar, while Andres Gatmaitan acted as Secretary. On the basis of the cumulative votes cast earlier in the meeting, the ASI Group nominated its four nominees; Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David Whittingham and Charles Chamsay. Luciano E. Salazar voted for himself, thus the said five directors were certified as elected directors by the Acting Secretary, Andres Gatmaitan, with the explanation that there was a tie among the other six (6) nominees for the four (4) remaining positions of directors and that the body decided not to break the tie. (pp. 37-39, Rollo of 75975-76) These incidents triggered off the filing of separate petitions by the parties with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The first petition filed was for preliminary injunction by Saniwares, Emesto V. Lagdameo, Baldwin Young, Raul A. Bonean Ernesto R. Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo and George F. Lee against Luciano Salazar and Charles Chamsay. The case was denominated as SEC Case No. 2417. The second petition was for quo warranto and application for receivership by Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David Whittingham, Luciano E. Salazar and Charles Chamsay against the group of Young and Lagdameo (petitioners in SEC Case No. 2417) and Avelino F. Cruz. The case was docketed as SEC Case No. 2718. Both sets of parties except for Avelino Cruz claimed to be the legitimate directors of the corporation.

75

The two petitions were consolidated and tried jointly by a hearing officer who rendered a decision upholding the election of the Lagdameo Group and dismissing the quo warranto petition of Salazar and Chamsay. The ASI Group and Salazar appealed the decision to the SEC en banc which affirmed the hearing officer's decision. The SEC decision led to the filing of two separate appeals with the Intermediate Appellate Court by Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David Whittingham and Charles Chamsay (docketed as AC-G.R. SP No. 05604) and by Luciano E. Salazar (docketed as AC-G.R. SP No. 05617). The petitions were consolidated and the appellate court in its decision ordered the remand of the case to the Securities and Exchange Commission with the directive that a new stockholders' meeting of Saniwares be ordered convoked as soon as possible, under the supervision of the Commission. Upon a motion for reconsideration filed by the appellees Lagdameo Group) the appellate court (Court of Appeals) rendered the questioned amended decision. Petitioners Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David P. Whittingham and Charles Chamsay in G.R. No. 75875 assign the following errors: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN EFFECT, UPHELD THE ALLEGED ELECTION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SANIWARES WHEN IN FACT THERE WAS NO ELECTION AT ALL. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS PROHIBITS THE STOCKHOLDERS FROM EXERCISING THEIR FULL VOTING RIGHTS REPRESENTED BY THE NUMBER OF SHARES IN SANIWARES, THUS DEPRIVING PETITIONERS AND THE CORPORATION THEY REPRESENT OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. III. THE COURT OF APPEALS IMPOSES CONDITIONS AND READS PROVISIONS INTO THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES WHICH

76

WERE NOT THERE, WHICH ACTION IT CANNOT LEGALLY DO. (p. 17, Rollo-75875) Petitioner Luciano E. Salazar in G.R. Nos. 75975-76 assails the amended decision on the following grounds: 11.1. ThatAmendedDecisionwouldsanctiontheCA'sdisregard of binding contractual agreements entered into by stockholders and the replacement of the conditions of such agreements with terms never contemplated by the stockholders but merely dictated by the CA . 11.2. The Amended decision would likewise sanction the deprivation of the property rights of stockholders without due process of law in order that a favored group of stockholders may be illegally benefitted and guaranteed a continuing monopoly of the control of a corporation. (pp. 14-15, Rollo-75975-76) On the other hand, the petitioners in G.R. No. 75951 contend that: I THE AMENDED DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT COURT, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS OF SANIWARES ARE DIVIDED INTO TWO BLOCKS, FAILS TO FULLY ENFORCE THE BASIC INTENT OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE LAW. II THE AMENDED DECISION DOES NOT CATEGORICALLY RULE THAT PRIVATE PETITIONERS HEREIN WERE THE DULY ELECTED DIRECTORS DURING THE 8 MARCH 1983 ANNUAL STOCKHOLDERS MEETING OF SANTWARES. (P. 24, Rollo-75951) The issues raised in the petitions are interrelated, hence, they are discussed jointly.

