PASCUAL v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. 78133 October 18, 1988 GANCAYCO, J.

: FACTS: On June 22, 1965, petitioners bought two (2) parcels of land from Santiago Bernardino, et al. and on May 28, 1966, they bought another three (3) parcels of land from Juan Roque. The first two parcels of land were sold by petitioners in 1968 to Marenir Development Corporation, while the three parcels of land were sold by petitioners to Erlinda Reyes and Maria Samson on March 19,1970. Petitioner realized a net profit in the sale made in 1968 in the amount of P165, 224.70, while they realized a net profit of P60,000 in the sale made in 1970. The corresponding capital gains taxes were paid by petitioners in 1973 and 1974 . Respondent Commissioner informed petitioners that in the years 1968 and 1970, petitioners as co-owners in the real estate transactions formed an unregistered partnership or joint venture taxable as a corporation under Section 20(b) and its income was subject to the taxes prescribed under Section 24, both of the National Internal Revenue Code; that the unregistered partnership was subject to corporate income tax as distinguished from profits derived from the partnership by them which is subject to individual income tax. ISSUE: Whether petitioners formed an unregistered partnership subject to corporate income tax (partnership vs. co-ownership) RULING: Article 1769 of the new Civil Code lays down the rule for determining when a transaction should be deemed a partnership or a co-ownership. Said article paragraphs 2 and 3, provides:(2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property; (3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived; The sharing of returns does not in itself establish a partnership whether or not the persons sharing therein have a joint or common right or interest in the property. There must be a clear intent to form a partnership, the existence of a juridical personality different from the individual partners, and the freedom of each party to transfer or assign the whole property. In the present case, there is clear evidence of co-ownership between the petitioners. There is no adequate basis to support the proposition that they thereby formed an unregistered partnership. The two isolated transactions whereby they purchased properties and sold the same a few years thereafter did not thereby make them partners. They shared in the gross profits as co- owners and paid their capital gains taxes on their net profits and availed of the tax amnesty thereby. Under the circumstances, they cannot be considered to have formed an unregistered partnership which is thereby liable for corporate income tax, as the respondent commissioner proposes.

And even assuming for the sake of argument that such unregistered partnership appears to have been formed, since there is no such existing unregistered partnership with a distinct personality nor with assets that can be held liable for said deficiency corporate income tax, then petitioners can be held individually liable as partners for this unpaid obligation of the partnership.

ESTANISLAO, JR. VS. COURT OF APPEALS Facts: The petitioner and private respondents are brothers and sisters who are co-owners of certain lots at the in Quezon City which were then being leased to SHELL. They agreed to open and operate a gas station thereat to be known as Estanislao Shell Service Station with an initial investment of PhP15,000.00 to be taken from the advance rentals due to them from SHELL for the occupancy of the said lots owned in common by them. A joint affidavit was executed by them on April 11, 1966. The respondents agreed to help their brother, petitioner therein, by allowing him to operate and manage the gasoline service station of the family. In order not to run counter to the companys policy of appointing only one dealer, it was agreed that petitioner would apply for the dealership. Respondent Remedios helped in co-managing the business with petitioner from May 1966 up to February 1967. On May 1966, the parties entered into an Additional Cash Pledge Agreement with SHELL wherein it was reiterated that the P15,000.00 advance rental shall be deposited with SHELL to cover advances of fuel to petitioner as dealer with a proviso that said agreement cancels and supersedes the Joint Affidavit. For sometime, the petitioner submitted financial statement regarding the operation of the business to the private respondents, but thereafter petitioner failed to render subsequent accounting. Hence , the private respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner praying among others that the latter be ordered: (1) (2) To execute a public document embodying all the provisions of the partnership agreement they entered into; To render a formal accounting of the business operation veering the period from May 6, 1966 up to December 21, 1968, and from January 1, 1969 up to the time the order is issued and that the same be subject to proper audit; To pay the plaintiffs their lawful shares and participation in the net profits of the business; and To pay the plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs of the suit.

be stated that the business is a partnership with private respondents and not a sole proprietorship of the petitioner. Furthermore, there are other evidences in the record which show that there was in fact such partnership agreement between parties. The petitioner submitted to the private respondents periodic accounting of the business and gave a written authority to the private respondent Remedios Estanislao to examine and audit the books of their common business (aming negosyo). The respondent Remedios, on the other hand, assisted in the running of the business. Indeed, the parties hereto formed a partnership when they bound themselves to contribute money in a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.

