Classifications of partnership.

1) As to the extent of its subject matter. — A partnership may be:

a) Universal partnership or one which refers to all the present property or to all profits. (Art. 1777.)
There are thus two kinds of universal partnership, to wit:
i) Universal partnership of all present property.
 Article 1778. A partnership of all present property is that in which the partners
contribute all the property which actually belongs to them to a common fund,
with the intention of dividing the same among themselves, as well as all the
profits which they may acquire therewith. (1673)
 The following become the common fund of all the partners:
(a) Property which belonged to each of the partners at the time of the
constitution of the partnership
(b) Profits which they may acquire from all property contributed
ii) Universal partnership of profits.
 Article 1780. A universal partnership of profits comprises all that the partners
may acquire by their industry or work during the existence of the partnership.
 Movable or immovable property which each of the partners may possess at the
time of the celebration of the contract shall continue to pertain exclusively to
each, only the usufruct passing to the partnership.
b) Particular partnership. — It is one which has for its object, determinate things, their use and
fruits, or a specific undertaking or the exercise of a profession or a vocation. (Art. 1783, NCC)
2) As to nature of activity
a) Commercial or trading – One formed for the transaction of business.
b) Professional or non-trading – One formed for the exercise of a profession. (De Leon, 2019)
3) As to liability of the partners. — It may be:
a) General partnership or one consisting of general partners who are liable pro rata and
subsidiarily (Art. 1816.) and sometimes solidarily (Arts. 1822-1824.) with their separate property
for partnership debts; or
b) Limited partnership or one formed by two or more persons having as members one or more
general partners and one or more limited partners, the latter not being personally liable for the
obligations of the partnership. (Art. 1843.)
4) As to its duration. — It is either:
a) Partnership at will or one in which no time is specified and is not formed for a particular
undertaking or venture and which may be terminated at anytime by mutual agreement of the
partners, or by the will of any one partner alone; or one for a fixed term or particular
undertaking which is continued by the partners after the termination of such term or particular
undertaking without express agreement (see Art. 1785.); or
b) Partnership with a fixed term or one in which the term for which the partnership is to exist is
fixed or agreed upon or one formed for a particular undertaking, and upon the expiration of the
term or completion of the particular enterprise, the partnership is dissolved, unless continued
by the partners. (Ibid.)
5) As to the legality of its existence. — It may be:
a) De jure partnership or one which has complied with all the legal requirements for its
establishment (see Arts. 1772, par. 2; 1773.); or
b) De facto partnership or one which has failed to comply with all the legal requirements for its
establishment. (Ibid.)
6) As to representation to others. — It may be:
a) Ordinary or real partnership or one which actually exists among the partners and also as to
third persons; or
b) Ostensible partnership or partnership by estoppel or one which in reality is not a partnership,
but is considered a partnership only in relation to those who, by their conduct or admission, are
precluded to deny or disprove its existence. (Art. 1825.)
Classes of Universal Partnership
All Profits All Present Property
What constitutes common property (Art. 1780, NCC)
Only usufruct of the properties of the partners All properties actually belonging to the partners are
become common property contributed – they become common property
(owned by all of the partners and the partnership).
As to profits as common property
All profits acquired by the industry of the partners GR: Aside from the contributed properties, the
become common property (whether or not they were profits of said property become common property.
obtained through the usufruct contributed) (Art.
1780, NCC) XPN: Profits from other sources may become
common if there is a stipulation to such effect.
As to properties subsequently acquired
GR: Properties subsequently acquired by
inheritance, legacy or donation, cannot be included
in the stipulation
N/A
XPN: Only fruits thereof can be included in the
stipulation. (NCC, Art. 1779)
General vs Limited Partnership
General Limited
As to Liability
Personally liable for partnership obligations. (Art. Liability extends only to his capital contributions.