77

The main issue hinges on who were the duly elected directors of Saniwares for the year 1983 during its annual stockholders' meeting held on March 8, 1983. To answer this question the following factors should be determined: (1) the nature of the business established by the parties whether it was a joint venture or a corporation and (2) whether or not the ASI Group may vote their additional 10% equity during elections of Saniwares' board of directors. The rule is that whether the parties to a particular contract have thereby established among themselves a joint venture or some other relation depends upon their actual intention which is determined in accordance with the rules governing the interpretation and construction of contracts. (Terminal Shares, Inc. v. Chicago, B. and Q.R. Co. (DC MO) 65 F Supp 678; Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Mfg. Co. 20 Cal. 2nd 751, 128 P 2nd 668) The ASI Group and petitioner Salazar (G.R. Nos. 75975-76) contend that the actual intention of the parties should be viewed strictly on the "Agreement" dated August 15,1962 wherein it is clearly stated that the parties' intention was to form a corporation and not a joint venture. They specifically mention number 16 under Miscellaneous Provisions which states: xxx xxx xxx c) nothing herein contained shall be construed to constitute any of the parties hereto partners or joint venturers in respect of any transaction hereunder. (At P. 66, Rollo-GR No. 75875) They object to the admission of other evidence which tends to show that the parties' agreement was to establish a joint venture presented by the Lagdameo and Young Group on the ground that it contravenes the parol evidence rule under section 7, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. According to them, the Lagdameo and Young Group never pleaded in

78

their pleading that the "Agreement" failed to express the true intent of the parties. The parol evidence Rule under Rule 130 provides: Evidence of written agreements-When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all such terms, and therefore, there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the agreement other than the contents of the writing, except in the following cases: (a) Where a mistake or imperfection of the writing, or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties or the validity of the agreement is put in issue by the pleadings. (b) When there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing. Contrary to ASI Group's stand, the Lagdameo and Young Group pleaded in their Reply and Answer to Counterclaim in SEC Case No. 2417 that the Agreement failed to express the true intent of the parties, to wit: xxx xxx xxx 4. While certain provisions of the Agreement would make it appear that the parties thereto disclaim being partners or joint venturers such disclaimer is directed at third parties and is not inconsistent with, and does not preclude, the existence of two distinct groups of stockholders in Saniwares one of which (the Philippine Investors) shall constitute the majority, and the other ASI shall constitute the minority stockholder. In any event, the evident intention of the Philippine Investors and ASI in entering into the Agreement is to enter into ajoint venture enterprise, and if some words in the Agreement appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former (Art. 1370, New Civil Code). The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which

79

may result from all of them taken jointly (Art. 1374, New Civil Code). Moreover, in order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered. (Art. 1371, New Civil Code). (Part I, Original Records, SEC Case No. 2417) It has been ruled: In an action at law, where there is evidence tending to prove that the parties joined their efforts in furtherance of an enterprise for their joint profit, the question whether they intended by their agreement to create a joint adventure, or to assume some other relation is a question of fact for the jury. (Binder v. Kessler v 200 App. Div. 40,192 N Y S 653; Pyroa v. Brownfield (Tex. Civ. A.) 238 SW 725; Hoge v. George, 27 Wyo, 423, 200 P 96 33 C.J. p. 871) In the instant cases, our examination of important provisions of the Agreement as well as the testimonial evidence presented by the Lagdameo and Young Group shows that the parties agreed to establish a joint venture and not a corporation. The history of the organization of Saniwares and the unusual arrangements which govern its policy making body are all consistent with a joint venture and not with an ordinary corporation. As stated by the SEC: According to the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Baldwin Young, he negotiated the Agreement with ASI in behalf of the Philippine nationals. He testified that ASI agreed to accept the role of minority vis-a-vis the Philippine National group of investors, on the condition that the Agreement should contain provisions to protect ASI as the minority. An examination of the Agreement shows that certain provisions were included to protect the interests of ASI as the minority. For example, the vote of 7 out of 9 directors is required in certain enumerated corporate acts [Sec. 3 (b) (ii) (a) of the Agreement]. ASI is contractually entitled to designate a member of the Executive Committee and the vote of this member is required for certain transactions [Sec. 3 (b) (i)].

