BUSLAW2 K36

Case Digest
1.

Afisco Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112675, January 25, 1999
- This case is about the 41 non-life insurance corporation members that formed a pool
with Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesselschaft and are petitioning for their pool to
be non-taxable because they argue that they did not intend to form a
corporation/partnership since they wrote the policies individually and separately. The
term corporation shall include partnerships, no matter how created or organized,
joint-stock companies, joint accounts (cuentas en participacion), associations, or
insurance companies, but does not include general professional partnerships [or] a
joint venture or consortium formed for the purpose of undertaking construction
projects. The insurers formed unregistered partnership/joint accounts which thereby
made them a corporation and their pool be taxable.

2. Lim Tong Lim vs. Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 136448, November
3, 1999
- Antonio Chua and Peter Yao purchased fishing nets from Phil. Fishing Gear
Industries Inc. and claimed that they are general partners with Lim Tong Lim. The
two failed to pay and PFGI filed a suit against the three. Lim appealed to the court
that he was not a general partner because he did not sign any contract. The court ruled
out that Lim was able to reap benefits from the nets purchased by Chua and Yao so he
is considered as a partner of Chua and Yao and liable for the payment of the nets
purchased by the partners under the name of their partnership.
3. Mendiola vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159333, July 31, 2006
- Mendiola appealed to court that he is an industrial partner and at the same time, an
employee of Pacfor. The court denied that he was a partner because the community of
interest, or co-ownership of, or joint interest in partnership property is absent in the
relations between petitioner and private respondent Pacfor. The parties merely shared
profits and this is not enough to be considered as a partnership.
4.

Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

- Lim entered into and executed a sales contract with JDA for the purchase of an
aircraft and spare parts to be paid in installments. Pioneer Insurance and Surety
Corporation executed and issued its Surety Bond No. 6639 in favor of JDA, in behalf
of its principal, Lim, for the balance price of the aircrafts and spare parts. Bormaheco,
the Cervanteses and Maglana contributed funds that were used in the purchase of the
plane as their investment to the new corporation proposed by Lim to expand his
business. Pioneer filed a petition for the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage for the
plane but the Cervanteses and Maglana claimed to be co-owners of the aircraft.

Pioneer filed an action for judicial foreclosure with an application for a writ of
preliminary attachment against Lim and respondents, the Cervanteses, Bormaheco
and Maglana. Maglana, Bormaheco and the Cervanteses filed cross-claims against
Lim alleging that they were not privies to the contracts signed by Lim and, by way of
counterclaim, sought for damages for being exposed to litigation and for recovery of
the sums of money they advanced to Lim for the purchase of the aircrafts, The
decision of the court was that no de facto partnership was created among the parties
which would entitle the petitioner to a reimbursement of the supposed losses of the
proposed corporation. The record shows that the petitioner was acting on his own and
not in behalf of his other would-be incorporators in transacting the sale of the
airplanes and spare parts.
5. Tocao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127405, October 4, 2000
- Marjorie Tocao and William T. Belo claims that there was no partnership between
petitioner Belo and respondent Nenita A. and that the latter is merely an employee of
petitioner Tocao. The business relationship created between petitioner Tocao and
respondent Anay was an informal partnership, which was not recorded with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The trial court held that there was indeed an
oral partnership agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants, based on the
following: (a) there was an intention to create a partnership; (b) a common fund was
established through contributions consisting of money and industry, and (c) there was
a joint interest in the profits. Therefore a partnership is formed between the petitioner
and the respondents regardless of the absence of record with the SEC
II. Is marriage a form of partnership?
-

Legally, I consider marriage as a partnership because marriage requires and satisfies

the pre-requisites of forming a partnership and also the characteristics of a partnership
mainly co-ownership of property, profits and mutual agency. A married couple could
sign on each others behalf with the consent of the other and the minute that they are
married, they are required to share conjugal property. The only property that they are
allowed to own by themselves is the ones that are stated in the pre-nuptials if the
couple decides to get one before marriage and only properties that they owned before
marriage are allowed to be separated and none after marriage, unless the couple
decides to get divorced and claims property owned during their message.