1816, NCC) (Arts. 1845, 1848, 1856)
As to right in management
When manner of management has not been agreed GR: No participation in management. His rights are
upon, all general partners have an equal right in the limited to those enumerated in Art. 1851 of NCC.
management of the business. (Arts. 1803, 1810(3), XPN: When he renders himself liable to creditors as a
NCC) general partner if he takes part in the control of the
business. (Art. 1848, NCC)
As to contribution
Money, property or industry. (Art. 1767) Cash or property only, not services. (Art. 1845)
As to if proper party to proceedings by or against partnership
Proper party to proceedings by/against partnership. Not proper party to proceedings by/against
partnership, unless: (1) He is also a general partner
(Art. 1853, NCC); or (2) Where the object of the
proceeding is to enforce a limited partner’s right or
liability to the partnership. (Art. 1866, NCC)
As to assignment in interest
Interest is not assignable without consent of other Interest is freely assignable. (Art. 1859, NCC)
partners. (Art. 1813, NCC)
As to firm name
It must operate under a firm name, which may or It must also operate under a firm name, followed by
may not include the name of one or more of the the word “Limited.”
partners. NOTE: Those, who, not being members of GR: The surname of a limited partner shall not
the partnership, include their names in the firm appear in the partnership name.
name, shall be subject to the liability of a partner. XPNs: (1) It is also the surname of a general partner;
(Art. 1815, NCC) or (2) Prior to the time when the limited partner
became such, the business had been carried on under
a name in which his surname appeared.
NOTE: A limited partner whose surname appears in
a partnership name is liable as a general partner to
partnership creditors who extend credit to the
partnership without actual knowledge that he is not
a general partner. (Art. 1846, NCC)
As to prohibition to engage in other business
The capitalist partner cannot engage for their own No prohibition against engaging in business. (Art.
account in any operation which is of the kind of 1866, NCC)
business in which the partnership is engaged, unless
there is a stipulation to the contrary. (Art. 1808)
If he is an industrial partner - in any business for
himself. (Art. 1789)
As to effect of death, insolvency, retirement, insanity
Retirement, death, insolvency, insanity of general Does not have same effect; rights are transferred to
partner dissolves partnership. (Arts. 1860 1830 1831) legal representative. (Art. 1861)
As to creation
As a rule, it maybe constituted in any form, by Created by the members after substantial compliance
contract or conduct of the parties. (Art. 1771, NCC) in good faith of the requirements set forth by law.
(Art. 1844)
As to Composition/Membership
 Composed only of general partners Composed of at least one general partner and one
limited partner. (Art. 1843, NCC)
Kinds of Partners
1. As to liability
a. General partner or one whose liability to third persons extends to his separate property; he may
be either a capitalist or industrial partner. (see Arts. 1843, 1816.) He is also known as real
partner;
b. Limited partner or one whose liability to third persons is limited to his capital contribution. (see
Art. 1843.) He is also known as special partner. The terms “general partner” and “limited
partner” have relevance only in a limited partnership;
2. As to contribution
a. Capitalist partner or one who contributes money or property to the common fund (Art. 1767.);
b. Industrial partner or one who contributes only his industry or personal service (Arts. 1789,
1767.);
3. As to the degree their connection with the partnership is known or made known:
a. Ostensible partner or one who takes active part and known to the public as a partner in the
business (see Art. 1834, par. 2.), whether or not he has an actual interest in the firm. Thus, he
may be an actual partner or a nominal partner. If he is not actually a partner, he is subject to
liability by the doctrine of estoppel (Art. 1825.);
b. Secret partner or one who takes active part in the business but is not known to be a partner by
outside parties nor held out as a partner by the other partners (Ibid.), although he participates in
the profits and losses of the partnership. He is an actual partner. He is also an active partner in
the sense that he participates in the management of the partnership affairs;
c. Silent partner or one who does not take any active part in the business although he may be
known to be a partner. (Ibid.) Thus, he need not be a secret partner. If he withdraws from the
partnership, he must give notice to those persons who do business with the fi rm to escape
liability in the future;
d. Dormant partner or one who does not take active part in the business and is not known or held
out as partner. (see Art. 1834, par. 2.) He would be both a silent and a secret partner. He would
be both a secret and a silent partner. He may retire from the partnership without giving notice
and cannot be held liable for obligations of the fi rm subsequent to his withdrawal. His only
interest in joining the partnership would be the sharing of the profi ts earned. The term is used
as synonymous with “sleeping partner” (68 C.J.S. 404.);
4. As to the time they joined the partnership
a. Original partner or one who is a member of the partnership from the time of its organization;
b. Incoming partner or a person lately, or about to be, taken into an existing partnership as a
member (68 C.J.S. 404; see Arts. 1826, 1828.);
5. As to their special duties
a. Managing partner or one who manages the affairs or business of the partnership; he may be
appointed either in the articles of partnership or after the constitution of the partnership. (see
Art. 1800.) He is also known as general or real partner;
b. Liquidating partner or one who takes charge of the winding up of partnership affairs upon
dissolution (see Art. 1836.);
6. As to their status after dissolution
a. Retiring partner or one withdrawn from the partnership; a withdrawing partner. (68 C.J.S. 404-
405; see Arts. 1840, 1841.)
