Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

ALDECOA & CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs.


CO., LTD., defendant-appellee.
Warner, Barnes and Co. and Aldecoa and Co. formed a jointaccount partnership through verbal agreement, the said
partnership was established and they both agreed that they
would share equally the profits and losses of the business of
gathering and storing hemp in Albay and selling it in Manila for
exportation, and that the commercial firm of Warner, Barnes
and Co., Ltd., was the manager of the said joint-account
Later on, the legal representative of Aldecoa and Co., in
liquidation, filed suit in the CFI of Manila against Warner,
Barnes and Co., Ltd., alleging that the defendant, as manager
of the joint-account partnership, neglected to comply with what
is especially prescribed in article 243 of the Code of Commerce,
as a duty to inherent to its position as manager of the jointaccount partnership, which is that of rendering an account with
vouchers, and that of liquidating the said business, for it
refuses to furnish the plaintiff the documents required for their
examination and verification, and also refuses to realize the
firm assets by selling the warehouses, houses, and other
property which constitute the capital.
This litigation concerns the rendering of accounts pertaining to
the management
of the business of a joint-account partnership formed between
the two litigants
It is a rule of law generally observed that he who takes charge
of the management of another's property is bound immediately
thereafter to render accounts covering his transactions; and
that it is always to be understood that all accounts rendered
must be duly substantiated by vouchers. It is one of the duties
of the manager of a joint-account partnership, to liquidate the
assets that form the common property, and to state the result
obtained therefrom in the final rendering of the accounts which
he is to present at the conclusion of the partnership.
G.R. No. L-40098; August 29, 1975
Ponente: J. Barredo

Tan alleged that she is the widow of Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan,
who was a partner in the commercial partnership, Glory
Commercial Company with Antonio Lim Tanhu and Alfonso Ng
Defendant Antonio Lim Tanhu, Alfonso Leonardo Ng Sua, Lim
Teck Chuan, and Eng Chong Leonardo, through fraud and
machination, took actual and active management of the
partnership and although Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan was the
manager of Glory Commercial Company, defendants managed
to use the funds of the partnership to purchase lands and
buildings in the cities of Cebu, Lapulapu, Mandaue, and the
municipalities of Talisay and Minglanilla.
She alleged in her complaint that after the death of Tee Hoon
Lim Po Chuan, the defendants, without liquidation, continued
the business of Glory Commercial Company, by purportedly
organizing a corporation known as the Glory Commercial
Company, Incorporated and sometime in the month of
November, 1967, defendants, particularly Antonio Lim Tanhu,
by means of fraud deceit, and misrepresentations did then and
there, induce and convince her to execute a quitclaim of all her
rights and interests, in the assets of the partnership of Glory
Commercial Company.
Thereafter, in the year 1968-69, the defendants who had
earlier promised to liquidate the aforesaid properties and
assets in favor, among others of plaintiff and until the middle of
the year 1970 when the plaintiff formally demanded from the
defendants the accounting of real and personal properties of
the Glory Commercial Company, defendants refused and stated
that they would not give the share of the plaintiff.
Whether Tan has a right over the liquidated properties of the
No, Tan has no right over the liquidated properties of the
The Supreme Court held that there is no alternative but to hold
that plaintiff Tan Put's allegation that she is the widow of Tee
Hoon Lim Po Chuan has not been satisfactorily established and
that, on the contrary, the evidence on record convincingly

shows that her relation with said deceased was that of a

common-law wife.
Moreover, the Supreme Court said that the lower courts
committed an error by awarding 1/3 of the partnership
properties to Tan because there has been no liquidation
proceedings yet. And if there has not yet been any liquidation
of the partnership, the only right plaintiff could have would be
to what might result after much liquidation to belong to the
deceased partner (her alleged husband) and before this is
finished, it is impossible to determine, what rights or interest, if
any the deceased had.
In other words, no specific amounts or properties may be
adjudicated to the heir or legal representative of the deceased
partner without the liquidation being first terminated.
FACTS: Sometime before 1910, Pedro Larin formed a
partnership with Pedro Tarug, Eusebio Clarin and Carlos de
Guzman. Larin, being the capitalist, agreed to contribute
P172.00 to the partnership and the three others shall use said
fund to trade mangoes. The three industrial partners bought
mangoes and sell them and they earned P203.00 but they
failed to give Larins share of the profits. Larin charged them
with the crime of estafa, but the provincial fiscal filed an
information only against Eusebio Clarin in which he accused
him of appropriating to himself not only the P172 but also the
share of the profits that belonged to Larin, amounting to
P15.50. Clarin was eventually convicted.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction is correct.
HELD: No. The P172.00 having been received by the
partnership, the business commenced and profits accrued, the
action that lies with the partner who furnished the capital for
the recovery of his money is not a criminal action for estafa,
but a civil one arising from the partnership contract for a
liquidation of the partnership and a levy on its assets if there
should be any.
The then Penal Code provides that those who are guilty of
estafa are those who, to the prejudice of another, shall
appropriate or misapply any money, goods, or any kind of
personal property which they may have received as a deposit
on commission for administration or in any other producing the
obligation to deliver or return the same, (as, for example, in
commodatum, precarium, and other unilateral contracts which

