LOURDES NAVARRO AND MENARDO

NAVARRO, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE BETHEL KATALBAS-
MOSCARDON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court of Bacolod City, Branch 52, Sixth Judicial
Region and Spouses OLIVIA V. YANSON AND
RICARDO B. YANSON, respondents.

CASE DIGEST
SUBMITED TO:

Ma. Conchita Antipatia

SUBMITTED BY:

Abarillo, Kaye

Acot, Karmine Jean

Cachero, April Camille

Espeleta, Kylle Louisse

Margen, Jullie Anne

2019
FACTS:

 July 23, 1976 - Private respondent Olivia V. Yanson, in

order for her to recover the said personal properties, filed
a complaint against petitioner Lourdes Navarro for
“Delivery of Personal Properties with Damages” and was
incorporated an application of writ of replevin.

 According to the findings, the plaintiff, as listed in the

complaint, sustained that some properties or movables
were to belong to her as she was the owner of these
properties. However, properties which had remain in the
possession of the defendant declared to belong to her.

 The trial court issued a writ of execution granting or

approving the application of writ of replevin by the
private respondent.

 Petitioner Navarro claimed that she and private

respondent Yanson formed a verbal partnership engaged
in the business of Air Freight Service Agency in Bacolod
and that the decision sustaining the writ of replevin is
void since the properties, which are invested in the
partnership, do not belong to any of the partners until the
final disposition and winding up of the partnership.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not a partnership was formed between the

parties, Olivia V. Yanson and Lourdes Navarro.
 2. Whether or not the alleged partnership business owns
the properties that were used in the Allied Air Freight
Services Agency’s operation.

RULING

As Article 1767 defines the contract of partnership, two or

more person bind themselves to contribute money, property,
or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing
the profit among themselves. With the evidence presented,
there was no proof of the formation of a partnership between
the respondent and the petitioner. With Article 1769 of the
New Civil Code, under paragraph 2, co-ownership does not
establish a partnership. Therefore, if there was no
establishment of a partnership, the properties use in the
operation of Allied Air Freight does not belong to the
partnership business, instead the properties still belong to the
original owners and there might be some that are co-owned
but still are not owned by the partnership.

BASIS OF RULING

Article 1767. By the contract of partnership two or more

persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or
industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the
profit among themselves.
Art. 1769. 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-ownership 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
from which the returns are derived.

4. The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a

business is 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:

a. As a debt by installments 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 varies 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.