Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

CHOITHRAM RAMNANI AND/OR NIRMLA RAMNANI AND MOTI RAMNANI vs.

CA, SPOUSES
ISHWAR AND SONYA RAMNANI AND OVERSEASE HOLDING
Distribution of profits and losses
FACTS:
Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani had their main business based in New York and executed a general power of
attorney to Navalry and Choithram as attorneys in fact to manage and conduct their business in the
Philippines.
Choithram entered into two agreements and purchased two parcels of land from Ortigas & Company Ltd.
Partnership. Choithram paid in installments. Three buildings were built through the P100,000 loan and
then were leased out. Two of these buildings were later burned. Ishware asked Choithram to account for
the income and expenses on the said properties. Choithram refused to render accounting. Ishwar revoked
the general power of attorney. Choithram, thereafter, transferred all the rights and interests of Ishwar and
Sonya in favor of his daughter in law, Nirmla Ramnani. Ishwar and Sonya filed a complaint against
Choitram and Nirmla for reconveyance of said properties and payment of damages. Trial court dismissed
the complaint filed on ground that the testimony of Ishwar said that the cash remittance was unworthy of
faith and credit because such cash remittance was made before execution of general power of attorney.
Ishwar also failed to corroborate testimony nor exhibit any commercial documents to prove the alleged
remittances.
Another issue is Choithram's, British citizen, claim when has arranged the purchase of properties in the
name of Ishwar who was an American citizen and who was then qualified to purchase property in the
Philippines under Parity Amendment.
CA reversed the ruling of the RTC but it uphold the validity of Ishwars testimony and gave importance to
letter written by Choitram imploring Ishwar to renew power of attorney after it was revoked. It states that
Choithram reassures his brother that he is not after his money. Choitram was estopped in pais or by deed
from claiming an interest over properties due to his admissions from a) power of attorney, b) agreements,
c) contract of lease.
During pendency of case, Choithram made several attempts to dispose his property by way of donation
and also mortgaged properties under litigation for $3,000,000 to a shell partnership with capital of 100
USD.
ISSUE: WON there should be a valid distribution of profits and losses
HELD: Yes. Justice and equity dictate that two share equally the fruit of their joint investment and efforts.
In this case, two brothers are engaged in a business venture where one furnished the capital and other
contributed his industry and talent. Justice and equity dictate that two share equally the fruit of their joint
investment and efforts. Perhaps this Solomonic solution may pave the way towards their reconciliation.
Both would stand to gain. After all, blood is thicker than water. However, due to Choithrams devious
machinations and schemes to dispose the properties to deprive spouses Ishwar any means to recover
any award the Court may grant in their favor, he shall be liable for moral and exemplary damages.