b. Continuing partner or one who continues the business of a partnership after it has been
dissolved by reason of the admission of a new partner, or the retirement, death, or expulsion of
one or more partners (see Art. 1840.);
c. Surviving partner or one who remains after a partnership has been dissolved by the death of
any partner (see Art. 1842.);
7. Partner by estoppel or one who is not really a partner, not being a party to a partnership agreement,
but is liable as a partner for the protection of innocent third persons. (see Art. 1825.) He is one who is
 represented as being in fact a partner, but who is not so as between the partners themselves. He is also
known as partner by implication or nominal partner.

C. Weaknesses of a Partnership – 1819, 1828, 1830(1)(b), 1830(1)(d), 1830(4), 1830(5)(6)(7), 1831

Article 1819. Where title to real property is in the partnership name, any partner may convey title to such
property by a conveyance executed in the partnership name; but the partnership may recover such property
unless the partner's act binds the partnership under the provisions of the first paragraph of article 1818, or
unless such property has been conveyed by the grantee or a person claiming through such grantee to a holder
for value without knowledge that the partner, in making the conveyance, has exceeded his authority.
Where title to real property is in the name of the partnership, a conveyance executed by a partner, in his own
name, passes the equitable interest of the partnership, provided the act is one within the authority of the
partner under the provisions of the first paragraph of article 1818.
Where title to real property is in the name of one or more but not all the partners, and the record does not
disclose the right of the partnership, the partners in whose name the title stands may convey title to such
property, but the partnership may recover such property if the partners' act does not bind the partnership
under the provisions of the first paragraph of article 1818, unless the purchaser or his assignee, is a holder for
value, without knowledge.
Where the title to real property is in the name of one or more or all the partners, or in a third person in trust for
the partnership, a conveyance executed by a partner in the partnership name, or in his own name, passes the
equitable interest of the partnership, provided the act is one within the authority of the partner under the
provisions of the first paragraph of article 1818.
Where the title to real property is in the name of all the partners a conveyance executed by all the partners
passes all their rights in such property. (n)

ART. 1828. The dissolution of a partnership is the change in the relation of the partners caused by any partner
ceasing to be associated in the carrying on as distinguished from the winding up of the business. (n)
Article 1830. Dissolution is caused:
1. Without violation of the agreement between the partners:
a. By the termination of the definite term or particular undertaking specified in the agreement;
b. By the express will of any partner, who must act in good faith, when no definite term or
particular is specified;
c. By the express will of all the partners who have not assigned their interests or suffered them to
be charged for their separate debts, either before or after the termination of any specified term
or particular undertaking;
d. By the expulsion of any partner from the business bona fide in accordance with such a power
conferred by the agreement between the partners;
2. In contravention of the agreement between the partners, where the circumstances do not permit a
dissolution under any other provision of this article, by the express will of any partner at any time;
3. By any event which makes it unlawful for the business of the partnership to be carried on or for the
members to carry it on in partnership;
4. When a specific thing which a partner had promised to contribute to the partnership, perishes before
the delivery; in any case by the loss of the thing, when the partner who contributed it having reserved
the ownership thereof, has only transferred to the partnership the use or enjoyment of the same; but the
partnership shall not be dissolved by the loss of the thing when it occurs after the partnership has
acquired the ownership thereof;
5. By the death of any partner;
6. By the insolvency of any partner or of the partnership;
7. By the civil interdiction of any partner;
8. By decree of court under the following article. (1700a and 1701a)

 (2) By the express will of any partner. — A partnership at will, regardless of whether the business is
profitable or unprofitable, may be dissolved at any time by any partner without the consent of his co-
partners without breach of contract, provided, the said partner acts in good faith. Here, each partner
has both the power and the right to terminate the relation at any time. If there is bad faith, the
dissolution is wrongful.
o (a) The existence of good faith will absolve the partner exercising the right to dissolve the
partnership from liability for damages which result to his co-partners by reason of his action.