80

The Agreement also requires a 75% super-majority vote for the amendment of the articles and by-laws of Saniwares [Sec. 3 (a) (iv) and (b) (iii)]. ASI is also given the right to designate the president and plant manager [Sec. 5 (6)]. The Agreement further provides that the sales policy of Saniwares shall be that which is normally followed by ASI [Sec. 13 (a)] and that Saniwares should not export "Standard" products otherwise than through ASI's Export Marketing Services [Sec. 13 (6)]. Under the Agreement, ASI agreed to provide technology and know-how to Saniwares and the latter paid royalties for the same. (At p. 2). xxx xxx xxx It is pertinent to note that the provisions of the Agreement requiring a 7 out of 9 votes of the board of directors for certain actions, in effect gave ASI (which designates 3 directors under the Agreement) an effective veto power. Furthermore, the grant to ASI of the right to designate certain officers of the corporation; the super-majority voting requirements for amendments of the articles and by-laws; and most significantly to the issues of tms case, the provision that ASI shall designate 3 out of the 9 directors and the other stockholders shall designate the other 6, clearly indicate that there are two distinct groups in Saniwares, namely ASI, which owns 40% of the capital stock and the Philippine National stockholders who own the balance of 60%, and that 2) ASI is given certain protections as the minority stockholder. Premises considered, we believe that under the Agreement there are two groups of stockholders who established a corporation with provisions for a special contractual relationship between the parties, i.e., ASI and the other stockholders. (pp. 4-5) Section 5 (a) of the agreement uses the word "designated" and not "nominated" or "elected" in the selection of the nine directors on a six to three ratio. Each group is assured of a fixed number of directors in the board.

81

Moreover, ASI in its communications referred to the enterprise as joint venture. Baldwin Young also testified that Section 16(c) of the Agreement that "Nothing herein contained shall be construed to constitute any of the parties hereto partners or joint venturers in respect of any transaction hereunder" was merely to obviate the possibility of the enterprise being treated as partnership for tax purposes and liabilities to third parties. Quite often, Filipino entrepreneurs in their desire to develop the industrial and manufacturing capacities of a local firm are constrained to seek the technology and marketing assistance of huge multinational corporations of the developed world. Arrangements are formalized where a foreign group becomes a minority owner of a firm in exchange for its manufacturing expertise, use of its brand names, and other such assistance. However, there is always a danger from such arrangements. The foreign group may, from the start, intend to establish its own sole or monopolistic operations and merely uses the joint venture arrangement to gain a foothold or test the Philippine waters, so to speak. Or the covetousness may come later. As the Philippine firm enlarges its operations and becomes profitable, the foreign group undermines the local majority ownership and actively tries to completely or predominantly take over the entire company. This undermining of joint ventures is not consistent with fair dealing to say the least. To the extent that such subversive actions can be lawfully prevented, the courts should extend protection especially in industries where constitutional and legal requirements reserve controlling ownership to Filipino citizens. The Lagdameo Group stated in their appellees' brief in the Court of Appeal In fact, the Philippine Corporation Code itself recognizes the right of stockholders to enter into agreements regarding the exercise of their voting rights. Sec. 100. Agreements by stockholders.-

82

xxx xxx xxx 2. An agreement between two or more stockholders, if in writing and signed by the parties thereto, may provide that in exercising any voting rights, the shares held by them shall be voted as therein provided, or as they may agree, or as determined in accordance with a procedure agreed upon by them. Appellants contend that the above provision is included in the Corporation Code's chapter on close corporations and Saniwares cannot be a close corporation because it has 95 stockholders. Firstly, although Saniwares had 95 stockholders at the time of the disputed stockholders meeting, these 95 stockholders are not separate from each other but are divisible into groups representing a single Identifiable interest. For example, ASI, its nominees and lawyers count for 13 of the 95 stockholders. The YoungYutivo family count for another 13 stockholders, the Chamsay family for 8 stockholders, the Santos family for 9 stockholders, the Dy family for 7 stockholders, etc. If the members of one family and/or business or interest group are considered as one (which, it is respectfully submitted, they should be for purposes of determining how closely held Saniwares is there were as of 8 March 1983, practically only 17 stockholders of Saniwares. (Please refer to discussion in pp. 5 to 6 of appellees' Rejoinder Memorandum dated 11 December 1984 and Annex "A" thereof). Secondly, even assuming that Saniwares is technically not a close corporation because it has more than 20 stockholders, the undeniable fact is that it is a close-held corporation. Surely, appellants cannot honestly claim that Saniwares is a public issue or a widely held corporation. In the United States, many courts have taken a realistic approach to joint venture corporations and have not rigidly applied principles of corporation law designed primarily for public issue corporations. These courts have indicated that express arrangements between corporate joint ventures should be construed with less emphasis on the ordinary

