Case Digest (G.R. No. 33580)
Facts:
In Maximiliano Sancho v. Severiano Lizarraga, G.R. No. 33580, decided February 6, 1931, the parties entered into a partnership contract on October 15, 1920, in which Sancho contributed ₱50,000 and Lizarraga undertook to match that investment. Sancho filed before the Court of First Instance of Manila for the rescission of the contract under Article 1124 of the Civil Code, reimbursement of his ₱50,000 with 12% interest from the date of agreement, costs, and any further equitable relief. Lizarraga denied all allegations, asserted special defenses, and counterclaimed for dissolution of the partnership, claiming ₱500 monthly as managing partner (half chargeable to Sancho) from October 15, 1920, until dissolution, with interest. The trial court found that Lizarraga had failed to pay his agreed capital share, declared the partnership dissolved for expiration of its term, and ordered Lizarraga to liquidate the partnership and submit accounts within thirty days, without costs. Sancho appCase Digest (G.R. No. 33580)
Facts:
- Formation and terms of the partnership
- On October 15, 1920, Maximiliano Sancho (plaintiff) and Severiano Lizarraga (defendant) entered into a partnership contract (Exhibit A).
- Each party agreed to contribute capital of ₱50,000.
- Claims and cross-claims
- Plaintiff’s complaint:
- Seeks rescission of the partnership contract.
- Demands reimbursement of his ₱50,000 investment plus 12% interest per annum from October 15, 1920, with costs.
- Prays for other equitable relief.
- Defendant’s answer and counterclaim:
- Denies allegations incompatible with his defenses.
- Seeks dissolution of the partnership.
- Claims ₱500 monthly managerial compensation from October 15, 1920, with interest, one-half to be charged to plaintiff.
- Prays for other equitable relief.
- Trial court proceedings and decision
- The Court of First Instance of Manila found that defendant failed to contribute his full ₱50,000 capital.
- Plaintiff demanded liquidation. Court declared the partnership dissolved by expiration of its term.
- Ordered defendant, as managing partner, to liquidate the partnership and submit accounts and vouchers within 30 days of notice.
- No costs were awarded.
- Appeal
- Plaintiff appealed, assigning errors:
- Appellee raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was premature under CCP, § 123 and *Natividad v. Villarica* (31 Phil. 172).
Issues:
- Whether the appeal is premature for lack of final liquidation and approval of accounts as ordered by the trial court.
- Whether plaintiff is entitled to rescission of the partnership contract under Civil Code, Art. 1124, for defendant’s failure to pay his full capital contribution.
- Whether the trial court correctly applied Civil Code, Arts. 1681 and 1682, governing obligations of partners who fail to contribute agreed capital.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)