Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    Jarantilla Jr. vs. Jarantilla-Digests

    Uploaded by

    Frederick Barillo
    The case involves a complaint filed by Antonieta Jarantilla against several individuals for accounting of assets, income, partition, and delivery of her share from a partnership established in 1946. Antonieta claimed the partnership funded certain real properties purchased by the defendants, but they denied this. The court found that while a partnership existed based on an acknowledged participating capital document, this document specifically listed three businesses as the subject of the partnership and did not include the disputed real properties. Therefore, the court denied the petition and found no evidence the properties were partnership assets.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jarantilla Jr. vs. Jarantilla-Digests

    Uploaded by

    Frederick Barillo
    4K views1 page
    The case involves a complaint filed by Antonieta Jarantilla against several individuals for accounting of assets, income, partition, and delivery of her share from a partnership established in 1946. Antonieta claimed the partnership funded certain real properties purchased by the defendants, but they denied this. The court found that while a partnership existed based on an acknowledged participating capital document, this document specifically listed three businesses as the subject of the partnership and did not include the disputed real properties. Therefore, the court denied the petition and found no evidence the properties were partnership assets.

    Original Description:

    Jarantilla Jr. vs. Jarantilla-Digests

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involves a complaint filed by Antonieta Jarantilla against several individuals for accounting of assets, income, partition, and delivery of her share from a partnership established in 1946. Antonieta claimed the partnership funded certain real properties purchased by the defendants, but they denied this. The court found that while a partnership existed based on an acknowledged participating capital document, this document specifically listed three businesses as the subject of the partnership and did not include the disputed real properties. Therefore, the court denied the petition and found no evidence the properties were partnership assets.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4K views1 page

    Jarantilla Jr. vs. Jarantilla-Digests

    Uploaded by

    Frederick Barillo
    The case involves a complaint filed by Antonieta Jarantilla against several individuals for accounting of assets, income, partition, and delivery of her share from a partnership established in 1946. Antonieta claimed the partnership funded certain real properties purchased by the defendants, but they denied this. The court found that while a partnership existed based on an acknowledged participating capital document, this document specifically listed three businesses as the subject of the partnership and did not include the disputed real properties. Therefore, the court denied the petition and found no evidence the properties were partnership assets.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JARANTILLA, JR. vs. JARANTILLA 636 SCRA 299, G.R. No. 154486, December 1, 2010, Leonardo-De Castro, J.

    : p

    FACTS: The present case stems from the complaintfiled by Antonieta Jarantilla against Buenaventura Remotigue, Cynthia Remotigue, Federico Jarantilla, Jr., Doroteo Jarantilla and Tomas Jarantilla, for the accounting of the assets and income of the co-ownership, for its partition and the delivery of her share corresponding to eight percent (8%), and for damages. Antonieta claimed that in 1946, she had entered into an agreement with the defendants to engage in business through the execution of a document denominated as "Acknowledgement of Participating Capital. Antonieta also alleged that she had helped in the management of the business they co-owned without receiving any salary. Antonieta further claimed co-ownership of certain properties (the subject real properties) in the name of the defendants since the only way the defendants could have purchased these properties were through the partnership as they had no other source of income. The respondents did not deny the existence and validity of the "Acknowledgement of Participating Capital" and in fact used this as evidence to support their claim that Antonietas 8% share was limited to the businesses enumerated therein. The respondents denied using the partnerships income to purchase the subject real properties. During the course of the trial at the RTC, petitioner Federico Jarantilla, Jr., who was one of the original defendants, entered into a compromise agreement17 with Antonieta Jarantilla wherein he supported Antonietas claims and asserted that he too was entitled to six percent (6%) of the supposed partnership in the same manner as Antonieta was. ISSUE: Whether or not the partnership subject of the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital funded the subject real properties. HELD: Under Article 1767 of the Civil Code, there are two essential elements in a contract of partnership: (a) an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to divide the profits among the contracting parties. The first element is undoubtedly present in the case at bar, for, admittedly, all the parties in this case have agreed to, and did, contribute money and property to a common fund. Hence, the issue narrows down to their intent in acting as they did. It is not denied that all the parties in this case have agreed to contribute capital to a common fund to be able to later on share its profits. They have admitted this fact, agreed to its veracity, and even submitted one common documentary evidence to prove such partnership - the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital. The petitioner himself claims his share to be 6%, as stated in the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital. However, petitioner fails to realize that this document specifically enumerated the businesses covered by the partnership: Manila Athletic Supply, Remotigue Trading in Iloilo City and Remotigue Trading in Cotabato City. Since there was a clear agreement that the capital the partners contributed went to the three businesses, then there is no reason to deviate from such agreement and go beyond the stipulations in the document. There is no evidence that the subject real properties were assets of the partnership referred to in the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital. Petition denied.

    You might also like