(68 C.J.S. 844.) In a case, where the withdrawal of a partner has been spurred by “interpersonal
confl ict’’ among the partners, it would not be right to let any of the partners remain in the
partnership under such an atmosphere of animosity and, certainly, not against their will.
Indeed, for as long as the reason for withdrawal of a partner is not contrary to the dictates of
justice and fairness, nor for the purpose of unduly causing harm and damage upon the
partnership, bad faith cannot be said to characterize the act. In the context used in the law, bad
faith is no different from its normal concept of a conscious and intentional design to do a
wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. (Ortega vs. Court of Appeals, 245
SCRA 529 [1995].)
o (b) While the attendance of bad faith cannot prevent the dissolution of a partnership, it can
result in liability for damages. (Ibid.) The guilty partner would be liable for wrongful
dissolution as provided in Article 1837.
o (c) A violation of the partnership agreement by the exclusion of a partner from participation in
the management of the business of the fi rm has been held to give the excluded partner the right
to declare the partnership dissolved. (68 C.J.S. 844.)
o (d) The partner who breaks off the partnership with an unfair design, or for selfish objects,
discharges his copartners from all liabilities to him but he does not thereby free himself from his
obligations to them. When he quits the partnership that he may buy for himself what the
partnership has a right to purchase, or that he may make a profit for his own advantage and to
their prejudice, he is answerable to the partnership for the loss and damage; and so, if he quits
at an unreasonable time, which occasioned a deprivation of profi t to the partnership, it is but
right that he should repair and make good such loss. (Howell vs. Harvey, 39 Am. Dec. 37.)
 (4) By expulsion of any partner. — The expulsion has the effect of decreasing the number of the
partners, hence, the dissolution. The expulsion must be made in good faith, and strictly in accordance
with the power conferred by the agreement between the partners. This power may be vested in one
partner exclusively. The partner expelled in bad faith can claim damages.
 Loss of specific thing. This provision of Article 1830 refers only to specific things. When the thing to be
contributed is not specific, Articles 1786 (par. 1.) and 1788 shall govern.
o (1) Loss before delivery. — If the specific thing to be contributed by a partner is lost before
delivery, the partnership is dissolved because there is no contribution inasmuch as the thing to
be contributed cannot be substituted with another. There is here a failure of a partner to fulfill
his part of the obligation.
o (2) Loss after delivery. — If the loss occurred after the delivery of the thing promised, then the
partnership is not dissolved, but it assumes the loss of the thing having acquired ownership
thereof. The partners may contribute additional capital to save the venture. (see Art. 1791.)
o (3) Loss where only use or enjoyment contributed. — If only the use or enjoyment of the thing is
contributed, the partner having reserved the ownership thereof, the loss of the same before or
after delivery dissolves the partnership because in either case, the partner cannot fulfill his
undertaking to make available the use of the specific thing contributed. Here, the partner bears
the loss and, therefore, he is considered in default with respect to his contribution. (Art. 1795,
par. 1.) Upon dissolution, the partners may demand for an accounting and liquidation.
 The mere failure by a partner to contribute his share of capital pursuant to an agreement to
form a partnership does not prevent the existence of a firm. (see Art. 1786.) Such failure may be
waived by the other parties to the agreement. (68 C.J.S. 414.)

 Death of any partner. The deceased partner ceases to be associated in the carrying of the business;
hence, the ipso facto dissolution of the partnership by his death by operation of law. The surviving
partners have no authority to continue the business except so far as is necessary to wind up (see Art.
1836.) except as provided in Article 1833. (see Art. 1840[3].)
o (1) Status of partnership. — The subsequent legal status of a partnership dissolved by the death
of a partner is that of a partnership in liquidation, and the only rights inherited by the heirs are
those resulting from the said liquidation in favor of the deceased partner, and nothing more.
Before this liquidation is made, it is impossible to determine what rights or interests, if any, the
deceased partner had. (Bearneza vs. Dequilla, 43 Phil. 237 [1922].)
o (2) Liquidation of its affairs. — The liquidation of its affairs is by law entrusted to the surviving
partners, or to liquidators appointed by them and not to the administrator or executor of the
deceased partner. (Guidote vs. Borja, 53 Phil. 900 [1929]; Lota vs. Tolentino, 90 Phil. 829 [1952].)
o (3) Continuation of business without liquidation. — A clause in the articles of co-partnership
providing for the continuation of the fi rm notwithstanding the death of one of the partners is
legal. (Goquiolay vs. Sycip, 108 Phil. 947 [1960].)
