2.

AGAD VS MABATO
G.R. Nos. L-24193 | June 28, 1968 | C. J. Concepcion | AppealPetitioner: MAURICIO AGADRespondents:
SEVERINO MABATO and MABATO and AGADCOMPANY
Facts:
Petitioner Agad alleges that he and Respondent Mabatoare partners in a fishpond business, pursuant
to a publicinstrument dated August 29, 1952, partners in afishpond business, to the capital of which
Agadcontributed P1,000, with the right to receive 50% of theprofits
Respondent Mabato handled the partnership fund andhad yearly rendered accounts of the
operations of the partnership; and that, despite repeated demands,Mabato had failed and refused to
render accounts forthe years 1957 to 1963
Agad prayed that judgment be rendered sentencingMabato to pay him (Agad) the sum of P14,000, as
hisshare in the profits of the partnership for the periodfrom 1957 to 1963, in addition to P1,000 as
attorney'sfees, and ordering the dissolution of the partnership
Mabato however alleged that the partnership neverexisted, on the ground that the contract therefor
had not been perfected, despite the execution of the publicdocument, because Agad had allegedly failed
to give hisP1,000 contribution to the partnership capital.
Respondent prayed that the complain be dismissed andthat the partnership be declared void ab initio
Respondent also filed a motion to dismiss on thegrounds that complaint states no cause of action
andthat the lower court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, because it involves
principally thedetermination of rights over public lands.
The court (CFI) issued the order appealed from,granting the motion to dismiss the complaint for
failureto state a cause of action. On the ground that thecontract of partnership, is null and void,
pursuant to Art.1773 of our Civil Code, because an inventory of thefishpond referred in said instrument
had not beenattached thereto.
Articles 1771 and 1773 of said Code provide:
Art. 1771
. A partnership may be constituted in anyform, except where immovable property or real rightsare
contributed thereto, in which case a publicinstrument shall be necessary.
Art. 1773.
A contract of partnership is void,whenever immovable property is contributed thereto,if inventory of
said property is not made, signed bythe parties; and attached to the public instrument.Issue: WON
"immovable property or real rights" havebeen contributed to the partnership under consideration,thus
the partnership is void due to the violation of Art. 1773.
Held: No
Ratio: It should be noted, however, that, as stated in contract of partnership, that the partnership was
established
"to operate a fishpond", not to "engage in a fishpond business".
Moreover,none of the partners contributedeither a fishpond or a real right to any fishpond.Their
contributions were limited to the sum of P1,000 each.
Indeed, Paragraph 4 of Annex "A"provides:
That the capital of the said partnership is TwoThousand (P2,000.00) Pesos Philippine Currency,of
which One Thousand (P1,000.00) pesos has beencontributed by Severino Mabato and One
Thousand(P1,000.00) Pesos has been contributed byMauricio Agad.The operation of the fishpond
mentioned in Annex "A" wasthe purpose of the partnership. Neither said fishpond nor areal right
thereto was contributed to the partnership orbecame part of the capital thereof, even if a fishpond or
areal right thereto could become part of its assets.
Dispositive: Appeal Granted
Article 1773 of the Civil Code is not in point and that, theorder appealed from should be, as it is hereby
set aside andthe case remanded to the lower court for furtherproceedings, with the costs of this
instance against defendant-appellee, Severino Mabato. It is so ordered.
4. INSULAR LIFE VS EBRADO
The Insular Life Assurance Company vs Ebrado, 80 SCRA 181
Fact:
On September 1, 1968, Buenaventura Ebrado issued by the Insular Life Assurance Policy No 009929 a
whole-life plan with a rider for Accidental Death. Buenaventura designated Carponia Ebrado as the
revocable beneficiary in his policy. He referred her as his wife.
On October 21, 1969, Buenaventura Ebrad died as a result of an accident when he was hit by a falling
tree. Carponia filed with the insurer a claim for the proceeds of the policy as the designated beneficiary
therein. Although she admits that she and the insured Buenaventura were merely living as husband and
wife without the benefits of marriage. Pascuala de Ebrado, valid wife, also filed her claim as the widow
of the deceased insured.

Issue: Can a common-law wife named as beneficiary in the life insurance policy of legally married man
claim the proceeds thereof in case of death of the latter?

Ruling:
In essence, a life insurance is no different from a civil donation insofar as the beneficiary is concerned.
Both are founded upon the same consideration: liberality. A beneficiary is like a donee because from the
premiums of the policy which the insured pays out of liberality, the beneficiary will receive the proceeds
or profits of said insurance. As a consequence, the proscription in Article739 of the New Civil Code
should equally operate in life insurance contracts. The mandate of Article 2012 cannot be laid aside: any
person who cannot receive a donation cannot be named a beneficiary in the life insurance policy of the
persons who cannot make the donation.
Note following Articles from the Civil Code:
Article 2011 - "The contract of insurance is governed by special laws. Matters not expressly provided for
in such special laws shall be regulated by this Code."
Article 2012 - "Any person who in forbidden from receiving any donation under Article 739 cannot be
named beneficiary of a life insurance policy by the person who cannot be make a donation to him."
Article 739- "The donations shall be void:
Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the title of
donation.xx
In the case provided to in No.1, the action for declaration of nullity may be brought by the spouse of the
donor or donee; and the guilt of the donee may be provided by preponderance of evidence in same
action."