83

rules of law usually applied to corporate entities and with more consideration given to the nature of the agreement between the joint venturers (Please see Wabash Ry v. American Refrigerator Transit Co., 7 F 2d 335; Chicago, M & St. P. Ry v. Des Moines Union Ry; 254 Ass'n. 247 US. 490'; Seaboard Airline Ry v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry; 240 N.C. 495,.82 S.E. 2d 771; Deboy v. Harris, 207 Md., 212,113 A 2d 903; Hathway v. Porter Royalty Pool, Inc., 296 Mich. 90, 90, 295 N.W. 571; Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138 U.S. 262; "The Legal Status of Joint Venture Corporations", 11 Vand Law Rev. p. 680,1958). These American cases dealt with legal questions as to the extent to which the requirements arising from the corporate form of joint venture corporations should control, and the courts ruled that substantial justice lay with those litigants who relied on the joint venture agreement rather than the litigants who relied on the orthodox principles of corporation law. As correctly held by the SEC Hearing Officer: It is said that participants in a joint venture, in organizing the joint venture deviate from the traditional pattern of corporation management. A noted authority has pointed out that just as in close corporations, shareholders' agreements in joint venture corporations often contain provisions which do one or more of the following: (1) require greater than majority vote for shareholder and director action; (2) give certain shareholders or groups of shareholders power to select a specified number of directors; (3) give to the shareholders control over the selection and retention of employees; and (4) set up a procedure for the settlement of disputes by arbitration (See I O' Neal, Close Corporations, 1971 ed., Section 1.06a, pp. 15-16) (Decision of SEC Hearing Officer, P. 16) Thirdly paragraph 2 of Sec. 100 of the Corporation Code does not necessarily imply that agreements regarding the exercise of voting rights are allowed only in close corporations. As Campos and Lopez-Campos explain:

84

Paragraph 2 refers to pooling and voting agreements in particular. Does this provision necessarily imply that these agreements can be valid only in close corporations as defined by the Code? Suppose that a corporation has twenty five stockholders, and therefore cannot qualify as a close corporation under section 96, can some of them enter into an agreement to vote as a unit in the election of directors? It is submitted that there is no reason for denying stockholders of corporations other than close ones the right to enter into not voting or pooling agreements to protect their interests, as long as they do not intend to commit any wrong, or fraud on the other stockholders not parties to the agreement. Of course, voting or pooling agreements are perhaps more useful and more often resorted to in close corporations. But they may also be found necessary even in widely held corporations. Moreover, since the Code limits the legal meaning of close corporations to those which comply with the requisites laid down by section 96, it is entirely possible that a corporation which is in fact a close corporation will not come within the definition. In such case, its stockholders should not be precluded from entering into contracts like voting agreements if these are otherwise valid. (Campos & Lopez-Campos, op cit, p. 405) In short, even assuming that sec. 5(a) of the Agreement relating to the designation or nomination of directors restricts the right of the Agreement's signatories to vote for directors, such contractual provision, as correctly held by the SEC, is valid and binding upon the signatories thereto, which include appellants. (Rollo No. 75951, pp. 90-94) In regard to the question as to whether or not the ASI group may vote their additional equity during elections of Saniwares' board of directors, the Court of Appeals correctly stated: As in other joint venture companies, the extent of ASI's participation in the management of the corporation is spelled out in the Agreement. Section 5(a) hereof says that three of the nine directors shall be designated by ASI and the remaining six by the other stockholders, i.e., the Filipino stockholders. This allocation of board seats is obviously in consonance with the minority position of ASI.

85

Having entered into a well-defined contractual relationship, it is imperative that the parties should honor and adhere to their respective rights and obligations thereunder. Appellants seem to contend that any allocation of board seats, even in joint venture corporations, are null and void to the extent that such may interfere with the stockholder's rights to cumulative voting as provided in Section 24 of the Corporation Code. This Court should not be prepared to hold that any agreement which curtails in any way cumulative voting should be struck down, even if such agreement has been freely entered into by experienced businessmen and do not prejudice those who are not parties thereto. It may well be that it would be more cogent to hold, as the Securities and Exchange Commission has held in the decision appealed from, that cumulative voting rights may be voluntarily waived by stockholders who enter into special relationships with each other to pursue and implement specific purposes, as in joint venture relationships between foreign and local stockholders, so long as such agreements do not adversely affect third parties. In any event, it is believed that we are not here called upon to make a general rule on this question. Rather, all that needs to be done is to give life and effect to the particular contractual rights and obligations which the parties have assumed for themselves. On the one hand, the clearly established minority position of ASI and the contractual allocation of board seats Cannot be disregarded. On the other hand, the rights of the stockholders to cumulative voting should also be protected. In our decision sought to be reconsidered, we opted to uphold the second over the first. Upon further reflection, we feel that the proper and just solution to give due consideration to both factors suggests itself quite clearly. This Court should recognize and uphold the division of the stockholders into two groups, and at the same time uphold the right of the stockholders within each group to cumulative voting in the process of determining who the group's nominees would be. In practical terms,