A view has been expressed that the death of one of the partners does not ipso facto dissolve the
partnership when, by common agreement, the surviving partners and the heirs of the deceased
decide to continue, the said agreement being in such case considered as a continuation of the
original contract of partnership.5 (Espiritu and Sibal, op. cit., p. 245, citing 11 Manresa 407-408.)
In such a case, however, there is a dissolution of the partnership without winding up, and a
continuance of the business of the dissolved partnership by a new partnership, of which the
surviving partners and the heirs of the deceased or executors are the members becoming liable
as the old to the creditors of the fi rm. (see Art. 1840[3].)
It will be seen from the foregoing that it is possible to continue a partnership (actually, a new
one) after the death of a partner, thereby increasing the usefulness of the partnership device,
and decreasing its disadvantage as compared with the corporate firm. (see Teller, op. cit., p. 88.)

 Insolvency of any partner or of partnership. The insolvency of the partner or of the partnership must
be adjudged by a court.
o (1) The insolvency of a partner subjects his interest in the partnership to the right of his creditors
(see Art. 1814.) and makes it impossible for him to satisfy with his property partnership
obligations to its creditors in the event that partnership assets have been exhausted. (see Art.
1816.) Thus, by his insolvency, its credit is impaired. An insolvent partner has no authority to
act for the partnership nor the other partners to act for him. (Art. 1833.)
o (2) The insolvency of the partnership renders its property in the hands of the partners liable for
the satisfaction of partnership obligations resulting in their inability to continue the business,
which practically amounts to a dissolution. But the reconveyance by the assignee of the
properties of the partnership pursuant to an order of the court after the termination of
insolvency proceedings involving the partnership has the effect of restoring the partnership to
its status quo. (Ng Cho Cio vs. Ng Diong, 1 SCRA 275 [1961].)
 Civil interdiction of any partner. A partnership requires the capacity of the partners. A person under
civil interdiction (or civil death) cannot validly give consent (Art. 1327.), as his capacity to act is limited
thereby. (Art. 38.) Civil interdiction deprives the offender during the time of his sentence of the right to
manage his property and dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos. (Art. 34,
Revised Penal Code.) Surely, one who is without capacity to manage his own property should not be
allowed to manage partnership property.
Article 1831. On application by or for a partner the court shall decree a dissolution whenever:
1. A partner has been declared insane in any judicial proceeding or is shown to be of unsound mind;
 2. A partner becomes in any other way incapable of performing his part of the partnership contract;
3. A partner has been guilty of such conduct as tends to affect prejudicially the carrying on of the
business;
4. A partner wilfully or persistently commits a breach of the partnership agreement, or otherwise so
conducts himself in matters relating to the partnership business that it is not reasonably practicable to
carry on the business in partnership with him;
5. The business of the partnership can only be carried on at a loss;
6. Other circumstances render a dissolution equitable.
On the application of the purchaser of a partner's interest under article 1813 or 1814:
1. After the termination of the specified term or particular undertaking;
2. At any time if the partnership was a partnership at will when the interest was assigned or when the
charging order was issued. (n)

Grounds for dissolution by decree of court. Dissolution of a partnership may be decreed judicially on
application, either by a partner in the cases mentioned in paragraph 1, Nos. 1-6; or (2) by the purchaser or
assignee of a partner’s interest under paragraph 2, Nos. 1 and 2.
1. On application by a partner:
a. Insanity. — The partner may have been previously declared insane in a judicial proceeding;
otherwise, the fact of his being of unsound mind must be duly proved. An insane person is
incapacitated to enter into a contract. (Art. 1327[2].) The insanity must materially affect the
capacity of the partner to perform his contractual duties as a partner.
b. Incapacity. — Obviously, this refers to incapacity other than insanity. Independent of any
express stipulation, a partner impliedly undertakes to advance the success of the partnership of
which he is a member by devoting to it, within reasonable limits, his time, effort, and ability.
