G.R. No. 17024 - Bearneza vs. Dequilla

In 1903, Balbino Dequilla and Perpetua Bearneza entered into a partnership to exploit a fish pond located in the barrio of Talisay, municipality of Barotac Nuevo, Province of Iloilo.
The agreement involved Perpetua contributing to the expenses of the business, and both partners agreeing to share the ensuing profits.

The partners had been dividing the profits from the fish pond business regularly until the death of Perpetua Bearneza.
The fish pond in question was identified by specific portions known as “Alimango” and “Dalusan.”

Perpetua Bearneza died in 1912 and, in her will, appointed Domingo Bearneza as her heir, thereby designating him to inherit her rights and interests in the fish pond.

Domingo Bearneza, acting as the testamentary heir, demanded from Balbino Dequilla the delivery of the part of the fish pond that belonged to his decedent.
Upon refusal by Dequilla, Domingo Bearneza instituted an action seeking:

Recovery of one-half of the fish pond portion corresponding to Perpetua’s share.
An award of one-half of the profits received by Dequilla from the fish pond from the years 1913 to 1919 as damages, amounting to thirteen thousand one hundred pesos (P13,100).

Balbino Dequilla denied the allegations, claiming that the agreed partnership for the exploitation of the fish pond was never fully implemented because Domingo (or the plaintiff acting as heir) had refused to contribute to the necessary expenses for reconstruction and continued exploitation.
Dequilla also raised a special defense of prescription, arguing that even if the plaintiff were entitled to an undivided one-half of the fish pond, the action was time-barred.

After the proceedings, the trial court rendered a judgment declaring Domingo Bearneza the owner of one-half of the fish pond portions “Alimango” and “Dalusan.”
The court, however, denied the claim for damages due to insufficient evidence.
The trial court ordered Dequilla to pay the costs.

Balbino Dequilla appealed the part of the decision that awarded Domingo Bearneza ownership of one-half of the fish pond.
The appellate court was thus called to decide on the validity of Domingo Bearneza’s right to recover the claimed share of the fish pond.

Whether the partnership between Perpetua Bearneza and Balbino Dequilla, formed for the exploitation of the fish pond, was valid and of a civil nature as a particular partnership under Article 1678 of the Civil Code.
Whether the partnership’s subject-matter included only the fish pond and not the land on which it was constructed.

Whether the partnership was automatically dissolved by the death of Perpetua Bearneza.
Whether any stipulation existed to continue the partnership beyond her death.

Whether Domingo Bearneza, as the heir appointed in Perpetua’s will, inherited an undivided interest in the fish pond.
Whether he could maintain an action for recovery of one-half of the fish pond independent of a process of liquidation.

Whether Balbino Dequilla’s act of requiring the heirs to contribute to expenses constituted the formation of a new or continuing partnership.
Whether such conduct by Dequilla affected the rights of the plaintiff to claim ownership or share in the fish pond.