86

as suggested by appellant Luciano E. Salazar himself, this means that if the Filipino stockholders cannot agree who their six nominees will be, a vote would have to be taken among the Filipino stockholders only. During this voting, each Filipino stockholder can cumulate his votes. ASI, however, should not be allowed to interfere in the voting within the Filipino group. Otherwise, ASI would be able to designate more than the three directors it is allowed to designate under the Agreement, and may even be able to get a majority of the board seats, a result which is clearly contrary to the contractual intent of the parties. Such a ruling will give effect to both the allocation of the board seats and the stockholder's right to cumulative voting. Moreover, this ruling will also give due consideration to the issue raised by the appellees on possible violation or circumvention of the Anti-Dummy Law (Com. Act No. 108, as amended) and the nationalization requirements of the Constitution and the laws if ASI is allowed to nominate more than three directors. (Rollo-75875, pp. 38-39) The ASI Group and petitioner Salazar, now reiterate their theory that the ASI Group has the right to vote their additional equity pursuant to Section 24 of the Corporation Code which gives the stockholders of a corporation the right to cumulate their votes in electing directors. Petitioner Salazar adds that this right if granted to the ASI Group would not necessarily mean a violation of the Anti-Dummy Act (Commonwealth Act 108, as amended). He cites section 2-a thereof which provides: And provided finally that the election of aliens as members of the board of directors or governing body of corporations or associations engaging in partially nationalized activities shall be allowed in proportion to their allowable participation or share in the capital of such entities. (amendments introduced by Presidential Decree 715, section 1, promulgated May 28, 1975) The ASI Group's argument is correct within the context of Section 24 of the Corporation Code. The point of query, however, is whether or not

87

that provision is applicable to a joint venture with clearly defined agreements: The legal concept of ajoint venture is of common law origin. It has no precise legal definition but it has been generally understood to mean an organization formed for some temporary purpose. (Gates v. Megargel, 266 Fed. 811 [1920]) It is in fact hardly distinguishable from the partnership, since their elements are similar community of interest in the business, sharing of profits and losses, and a mutual right of control. Blackner v. Mc Dermott, 176 F. 2d. 498, [1949]; Carboneau v. Peterson, 95 P. 2d., 1043 [1939]; Buckley v. Chadwick, 45 Cal. 2d. 183, 288 P. 2d. 12 289 P. 2d. 242 [1955]). The main distinction cited by most opinions in common law jurisdictions is that the partnership contemplates a general business with some degree of continuity, while the joint venture is formed for the execution of a single transaction, and is thus of a temporary nature. (Tufts v. Mann 116 Cal. App. 170, 2 P. 2d. 500 [1931]; Harmon v. Martin, 395 111. 595, 71 NE 2d. 74 [1947]; Gates v. Megargel 266 Fed. 811 [1920]). This observation is not entirely accurate in this jurisdiction, since under the Civil Code, a partnership may be particular or universal, and a particular partnership may have for its object a specific undertaking. (Art. 1783, Civil Code). It would seem therefore that under Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of partnership and should thus be governed by the law of partnerships. The Supreme Court has however recognized a distinction between these two business forms, and has held that although a corporation cannot enter into a partnership contract, it may however engage in a joint venture with others. (At p. 12, Tuazon v. Bolanos, 95 Phil. 906 [1954]) (Campos and Lopez-Campos Comments, Notes and Selected Cases, Corporation Code 1981) Moreover, the usual rules as regards the construction and operations of contracts generally apply to a contract of joint venture. (O' Hara v. Harman 14 App. Dev. (167) 43 NYS 556).

