Case Digest (G.R. No. 181303)
Facts:
In Mauricio Agad vs. Severino Mabato & Mabato & Agad Company (G.R. No. L-24193, June 28, 1968), plaintiff-appellant Mauricio Agad filed a complaint on June 9, 1964 before the Court of First Instance of Davao, alleging that he and Severino Mabato constituted a partnership by a public instrument dated August 29, 1952 (Annex “A”) to operate a fishpond, each contributing ₱1,000 and entitled to 50% of profits. Agad averred that Mabato, who managed the partnership funds, rendered accounts from 1952 to 1956 but refused to account for 1957–1963. He prayed for ₱14,000 as his share of profits, ₱1,000 attorney’s fees, dissolution of the partnership, and appointment of a receiver. In his answer, Mabato admitted the formal allegations but claimed the partnership did not exist because Agad allegedly failed to pay his ₱1,000 contribution, rendering Annex “A” void ab initio, and counter-claimed for damages. Mabato moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction,Case Digest (G.R. No. 181303)
Facts:
- Formation of Partnership
- On August 29, 1952, Mauricio Agad and Severino Mabato executed a public instrument (Annex “A”) constituting a partnership “to operate a fishpond.”
- The agreed capital was P2,000, with P1,000 contributed by each partner, and profits to be shared equally (50% each).
- Operations and Accounting
- From 1952 through 1956, Mabato, who managed the partnership funds, rendered annual accounts of operations to Agad.
- From 1957 through 1963, despite repeated demands, Mabato failed and refused to render any accounting for the partnership’s operations.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- On June 9, 1964, Agad filed a complaint against Mabato and Mabato & Agad Company, alleging a perfected partnership and praying for:
- P14,000 as his share of profits from 1957–1963;
- P1,000 as attorney’s fees;
- Dissolution of the partnership and appointment of a receiver to wind up its affairs.
- Mabato’s Answer:
- Admitted the formal allegations but denied the existence of a partnership, claiming Agad never actually contributed his P1,000;
- Asked the court to declare Annex “A” void ab initio and to award him actual, moral, and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees.
- Motion to Dismiss:
- Mabato moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction, asserting the case involved rights over public lands;
- The Court of First Instance granted the motion, holding the partnership contract void under Civil Code Article 1773 for failure to attach an inventory of immovable property.
Issues:
- Whether the partnership contract (Annex “A”) is void under Civil Code Article 1773 for lack of an attached inventory of immovable property or real rights.
- Whether the Court of First Instance properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)