Title
Source: Supreme Court
Jarantilla, Jr. vs. Jarantilla
Case
G.R. No. 154486
Decision Date
Dec 1, 2010
A family dispute over inheritance and business shares; Antonieta claimed 8% in co-owned businesses, Federico sought 6% in real properties. SC ruled Federico’s claim unsupported, affirming only Antonieta’s share in specified businesses.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 154486)

Key Dates

  • 1946: Alleged verbal business arrangement among heirs.
  • 1948: Extrajudicial partition of parents’ real properties; proceeds partially used for education of younger heirs.
  • April 29, 1957: “Acknowledgement of Participating Capital” executed by Conchita and Buenaventura Remotigue.
  • 1973: Voluntary dissolution of the joint business arrangement.
  • April 22, 1987: Antonieta filed amended complaint for accounting, partition, delivery of share, and damages.
  • December 18, 1992: RTC Decision in favor of Antonieta, ordering delivery of 8% share in various properties and corporations plus damages and fees.
  • July 30, 2002: Court of Appeals Decision limiting shares to three specified businesses.
  • December 1, 2010: Supreme Court Decision affirming the Court of Appeals.

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision post-1990).
  • Rule 45, Rules of Civil Procedure (certiorari review on questions of law).
  • Civil Code:
    • Art. 1767—Partnership defined as contribution to a common fund with intent to divide profits.
    • Art. 1769—Distinction between co-ownership and partnership.
    • Art. 1797—Distribution of profits and losses according to agreement or contributions.
  • PD 1529, Sec. 48—Torrens titles not subject to collateral attack.

Facts

  1. Heirs of Andres Jarantilla and Felisa Jaleco partitioned real properties in 1948, allocating produce for certain heirs’ education.
  2. A joint business arrangement among heirs and spouses Deocampo and Remotigue generated profits and acquired assets until its 1973 dissolution.
  3. The 1957 “Acknowledgement of Participating Capital” listed capital contributions to three enterprises—Manila Athletic Supply (Manila), Remotigue Trading (Iloilo), and Remotigue Trading (Cotabato)—with Federico’s share at ₱5,000 (6%) and Antonieta’s at ₱8,000 (8%).
  4. In 1987, Antonieta sued for accounting and partition of all assets allegedly held in co-ownership; Federico later joined by compromise, claiming a 6% share.

Procedural History

  • RTC approved the compromise and awarded Antonieta an 8% share in numerous real properties and corporations, plus moral damages (₱50,000), attorney’s fees (₱50,000), and costs.
  • Both parties appealed.
  • Court of Appeals held:
    • Antonieta’s and Federico’s shares limited to the three businesses enumerated in the 1957 document.
    • No partition or co-ownership of other corporations or real properties.
  • Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court, raising only questions of law.

Issue

Whether petitioner is entitled to a 6% share in real properties allegedly acquired with funds from the unregistered partnership reflected in the 1957 Acknowledgement of Participating Capital.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

  • Rule 45 confines review to questions of law; factual findings of RTC and CA stand unless clearly erroneous.
  • Partnership requires intent to divide profits and a common fund (Art. 1767); mere co-ownership or sharing of returns does not establish a partnership (Art. 1769).
  • The 1957 document unambiguously limited partnership assets to three specified enterprises; petitioner’s 6% share must likewise be confined to those enterprises under Art. 1797.
  • No clear evidence that partnership funds purchased the subject real proper

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.