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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    MAURICIO AGAD Vs SEVERINO MABATO Et

    Uploaded by

    joan mzi
    Mauricio Agad and Severino Mabato entered into a partnership agreement where Agad contributed P1,000 to operate a fishpond business. Agad was entitled to 50% of the profits while Mabato received the other half. Agad filed a complaint when Mabato failed to provide yearly accounts of the business operations. Mabato denied the existence of the partnership, claiming the contract was void because it did not include an inventory of the fishpond property. The Supreme Court held that the partnership agreement was valid because the fishpond itself was not contributed as an asset to the partnership, rather the partners contributed capital to operate the fishpond business. As no immovable property was contributed

    Copyright:

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

    MAURICIO AGAD Vs SEVERINO MABATO Et

    Uploaded by

    joan mzi
    54 views2 pages
    Mauricio Agad and Severino Mabato entered into a partnership agreement where Agad contributed P1,000 to operate a fishpond business. Agad was entitled to 50% of the profits while Mabato received the other half. Agad filed a complaint when Mabato failed to provide yearly accounts of the business operations. Mabato denied the existence of the partnership, claiming the contract was void because it did not include an inventory of the fishpond property. The Supreme Court held that the partnership agreement was valid because the fishpond itself was not contributed as an asset to the partnership, rather the partners contributed capital to operate the fishpond business. As no immovable property was contributed

    Original Title

    MAURICIO AGAD vs SEVERINO MABATO et

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mauricio Agad and Severino Mabato entered into a partnership agreement where Agad contributed P1,000 to operate a fishpond business. Agad was entitled to 50% of the profits while Mabato received the other half. Agad filed a complaint when Mabato failed to provide yearly accounts of the business operations. Mabato denied the existence of the partnership, claiming the contract was void because it did not include an inventory of the fishpond property. The Supreme Court held that the partnership agreement was valid because the fishpond itself was not contributed as an asset to the partnership, rather the partners contributed capital to operate the fishpond business. As no immovable property was contributed

    Copyright:

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

    MAURICIO AGAD Vs SEVERINO MABATO Et

    Uploaded by

    joan mzi
    Mauricio Agad and Severino Mabato entered into a partnership agreement where Agad contributed P1,000 to operate a fishpond business. Agad was entitled to 50% of the profits while Mabato received the other half. Agad filed a complaint when Mabato failed to provide yearly accounts of the business operations. Mabato denied the existence of the partnership, claiming the contract was void because it did not include an inventory of the fishpond property. The Supreme Court held that the partnership agreement was valid because the fishpond itself was not contributed as an asset to the partnership, rather the partners contributed capital to operate the fishpond business. As no immovable property was contributed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    MAURICIO AGAD vs SEVERINO MABATO et.

    , al
    GR NO. L- 24193 JUNE 28, 1968

    FACTS

    Herein parties were engaged in the fishpond business. Agad contributed P1,000, with the right to receive
    50% of the profits while other half was for Mabato. However for failure of Mabato to render yearly accounts
    of the operations of the partnership, Agad filed a complaint for the dissolution of the partnership, as well as
    the winding up of its affairs by a receiver to be appointed therefor.
    In his answer, Mabato admitted the formal allegations of the complaint and denied the existence of said
    partnership, upon the ground that the contract therefor had not been perfected. The contract of partnership
    was null and void, pursuant to Art. 1773 of our Civil Code, because an inventory of the fishpond referred in
    said instrument had not been attached thereto.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not there is absence of partnership if an immovable property primarily involved in the operation
    of the business is not contributed to the partnership
    HELD

    NO

    Articles 1771 and 1773 of said Code provide:


    Articles 1771 A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where immovable property or
    real rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary.

    Art. 1773. A contract of partnership is void, whenever immovable property is contributed thereto, if
    inventory of said property is not made, signed by the parties; and attached to the public instrument .
    It should be noted, however, that, as stated the partnership was established "to operate a fishpond", not to
    "engage in a fishpond business". Moreover, none of the partners contributed either a fishpond or a real
    right to any fishpond. Their contributions were limited to the sum of P1,000 each.
    The operation of the fishpond was the purpose of the partnership. Neither said fishpond nor a real right
    thereto was contributed to the partnership or became part of the capital thereof, even if a fishpond or a real
    right thereto could become part of its assets.

    You might also like