require the return of the same thing received) does not include
money received for a partnership; otherwise the result would
be that, if the partnership, instead of obtaining profits, suffered
losses, as it could not be held liable civilly for the share of the
capitalist partner who reserved the ownership of the money
brought in by him, it would have to answer to the charge of
estafa, for which it would be sufficient to argue that the
partnership had received the money under obligation to return
Complainant Jose Tan Kapoe testified that Zosimo and Ricardo
Celino together with two (2) other companions went to his
house and informed him that there was a hidden treasure
under his lot; that they told him that a certain dwarf entering
the body of Zosimo is giving instructions to the latter as to the
digging operations; that he will be given millions of pesos; that
because he and accused Ricardo Celino as well as their fathers
were close friends, he believed them.
So later on, they dug a hole in his ricemill and they told him
that they discovered a treasure, a jar full of gold; that both
accused Ricardo and Zosimo did not allow him to see it by
covering it with a sack and white cloth; that both Ricardo and
Zosimo told him to give P10,000.00 and he got the money from
his safety vault, placed it in a white envelope, 6x3 inches, and
gave it to the accused Zosimo; that both Ricardo and Zosimo
went inside the little room under the stairs of his house where
they brought the jar filled with treasure and placed the money
on the treasure; that Ricardo and Zosimo stayed in the room
for about 1/2 hour and then they went out of the room and
closed the door; that Zosimo told him that they are going back
upon instructions of the dwarf and that they will communicate
with him again; that the second time, he was told by the two
(2) brothers, Requerido and Cipriano Celino to give P5,000.00
which he also placed in a white envelope; that he gave the
money to Zosimo who together with his father, accused
Ricardo, went inside again the room and they said that they
placed the money on the treasure; that he was forbidden to
enter or touch the treasure because the dwarf will be angry;
that the third time, it was Requerido Celino who advised him to
give money allegedly upon instructions of the dwarf and he
withdrew money from the Bank of the Philippine Islands and
they went through the same procedure in placing the money in

the white envelope and entering the room; that Zosimo

required him to go to the church of Landayan, located at San
Pedro, Laguna for three (3) consecutive days; that the Celinos
continued to ask for money to be put in the jar and he got from
said bank (Exh. A-1); that all in all, the money which he had
given to the accused amounted to P50,230.00 (Exh. A); that
when his savings in the bank was exhausted, he asked them to
set a deadline and he was told May 30, 1979; that he was
hoping by that time, he will get back the money and the gold;
that they did not fulfill their promise on May 30, 1979 and so
he opened the jar and found that it contained only newspaper,
comics, rocks and soil; that thereafter, he wrote a letter to
Zosimo to return his money through his driver Batitis (Exh. B)
and Zosimo wrote back that he will return the money (Exh. C),
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court
finding the accused Ricardo Celino guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of ESTAFA.
ISSUE: WON the transaction entered by Celino and Kapoe was
on one of joint veture.
The Court finds that the Court of Appeals committed no
reversible error in affirming Ricardo Celinos conviction.
There is no merit to the petitioner's pretense that the
transaction between him and the complainant was one of "joint
venture" and that if he had any liability at all, it is civil in

nature. The evidence presented in this case conclusively shows

that Ricardo Celino, together with his two sons, Zosimo
(deceased) and Requerido, led the complainant to believe that
there was a hidden treasure underneath his lot; that a dwarf
whose spirit supposedly entered the body of Zosimo directed
the digging operations; that to obtain said treasure and upon
instructions of the "dwarf," it was necessary for the
complainant to give the accused money which amounted to
P41,300.00 all in all and to pray in the church for three (3)
consecutive days.
Furthermore, no evidence was adduced by petitioner in support
of his contention that he and the complainant were partners in
a "joint venture" transaction. The case of U.S. v. Clarin [17 Phil.
85 (1910)] cited by the petitioner is therefore not applicable.
The facts clearly show that petitioner together with his sons
pretended to possess power to find hidden treasure in order to
fleece the complainant of his hard-earned money. Contrary to
the petitioner's allegation, the trial court and the Court of
Appeals correctly applied the law and jurisprudence laid down
by this Court on the matter. Under the cases of People v. Scott
[62 Phil 553 (1935)] and U.S. v. de los Reyes [34 Phil. 693
(1916)] bearing similar facts as the case at bar, the acts
committed by the petitioner constitute a classic case of
swindling under Art. 315 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.