His co-partners are entitled to his contribution and if, for any reason, he fails to fulfill his duties
they are thereby deprived, in greater or less degree, according to the extent of his failure, of the
benefits of the contract which they have made, and of the fruits thereof to which they are
legitimately entitled. Hence, the rule that courts have the power to decree dissolution of a
partnership because of incapacity of a partner which materially affects his ability to discharge
the duties imposed by his partnership contract. (Barclay vs. Barrie, 102 N.E. 102.)
However, it is not the mere fact of the existence of insanity, infirmity, or other disability
supervening that will justify a court to decree a dissolution. The incapacity contemplated by law
is incapacity which is lasting, from which the prospect of recovery is remote. If the disability be
of a temporary nature, if it be merely an occasional malady or accidental illness, if there be a fair
prospect of recovery within a reasonable time, then, and in such cases, there is no fi t ground to
decree a dissolution, for every partnership must be presumed to be entered into, subject to the
common incidents of life such as temporary illness, infi rmity, or insanity. (Ibid., citing Story on
Partnership, Sec. 297.)
c. Misconduct and persistent breach of partnership agreement. — Like incapacity, conduct
prejudicial to the carrying on of the business (e.g., inveterate drunkenness) and persistent
breach of the partnership agreement (e.g., keeping and rendering false accounts, misuse or
misappropriation of partnership funds) are grounds for judicial dissolution, for they defeat and
materially affect and obstruct the purpose of the partnership.
Temporary grievances, discourtesies, disagreements, or mistakes of judgments that involve no
permanent mischief or injury will not suffice as the basis for a judicial decree of dissolution.
But courts may order the dissolution of a partnership where the quarrels and disagreements are
of such a nature and to such extent that all confidence and cooperation between the parties have
been destroyed, or where one of the parties, by his misbehaviour, materially hinders a proper
 conduct of the partnership business. It is not only large affairs which produce trouble. The
continuance of overbearing and vexatious petty treatment of one partner by another frequently
is more serious in its disruptive character than would be larger differences which would be
discussed and settled. For the purpose of demonstrating his own preeminence in the business,
one partner cannot constantly minimize and depreciate the importance of the other without
undermining the basic status upon which a successful partnership rests. (Owen vs. Owen, 119
P. 2d 713.)
Where a partner is guilty of serious misconduct, the only remedy ordinarily available to co-
partners is to apply to the court for dissolution. But the partnership agreement may expressly
confer the power to expel a partner under specified conditions. (see Art. 1830[1, d].) When this
power is exercised in good faith, it causes dissolution (without violation of the partnership
agreement) although no suit has been instituted to that end. (Babb & Martin, op. cit., pp. 259-
260.)
d. Business can be carried on only at a loss. — Since the purpose of a partnership is the carrying
of a business for profit, it may be dissolved by decree of court when it becomes apparent that it
is unprofitable with no reasonable prospects of success.
Where a partnership had lost all its capital, or had become insolvent, or that the enterprise for
which it had been organized had been concluded or utterly abandoned, a provision in the
articles of partnership prohibiting the dissolution of the partnership except by the consent and
agreement of two-thirds of its partners, can in no wise limit or restrict the right of a less number
of the partners to effect a dissolution of the partnership through judicial intervention or
otherwise. It would be absurd and unreasonable to hold that such an association could never be
dissolved and liquidated without the consent and agreement of two-thirds of all the partners.
(Lichauco vs. Lichauco, 33 Phil. 350 [1916].)
A court is authorized to decree a dissolution notwithstanding that the partnership has been
making profits where it appears at the time of the application that the business can only be
carried on at a loss.
e. Other circumstances. — Examples of circumstances which render a dissolution equitable are
abandonment of the business, fraud in the management of the business, refusal without
justifiable cause to render accounting of partnership affairs, etc. In a case, it was held that the
sale of all real property (lots) of a partnership did not work the dissolution of the fi rm which
was left without the real property it originally had because the fi rm was not organized to
exploit the lots sold but to engage in buying and selling real estate, and “in general real estate
agency, and brokerage business.” (Goquiolay vs. Sycip, 108 Phil. 984 [1960].)
2. On application by a purchaser of a partner’s interest. — In either of the two cases mentioned in the
last paragraph, a purchaser of a partner’s interest under Article 1813 or 1814 may apply for judicial
dissolution of a partnership.
o Note that the rule in Article 1831 (par. 2[2].) applies only if in continuing the business, a
partnership at will is created, or the partnership is a partnership at will from the beginning.