88

Bearing these principles in mind, the correct view would be that the resolution of the question of whether or not the ASI Group may vote their additional equity lies in the agreement of the parties. Necessarily, the appellate court was correct in upholding the agreement of the parties as regards the allocation of director seats under Section 5 (a) of the "Agreement," and the right of each group of stockholders to cumulative voting in the process of determining who the group's nominees would be under Section 3 (a) (1) of the "Agreement." As pointed out by SEC, Section 5 (a) of the Agreement relates to the manner of nominating the members of the board of directors while Section 3 (a) (1) relates to the manner of voting for these nominees. This is the proper interpretation of the Agreement of the parties as regards the election of members of the board of directors. To allow the ASI Group to vote their additional equity to help elect even a Filipino director who would be beholden to them would obliterate their minority status as agreed upon by the parties. As aptly stated by the appellate court: ... ASI, however, should not be allowed to interfere in the voting within the Filipino group. Otherwise, ASI would be able to designate more than the three directors it is allowed to designate under the Agreement, and may even be able to get a majority of the board seats, a result which is clearly contrary to the contractual intent of the parties. Such a ruling will give effect to both the allocation of the board seats and the stockholder's right to cumulative voting. Moreover, this ruling will also give due consideration to the issue raised by the appellees on possible violation or circumvention of the Anti-Dummy Law (Com. Act No. 108, as amended) and the nationalization requirements of the Constitution and the laws if ASI is allowed to nominate more than three directors. (At p. 39, Rollo, 75875)

89

Equally important as the consideration of the contractual intent of the parties is the consideration as regards the possible domination by the foreign investors of the enterprise in violation of the nationalization requirements enshrined in the Constitution and circumvention of the Anti-Dummy Act. In this regard, petitioner Salazar's position is that the Anti-Dummy Act allows the ASI group to elect board directors in proportion to their share in the capital of the entity. It is to be noted, however, that the same law also limits the election of aliens as members of the board of directors in proportion to their allowance participation of said entity. In the instant case, the foreign Group ASI was limited to designate three directors. This is the allowable participation of the ASI Group. Hence, in future dealings, this limitation of six to three board seats should always be maintained as long as the joint venture agreement exists considering that in limiting 3 board seats in the 9-man board of directors there are provisions already agreed upon and embodied in the parties' Agreement to protect the interests arising from the minority status of the foreign investors. With these findings, we the decisions of the SEC Hearing Officer and SEC which were impliedly affirmed by the appellate court declaring Messrs. Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David P Whittingham, Emesto V. Lagdameo, Baldwin young, Raul A. Boncan, Emesto V. Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo, and George F. Lee as the duly elected directors of Saniwares at the March 8,1983 annual stockholders' meeting. On the other hand, the Lagdameo and Young Group (petitioners in G.R. No. 75951) object to a cumulative voting during the election of the board of directors of the enterprise as ruled by the appellate court and submits that the six (6) directors allotted the Filipino stockholders should be selected by consensus pursuant to section 5 (a) of the Agreement which uses the word "designate" meaning "nominate, delegate or appoint." They also stress the possibility that the ASI Group might take control of the enterprise if the Filipino stockholders are allowed to select their nominees separately and not as a common slot determined by the majority of their group.

90

Section 5 (a) of the Agreement which uses the word designates in the allocation of board directors should not be interpreted in isolation. This should be construed in relation to section 3 (a) (1) of the Agreement. As we stated earlier, section 3(a) (1) relates to the manner of voting for these nominees which is cumulative voting while section 5(a) relates to the manner of nominating the members of the board of directors. The petitioners in G.R. No. 75951 agreed to this procedure, hence, they cannot now impugn its legality. The insinuation that the ASI Group may be able to control the enterprise under the cumulative voting procedure cannot, however, be ignored. The validity of the cumulative voting procedure is dependent on the directors thus elected being genuine members of the Filipino group, not voters whose interest is to increase the ASI share in the management of Saniwares. The joint venture character of the enterprise must always be taken into account, so long as the company exists under its original agreement. Cumulative voting may not be used as a device to enable ASI to achieve stealthily or indirectly what they cannot accomplish openly. There are substantial safeguards in the Agreement which are intended to preserve the majority status of the Filipino investors as well as to maintain the minority status of the foreign investors group as earlier discussed. They should be maintained. WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 75975-76 and G.R. No. 75875 are DISMISSED and the petition in G.R. No. 75951 is partly GRANTED. The amended decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED in that Messrs. Wolfgang Aurbach John Griffin, David Whittingham Emesto V. Lagdameo, Baldwin Young, Raul A. Boncan, Ernesto R. Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo, and George F. Lee are declared as the duly elected directors of Saniwares at the March 8,1983 annual stockholders' meeting. In all other respects, the questioned decision is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 75975-76 and G.R. No. 75875. SO ORDERED.

91

92