(3) (4)

Issue: Can a partnership exist between members of the same family arising from their joint ownership of certain properties? Trial Court: The complaint (of the respondents) was dismissed. But upon a motion for reconsideration of the decision, another decision was rendered in favor of the respondents. CA: Affirmed in toto Petitioner: The CA erred in interpreting the legal import of the Joint Affidavit vis--vis the Additional Cash Pledge Agreement. Because of the stipulation cancelling and superseding the Joint Affidavit, whatever partnership agreement there was in said previous agreement had thereby been abrogated. Also, the CA erred in declaring that a partnership was established by and among the petitioner and the private respondents as regards the ownership and /or operation of the gasoline service station business. Held: There is no merit in the petitioners contention that because of the stipulation cancelling and superseding the previous joint affidavit, whatever partnership agreement there was in said previous agreement had thereby been abrogated. Said cancelling provision was necessary for the Joint Affidavit speaks of P15,000.00 advance rental starting May 25, 1966 while the latter agreement also refers to advance rentals of the same amount starting May 24, 1966. There is therefore a duplication of reference to the P15,000.00 hence the need to provide in the subsequent document that it cancels and supercedes the previous none. Indeed, it is true that the latter doc ument is silent as to the statement in the Join Affidavit that the value represents the capital investment of the parties in the business and it speaks of the petitioner as the sole dealer, but this is as it should be for in the latter document, SHELL was a signatory and it would be against their policy if in the agreement it should

HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and BENGUET LUMBER COMPANY, represented by its President TAN ENG LAY, respondents, G.R. No. 126881, October 3, 2000

evidence, we cannot accept as an established fact that Tan Eng Kee allegedly contributed his resources to a common fund for the purpose of establishing a partnership. Besides, it is indeed odd, if not unnatural, that despite the forty years the partnership was allegedly in existence, Tan Eng Kee never asked for an accounting. The essence of a partnership is that the partners share in the profits and losses. Each has the right to demand an accounting as long as the partnership exists. A demand for periodic accounting is evidence of a partnership. During his lifetime, Tan Eng Kee appeared never to have made any such demand for accounting from his brother, Tang Eng Lay. We conclude that Tan Eng Kee was only an employee, not a partner. Even if the payrolls as evidence were discarded, petitioners would still be back to square one, so to speak, since they did not present and offer evidence that would show that Tan Eng Kee received amounts of money allegedly representing his share in the profits of the enterprise. There being no partnership, it follows that there is no dissolution, winding up or liquidation to speak of. Hence, the petition must fail.

Following the death of Tan Eng Kee, the common-law spouse of the decedent, joined by their children collectively known as herein petitioners HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, filed suit against the decedent's brother TAN ENG LAY for accounting, liquidation and winding up of the alleged partnership formed after World War II between Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay. Facts: The complaint alleged that after the second World War, Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay, pooling their resources and industry together, entered into a partnership engaged in the business of selling lumber and hardware and construction supplies. They named their enterprise "Benguet Lumber" which they jointly managed until Tan Eng Kee's death. Petitioners claimed that Tan Eng Lay and his children caused the conversion of the partnership "Benguet Lumber" into a corporation called "Benguet Lumber Company." Petitioners prayed for accounting of the partnership assets, and the dissolution, winding up and liquidation thereof, and the equal division of the net assets of Benguet Lumber. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring that Benguet Lumber is a joint venture which is akin to a particular partnership. The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision reversing the judgment of the trial court. Issue: Whether or not Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay were partners in Benguet Lumber. Held: NO. The trial court determined that Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay had entered into a joint venture, which it said is akin to a particular partnership. A particular partnership is distinguished from a joint adventure, to wit: (a) A joint adventure (an American concept similar to our joint accounts) is a sort of informal partnership, with no firm name and no legal personality. In a joint account, the participating merchants can transact business under their own name, and can be individually liable therefor. (b) Usually, but not necessarily a joint adventure is limited to a SINGLE TRANSACTION, although the business of pursuing to a successful termination may continue for a number of years; a partnership generally relates to a continuing business of various transactions of a certain kind. A joint venture "presupposes generally a parity of standing between the joint co-ventures or partners, in which each party has an equal proprietary interest in the capital or property contributed, and where each party exercises equal rights in the conduct of the business." A review of the record persuades us that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the decision of the trial court. The evidence presented by petitioners falls short of the quantum of proof required to establish a partnership. Unfortunately for petitioners, Tan Eng Kee has passed away. Only he, aside from Tan Eng Lay, could have expounded on the precise nature of the business relationship between them. In the absence of

HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and BENGUET LUMBER COMPANY, represented by its President TAN ENG LAY, respondents, G.R. No. 126881, October 3, 2000 Business Organization Partnership, Agency, Trust Periodic Accounting Profit Sharing Benguet Lumber has been around even before World War II but during the war, its stocks were confiscated by the Japanese. After the war, the brothers Tan Eng Lay and Tan Eng Kee pooled their resources in order to revive the business. In 1981, Tan Eng Lay caused the conversion of Benguet Lumber into a corporation called Benguet Lumber and Hardware Company, with him and his family as the incorporators. In 1983, Tan Eng Kee died. Thereafter, the heirs of Tan Eng Kee demanded for an accounting and the liquidation of the partnership. Tan Eng Lay denied that there was a partnership between him and his brother. He said that Tan Eng Kee was merely an employee of Benguet Lumber. He showed evidence consisting of Tan Eng Kees payroll; his SSS as an employee and Benguet Lumber being the employee. As a result of the presentation of said evidence, the heirs of Tan Eng Kee filed a criminal case against Tan Eng Lay for allegedly fabricating those evidence. Said criminal case was however dismissed for lack of evidence. ISSUE: Whether or not Tan Eng Kee is a partner. HELD: No. There was no certificate of partnership between the brothers. The heirs were not able to show what was the agreement between the brothers as to the sharing of profits. All they presented were circumstantial evidence which in no way proved partnership. It is obvious that there was no partnership whatsoever. Except for a firm name, there was no firm account, no firm letterheads submitted as evidence, no certificate of partnership, no agreement as to profits and losses, and no time fixed for the duration of the partnership. There was even no attempt to submit an accounting corresponding to the period after the war until Kees death in 1984. It had no business book, no written account nor any memorandum for that matter and no license mentioning the existence of a partnership. In fact, Tan Eng Lay was able to show evidence that Benguet Lumber is a sole proprietorship. He registered the same as such in 1954; that Kee was just an employee based on the latters payroll and SSS coverage, and other records indicating Tan Eng Lay as the proprietor. Also, the business definitely amounted to more P3,000.00 hence if there was a partnership, it should have been made in a public instrument. But the business was started after the war (1945) prior to the publication of the New Civil Code in 1950? Even so, nothing prevented the parties from complying with this requirement. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that for 40 years, Tan Eng Kee never asked for an accounting. The essence of a partnership is that the partners share in the profits and losses. Each has the right to demand an accounting as long as the partnership exists. Even if it can be speculated that a scenario wherein if excellent relations exist among the partners at the start of the business and all the partners are more interested in seeing the firm grow rather than get immediate returns, a deferment of sharing in the profits is perfectly plausible. But in the situation in the case at bar, the deferment, if any, had gone on too long to be plausible. A person is presumed to take ordinary care of his concerns. A demand for periodic accounting is evidence of a partnership which Kee never did. The Supreme Court also noted: In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply:

(1) Except as provided by Article 1825, persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons; (2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property; (3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property which the returns are derived; (4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment: (a) As a debt by installment or otherwise; (b) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord; (c) As an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner; (d) As interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the business; (e) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by installments or otherwise.

LIM TONG LIM VS. PHILIPPINE FISHING GEAR INDUSTRIES INC FACTS: On behalf of Ocean Quest Fishing Corp Antonio Chua and Peter Yao entered into a contract with Phil. Fishing Gear (PFGI) for the purchase of fishing nets. They claimed they were engaged in a business venture with petitioner Lim who was not a signatory to the agreement. Chua and Yao failed to pay for the nets and floats. PFGI filed a collection suit against Chua, Yao and Lim as general partners alleging that Ocean Quest was nonexistent. Chua filed a Manifestation admitting liability and requesting reasonable time to pay. Yao filed an answer waiving his right to cross-ex and present evidence. Lim filed an answer with counterclaim and crossclaim. Trial Court ordered sale of nets at auction which were bought by PFGI. Trial Court ruled that a partnership existed between Lim, Chua and Yao based on testimonies, Compromise Agreement, declaration of ownership of fishing boats. CA: Lim was a partner of Chua and Yao in a fishing business and may be liable for the fishing nets and floats purchased for partnerships use. ISSUE: Whether by their acts, Lim Chua and Yao could be deemed to have entered into a partnership SC: Petition denied. CA affirmed. There existed a partnership between Chua, Yao and Lim pursuant to Art 1767 based on factual findings of the lower courts which established that they had decided to engage in a fishing business for which they bought boats worth P3.35M financed by a loan from Jesus Lim, Lims brother. In the Compromise Agreement, they were to pay the loan with the proceeds of the sales of the boats and losses or excess were to be divided equally. The boats, purchase and repair financed by borrowed money fell under common fund. Contribution to such fund need not be cash or fixed assetsit could be an intangible like credit or industry. The partnership extended not only to purchase of the boat but also to the nets and floats. The Compomise Agreement was not the sole basis of the partnership. It was but an embodiment of the relationship extant among the parties prior to execution. Petitioner was a partner and not merely a lessor as he entered into a business agreement with Chua and Yao in which debts were undertaken to finance the acquisition and upgrading of vessels to be used in their fishing business. The boat, F/B Lourdes, though registered in Lims name was an asset of the of the partnership. Petitioner benefited from the use of the nets found inside the boat. Those acting on behalf of a corporation and those benefited by it, knowing it to be without valid existence are held liable as general partners. Technically, Lim did not act on behalf of a corporation. However, having reaped the benefits of the contract entered into by persons whom he previously had an existing relationship, he is deemed part of the association and covered by the scope of the doctrine of corporation by estoppel. A 3rd party who knowing an association to be uinincorporated, nonetheless treated it as a corporation and received benefits from it, may be barred from denying its corporate existence in a suit brought against the corporation.