000 Antonio Lim Tanhu, Dy Ochay, Alfonso Leonardo Ng Sua and Co Oyo vs. Hon. amolete and Tan !ut TO!"C# Property Rights of a Partner !ON$NT$# Barredo, J.:
A%THO# Nikki A DOCT"N$# A partner’s right to accounting for properties of the partnership that are within the custody or control of the other partners shall apply only when there is proof that such properties, registered in the individual naes of the othe otherr part partne ners rs,, have have !een !een ac"u ac"uir ired ed fro fro the the use use of partnership funds.
&ACTS
Respondent #an Put filed a coplaint against spouses $i #anhu and %y &chay, spouses Alfonso $eonardo Ng 'ua and (o &yo and their son )ng (hong $eonardo for the share of #ee #ee *oon $i Po (huan in the partnership. #an Put alleged the following: • i. that that she is the widow widow of #ee #ee *oon *oon $i Po (hua (huan, n, who was a part partne nerr in the coe coerc rcia iall partnership, +lory (oercial (oercial (opany with Antonio $i $i #anhu #anhu and Alfonso Alfonso Ng 'ua. ii. that the defendant defendantpeti petition tioners, ers, through through fraud and achinatio achination, n, took actual and active active anageent anageent of the partnershi and although #ee *oon $i Po (huan was the anager of +lory (oercial (opany, defendantpetitioners anaged to use the funds of the partnership to purchase lands in the cities of (e!u, $apulapu, -andaue, and the unicipalities of #alisay #alisay and -inglanilla. iii. iii. that that after after the the death death of her hus!and hus!and,, the defendan defendants, ts, without without li"uida li"uidatio tion n of the partner partnershi ship, p, organied a corporation with the paidup capital fro the partnership. 'he contends that onethird of the interest !elongs to her late hus!and. iv. iv. /hen her hus!and hus!and died, died, he asked the defendant defendantss to li"uidate li"uidate the partnersh partnership ip !ut the defendant defendantss never did. $ater on, she was ade to sign a "uitclai of all her rights and interest in the partnership in consideration of P01,222.22. 'aid "uitclai was in the *ands of $i #anhu #anhu and a copy was never given to her. v. #hat she gave gave soe of her oney to to her hus!and hus!and for the the startup capital of the partnership partnership %efendantpetitioners %efendantpetitioners replied to her coplaint alleging: • i. Ang 'iok #in #in is the legiti legitiate ate wife, wife, still still living living,, and with with who who #ee #ee *oon *oon had had four four legiti legitia ate te children, a twin !orn in 3456, and two others, all residing in *ong 7ong. #ee *oon died in 3400 and as a result of which the partnership was dissolved and what corresponded to hi were all given to his legitiate wife and children. ii. #an #an Put is aware aware that that she is the coon coon law law wife of of #ee #ee *oon. *oon. %efendants also filed a counterclai against #an #an Put for causing delay in the operations of the !usiness. • 8Note: #his case involves a lot of appeals9 otion to "uash and 6 petitions for certiorari !ut will stick to the • partnership issue issue only.; only.; #an Put asked the lower court to disiss the coplaint as to the spouses $eonardo Ng 'ua !ut retained with • respects to #anhu and &chay. #he lower court allowed the disissal in part and allowed a otion to hold the petitioners in default, and otion to • present evidence e<parte. e<parte. 8#he =udge here was very !iased;. !iased;. "SS%$# /hether or not #an Put, the coon law wife of #ee *oon, has a right on !ehalf of #ee *oon to clai his share in the partnership. H$LD# NO. •
AT"O# 3. #an #an Put cannot cannot !e considered considered as a legal legal party in interes interestt !ecause !ecause she was una!le una!le to prove that that her arriage arriage was valid and su!sisting. #here was no arriage contract shown nor evidence to support that such a arriage e. 'tated 'tated differently differently,, since the e
the deceased have already !een settled and paid. 1. f Po (huan was in control of the affairs and the running of the partnership, how could the defendants have defrauded hi of such huge aounts as plaintiff had ade his *onor !elieve@ pon the other hand, since Po (huan was in control of the affairs of the partnership, the ore logical inference is that if defendants had o!tained any portion of the funds of the partnership for theselves, it ust have !een with the knowledge and consent of Po (huan, for which reason no accounting could !e deanded fro the therefor, considering that Article 32C of the (ivil (ode refers only to what is taken !y a partner without the consent of the other partner or partners. 0. Accordingly, defendants have no o!ligation to account to anyone for such ac"uisitions in the a!sence of clear proof that they had violated the trust of Po (huan during the e6 su!se"uent to the order of disissal of &cto!er 63, 34C5 are here!y annulled and set aside, particularly the ex-parte proceedings against petitioners and the decision on %ece!er 62, 34C5. Respondent court is here!y ordered to enter an order e
