Case Summary (G.R. No. 178782)
Facts of the Joint Venture
Josefina and Biondo entered into a joint venture on 17 March 1994 for an ice‑manufacturing business. The agreed profit sharing allocated 40% to Josefina (industrial partner), 40% to Biondo (capitalist partner), and 20% reserved for payment of the ice‑making machine. Biondo later executed a Deed of Assignment dated 27 June 1997 transferring his rights and interests in the business to Eden for P500,000. Biondo subsequently left the country. The Jasos, asserting they had acquired Biondo’s share, demanded accounting, inventory and remittance of profits.
Post‑assignment Demand and Complaint
Following the alleged assignment, the Jasos’ counsel sent a demand letter (19 February 1998). When the Realubits did not comply, the Jasos filed suit on 3 August 1998 for specific performance, accounting, examination, audit and inventory, dissolution of the joint venture, appointment of a receiver, and damages. The complaint alleged that the Realubits had concealed funds and assets of the joint venture and had used business income to acquire properties and vehicles.
Defendants’ Answer and Key Contentions
The Realubits denied the material allegations. They contended they had an existing tube‑ice trading single proprietorship predating dealings with Biondo; that Biondo left in May 1997 and therefore could not have executed the June 1997 deed (claiming signature discrepancy); that the ice plant had ceased operations on 13 January 1996 due to MERALCO disconnection for nonpayment; and that the business at 66‑C Cenacle Drive was their separate single proprietorship, not the joint venture operation.
RTC Proceedings and Decision
After trial, the Regional Trial Court (17 September 2001) found insufficient evidence to adequately determine income, assets, and dissolution of the joint venture, but concluded that the Jasos had been subrogated to Biondo’s rights by virtue of a valid acquisition. The RTC ordered defendants to submit a complete accounting and inventory from inception, allow access to books, deliver plaintiffs’ share of the profits (if any), and pay P20,000 moral damages. Exemplary damages and attorney’s fees were denied.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and ordered dissolution of the joint venture, accounting, liquidation of assets and division of shares. The CA found: (a) the Jasos validly acquired Biondo’s share and the business continued at the Cenacle Drive location; (b) Eden, lacking Josefina’s consent, was not a partner under Article 1813; (c) as assignee, Eden could not interfere in management, demand information or inspect books while the partnership continued; (d) dissolution of the partnership was a prerequisite for an assignee to seek a full accounting of partnership transactions; and (e) the evidence did not support moral damages awarded below.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The Realubits raised three principal issues: (1) whether the Deed of Assignment was valid; (2) whether Josefina, as partner, could be ordered to render an accounting to a person who is not a partner; and (3) whether the Jasos had any rights in the joint venture and in the Realubits’ alleged separate ice business.
Evidentiary Rule on Notarized Documents and Application
The Court reiterated the settled evidentiary rule that documents acknowledged before a notary public are public documents admissible without preliminary proof of authenticity or due execution. Such documents carry a disputable presumption of regularity and are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. A party attacking the authenticity or due execution of a notarized document bears the burden of producing clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant evidence to overcome the presumption. The Realubits failed to meet this standard: the notary’s testimony and Eden’s testimony, together with a certified statement from Biondo confirming the transfer, supported the document’s authenticity. Allegations of forgery, like fraud, are not presumed and must be proved by clear and convincing evidence; they were not.
Legal Effect of Assignment under Article 1813 (Civil Code)
Article 1813 was central to the decision. The Court explained that a conveyance by a partner of his entire interest does not, by itself, dissolve the partnership nor make the assignee a partner; it does not entitle the assignee to: interfere in management, require information or account of partnership transactions, or inspect partnership books during the partnership’s continuance. The assignment merely entitles the assignee to receive, in accordance with contract, the profits to which the assignor would otherwise be entitled. The Court therefore affirmed that the Jasos (as assignees of Biondo’s interest) were entitled to his share of profits but did not automatically become partners with managerial rights.
Dissolution Rights of the Assignee under Article 1831
The Court further explained that Article 1831 allows the court, on application by or for a partner, to decree dissolution, and specifically contemplates relief on application of the purchaser of a partner’s interest under Article 1813. Thus, although the assignee is not a partner during the partnership’s continuance, the assignee (as purchaser of a partner’s interest) may seek judicial dissolution of the partnership. The CA’s grant of dissolution and consequent orders for accounting, liquidation and division of shares were therefore consistent with the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 178782)
Case Caption, Decision, and Procedural Posture
- Supreme Court decision reported at 673 Phil. 618, Second Division; G.R. No. 178782, dated September 21, 2011.
- Petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 30 April 2007 in CA-G.R. CV No. 73861.
- The dispositive portion of the CA decision, as quoted in the petition record, ordered the dissolution of the joint venture between defendant-appellant Josefina Realubit and Francis Eric Amaury Biondo, conduct of accounting, liquidation of assets and division of shares, and remand of records to the trial court for appropriate proceedings.
- Petitioners: Josefina P. Realubit (Josefina) and her husband Ike Realubit; Respondents: Prosencio D. Jaso and Eden G. Jaso (Spouses Jaso).
- Case originated as Civil Case No. 98-0331 before Branch 257, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City.
Essential Facts of the Transaction and Business Arrangement
- On 17 March 1994 Josefina entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Francis Eric Amaury Biondo, a French national, to operate an ice manufacturing business; Josefina as industrial partner, Biondo as capitalist partner.
- Agreement provided that each party would receive 40% of net profit and 20% would be used to pay for the ice-making machine purchased for the business (Exhibits "B" and "1", Joint Venture Agreement).
- On 27 June 1997 Biondo executed a Deed of Assignment transferring all his rights and interests in the business to respondent Eden Jaso for P500,000.00 (Exhibits "A" and "2", Deed of Assignment).
- Biondo later departed the country; on 19 February 1998 the Spouses Jaso, through their lawyer, informed Josefina of their acquisition and formally demanded accounting, inventory, and remittance of their portion of profits (Exhibit "C", Demand Letter).
Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Allegations (Spouses Jaso)
- Complaint filed 3 August 1998 sought specific performance, accounting, examination, audit and inventory of assets and properties, dissolution of the joint venture, appointment of a receiver, and damages (Spouses Jaso’s 3 August 1998 Complaint).
- Allegations included: Spouses Realubit had no gainful occupation before the joint venture; business earned not less than P3,000.00 per day; with business income the Spouses Realubit acquired real properties, a two-storey building where the ice plant stands, another building used as office/residence, and six delivery vans; Spouses Realubit appropriated business income and fraudulently concealed funds and assets through relatives, associates or dummies.
Defendants’ Answer and Denials (Spouses Realubit)
- Answer dated 21 October 1998 denied material allegations; asserted they had engaged in tube ice trading under a single proprietorship prior to dealings with Biondo.
- Asserts Biondo left the country in May 1997 and could not have executed the Deed of Assignment; claimed signature on the Deed markedly different from signature on Joint Venture Agreement.
- Contended refusal of Spouses Jaso’s demand due to dubious acquisition circumstances; claimed the ice plant stopped operations 13 January 1996 when MERALCO disconnected power for nonpayment; alleged the tube ice trading business had been moved to 66-C Cenacle Drive and was distinct from the partnership business.
Trial Court Proceedings and RTC Ruling (17 September 2001)
- After pre-trial and trial on the merits the RTC found insufficient evidence to adequately reckon income, assets and supposed dissolution of the joint venture.
- Despite insufficiency on accounting and dissolution evidence, RTC found the Spouses Jaso had been subrogated to Biondo’s rights in the business due to valid acquisition of his share as capitalist partner.
- RTC ordered defendants to:
- Submit a complete accounting and inventory of the joint venture assets and liabilities from inception to present;
- Allow plaintiffs access to books and accounting records of the joint venture;
- Deliver plaintiffs their share in profits, if any; and
- Pay plaintiffs P20,000 for moral damages.
- RTC denied claims for exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for lack of basis.
Court of Appeals Findings and Disposition (30 April 2007)
- CA reversed the RTC decision and ordered dissolution of the joint venture, conduct of accounting, liquidation of assets and division of shares; remanded case records to trial court for appropriate proceedings (dispositive quoted in petition record).
- CA made specific findings and conclusions:
- (a) The Spouses Jaso validly acquired Biondo’s share in the business which had been transferred to and continued operations at 66-C Cenacle Drive, Sanville Subdivision, Project 6, Quezon City; the joint venture was not dissolved as claimed by Spouses Realubit.
- (b) Absent Josefina’s knowledge and consent to the transfer of Biondo’s share, Eden cannot be considered a partner in the business pursuant to Article 1813 of the Civil Code.
- (c) Eden, while entitled to Biondo’s share in profits, cannot interfere with management, require information or account of partnership transactions, nor inspect partnership books during continuance of partnership.
- (d) The partnership should be dissolved before Eden may seek an accounting of its transactions and demand Biondo’s share in the business; accordingly CA granted dissolution.
- (e) Evidence did not support award of moral damages in favor of Spouses Jaso.
- Motion for reconsideration by Spouses Realubit deni