Antonio C. Goquilay, ET AL. vs. Washington Z. Sycip, ET AL.

Antonio C. Goquilay, ET AL. vs. Washington Z. Sycip, ET AL. GR NO. L-11840, December 10, 1963
FACTS:
Tan Sin An and Goquiolay entered into a general commercial partnership under the partnership name Tan Sin An
and Antonio Goquiolay for the purpose of dealing in real estate. The agreement lodged upon Tan Sin An the sole
management of the partnership affairs. The lifetime of the partnership was fixed at ten years and the Articles of Copartnership stipulated that in the event of death of any of the partners before the expiration of the term, the
partnership will not be dissolved but will be continued by the heirs or assigns of the deceased partner. But the
partnership could be dissolved upon mutual agreement in writing of the partners. Goquiolay executed a GPA in favor
of Tan Sin An. The plaintiff partnership purchased 3 parcels of land which was mortgaged to La Urbana as payment
of P25,000. Another 46 parcels of land were purchased by Tan Sin An in his individual capacity which he assumed
payment of a mortgage debt for P35K. A downpayment and the amortization were advanced by Yutivo and Co. The
two obligations were consolidated in an instrument executed by the partnership and Tan Sin An, whereby the entire
49 lots were mortgaged in favor of Banco HipotecarioTan Sin An died leaving his widow, Kong Chai Pin and four
minor children. The widow subsequently became the administratrix of the estate. Repeated demands were made by
Banco Hipotecario on the partnership and on Tan Sin An. Defendant Sing Yee, upon request of defendant Yutivo
Sons , paid the remaining balance of the mortgage debt, the mortgage was cancelled Yutivo Sons and Sing Yee filed
their claim in the intestate proceedings of Tan Sin An for advances, interest and taxes paid in amortizing and
discharging their obligations to La Urbana and Banco Hipotecario. Kong Chai Pin filed a petition with the probate
court for authority to sell all the 49 parcels of land. She then sold it to Sycip and Lee in consideration of P37K and of
the vendees assuming payment of the claims filed by Yutivo Sons and Sing Yee. Later, Sycip and Lee executed in
favor of Insular Development a deed of transfer covering the 49 parcels of land.When Goquiolay learned about the
sale to Sycip and Lee, he filed a petition in the intestate proceedings to set aside the order of the probate court
approving the sale in so far as his interest over the parcels of land sold was concerned. Probate court annulled the
sale executed by the administratrix w/ respect to the 60% interest of Goquiolay over the properties Administratrix
appealed.The decision of probate court was set aside for failure to include the indispensable parties. New pleadings
were filed. The second amended complaint prays for the annulment of the sale in favor of Sycip and Lee and their
subsequent conveyance to Insular Development. The complaint was dismissed by the lower court hence this appeal.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not a widow or substitute become also a general partner or only a limited partner. Whether or
not the lower court err in holding that the widow succeeded her husband Tan Sin An in the sole management of the
partnership upon Tans death Whether or not the consent of the other partners was necessary to perfect the sale of
the partnership properties to Sycip and Lee?
HELD:
Kong Chai Pin became a mere general partner. By seeking authority to manage partnership property, Tan Sin Ans
widow showed that she desired to be considered a general partner. By authorizing the widow to manage partnership
property (which a limited partner could not be authorized to do), Goqulay recognized her as such partner, and is now
in estoppel to deny her position as a general partner, with authority to administer and alienate partnership property.
The articles did not provide that the heirs of the deceased would be merely limited partners; on the contrary, they
expressly stipulated that in case of death of either partner, the co partnership will have to be continued with the heirs
or assignees. It certainly could not be continued if it were to be converted from a general partnership into a limited
partnership since the difference between the two kinds of associations is fundamental, and specially because the
conversion into a limited association would leave the heirs of the deceased partner without a share in the
management. Hence, the contractual stipulation actually contemplated that the heirs would become general partners
rather than limited ones.