Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CO-PITCO VS YULO
FACTS
Florencio Yulo and Jaime Palacios were partners in
the operation of a sugar estate in Negros. As
partners, they had commercial dealings with a
china man named Dy-Sianco. On February 1903,
the father of Florencio, Pedro Yulo, took charge of
his interests in the partnership, and he eventually
became a general partner of Palacios. This
partnership continued until the end of 1904.
For the collection of a debt amounting to P1,638.80
from one of their dealings, Dy-Sianco filed a case
in court. However, at that time, Palacios was no
longer in the Philippines. So, the whole amount
was demanded of Yulo alone. Yulo refused to pay
for the whole amount, thus this petition.
ISSUE
WON Pedro Yulo is liable for the entire amount of
the debt incurred by the partnership.
RULING
No.
The partnership of Yulo and Palacios is a Civil
Partnership. As distinguished from a Mercantile
Partnership, in a civil partnership, by express
provision of Articles 1698 and 1137 of the Civil
Code, partners are not liable each for the whole
LIWANAG VS CA
FACTS:
Petitioner Carmen Liwanag (liwanag) and a
certain Thelma Tabligan went to the house of
complainant Isidora Rosales (rosales) and asked
her to join them in the business of buying and
selling cigarettes. Rosales would give the money
needed to buy the cigarettes while Liwanag and
Tabligan would act as her agents, with a
corresponding 40% commission to her if the goods
are sold; otherwise the money would be returned to
Rosales. Consequently, Rosales gave several cash
advances to Liwanag and Tabligan amounting
to P633,650.00.
During the first two months, Liwanag and
Tabligan made periodic visits to Rosales to report
on the progress of the transactions. The visits,
however, suddenly stopped, and all efforts by
Rosales to obtain information regarding their
business proved futile.
Alarmed by this development and believing
that the amounts she advanced were being
misappropriated, Rosales filed a case of estafa
against Liwanag.
Liwanag advances the theory that the intention of
the parties was to enter into a contract of
partnership, wherein rosales would contribute the
funds while she would buy and sell the cigarettes,
and later divide the profits between them.[1] she
also argues that the transaction can also be
interpreted as a simple loan, with rosales lending to
her the amount stated on an installment basis.
ISSUE: .
Respondent appellate court gravely erred in
affirming the conviction of the accused-petitioner
for the crime of estafa, when clearly the contract
that exist (sic) between the accused-petitioner and
Facts:
On 28 December 1995 petitioner entered into
a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Primetown
Property Group, Inc. (PPGI) for the development of
a residential condominium project to be known
as The Meditel on the formers 9,502 square meter
property
along Samat
St.,
Highway
Hills, Mandaluyong City.
With
petitioner
contributing the same property to the joint venture
and PPGI undertaking to develop the
condominium, the JVA provided, among other
terms and conditions, that the developed units shall
be shared by the former and the latter at a ratio of
17%-83%, respectively. While both parties were
allowed, at their own individual responsibility, to
pre-sell the units pertaining to them, PPGI further
undertook to use all proceeds from the pre-selling
of its saleable units for the completion of the
Condominium Project.
On 17 June 1996, the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) issued License to Sell
in favor of petitioner and PPGI as project
owners. By virtue of said license, PPGI
executed Contract to Sell with Spouses Benjamin
and Eleanor Ang on 5 February 1997, over the
35.45-square meter condominium unit for the
agreed contract price of P52,597.88 per square
meter or a total P2,077,334.25. On the same date
PPGI and respondents also executed Contract to
JO
CHUNG
CANG
COMMERCIAL CO. (1923)
V.
PACIFIC
Facts:
Sociedad Mercantil, Teck Seing & Co, Ltd., filed
an application to be adjudged insolvent. The