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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 284 views

    Lozana vs. Depakakibo: Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    firmo mino
    This case digest summarizes the case of Lozana vs. Depakakibo regarding a partnership dispute. The two parties established a partnership to operate an electric company, with Lozana contributing 60% of capital and Depakakibo contributing 40%. However, the franchise was later cancelled. Lozana then sold the generator he had contributed, while Depakakibo sold the engine he had contributed, without consent from the other partner. Lozana sued, claiming the property rightfully belonged to him. The court ruled that the partnership was valid, but that the contributed property became property of the partnership once contributed, so it could not be disposed of without partnership approval.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lozana vs. Depakakibo: Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    firmo mino
    284 views2 pages
    This case digest summarizes the case of Lozana vs. Depakakibo regarding a partnership dispute. The two parties established a partnership to operate an electric company, with Lozana contributing 60% of capital and Depakakibo contributing 40%. However, the franchise was later cancelled. Lozana then sold the generator he had contributed, while Depakakibo sold the engine he had contributed, without consent from the other partner. Lozana sued, claiming the property rightfully belonged to him. The court ruled that the partnership was valid, but that the contributed property became property of the partnership once contributed, so it could not be disposed of without partnership approval.

    Original Title

    dokumen.tips_lozana-vs-depakakibo-digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case digest summarizes the case of Lozana vs. Depakakibo regarding a partnership dispute. The two parties established a partnership to operate an electric company, with Lozana contributing 60% of capital and Depakakibo contributing 40%. However, the franchise was later cancelled. Lozana then sold the generator he had contributed, while Depakakibo sold the engine he had contributed, without consent from the other partner. Lozana sued, claiming the property rightfully belonged to him. The court ruled that the partnership was valid, but that the contributed property became property of the partnership once contributed, so it could not be disposed of without partnership approval.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    284 views2 pages

    Lozana vs. Depakakibo: Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    firmo mino
    This case digest summarizes the case of Lozana vs. Depakakibo regarding a partnership dispute. The two parties established a partnership to operate an electric company, with Lozana contributing 60% of capital and Depakakibo contributing 40%. However, the franchise was later cancelled. Lozana then sold the generator he had contributed, while Depakakibo sold the engine he had contributed, without consent from the other partner. Lozana sued, claiming the property rightfully belonged to him. The court ruled that the partnership was valid, but that the contributed property became property of the partnership once contributed, so it could not be disposed of without partnership approval.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

     

    5/22/2018 Loz a na vs De pa ka kibo Dige st - slide pdf.c om

    Lozana vs. Depakakibo


    Case Digest

    FACTS:

    Lozana and Depakakibo established a partnership for the purpose of maintaining, operating, and
    distributing electric light and power in the Municipality of Dumangas. The partnership is capitalized at the sum of
    P30, 000.00 where Lozana agreed to furnish 60% while Depakakibo, 40%.

    However, the franchise for venture in favor of Buenaflor was cancelled and revoked by the Public Service
    Commission. Lozana thereafter sold Generator Buda [Lozana s contribution to the partnership; no liquidation
    ’

    made] to Decologon. When the decision was appealed, a temporary certificate of public convenience was issued in
    the name of Decolongon. Depakakibo sold one Crossly Diesel Engine [Depakakibo s contribution to the ’

    partnership] to Spouses Jimenea and Harder.

    Lozana brought action against Depakakibo alleging the latter wrongfully detained the Generator Buda and
    wooden posts to which he is entitled to the possession of. Lozano prayed the properties be delivered back to him.

    CFI ordered sheriff to take possession of the properties and the delivery thereof to Lozano. Depakakibo
    alleged properties have been contributed to the partnership and therefor he is not unlawfully detaining them. In
    addition, Lozano sold his contribution to partnership in violation of terms of their agreement.

    CFI declared Lozano owner of and entitled to the equipment. Depakakibo appealed decision to the
    Supreme Court.

    ISSUE:

    W/N partnership is void or the act of the partnership in furnishing electric current to the franchise holder without
    previous approval of Public Service Commission render the partnership void?

    W/N disposal of contribution of parties is allowed.

    RULING:

    Validity of the Partnership . Partnership is valid. The fact of furnishing the current to the holder of the
    franchise alone, without the previous approval of the Public Service Commission, does not per se make the
    contract of partnership null and void from the beginning and render the partnership entered into by the parties for
    the purpose also void and non-existent

    Disposal of Contributed Property to the Partnership. Facts show that parties entered into the contract of
    partnership, Lozana contributing the amount of P18, 000, and there has not been liquidation prior to the sale of
    the contributed properties: Buda Diesel Engine and 70 posts. It necessarily follows that the Buda diesel engine
    contributed by the plaintiff had become the property of the partnership. As properties of the partnership, the
    same could not be disposed of by the party contributing the same without the consent or approval of the
    partnership or of the other partner. (Clemente vs. Galvan, 67 Phil., 565)

    http://slide pdf.c om/re a de r/full/loz a na -vs-de pa ka kibo-dige st 1/2


    5/22/2018 Loz a na vs De pa ka kibo Dige st - slide pdf.c om

    http://slide pdf.c om/re a de r/full/loz a na -vs-de pa ka kibo-dige st 2/2

    You might also like