Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2



Paul MacDonald et al.
National City Bank of New
Stasikinocey is a partnership formed by
Alan Gorcey, Louis Da Costa Jr., William
Kusik and Emma Badong Gavino.
It was denied registration in the SEC due to
the confusion between this partnership and
the business Cardinal Rattan, which is
treated as a co-partnership where Gorcey
and Da Costa are the general partners. It
appears that Cardinal Rattan is merely the
business name or style used by the
partnership, Stasikinocey.
Prior to June 3, 1949 - Stasikinocey had an
overdraft account with the National City
Bank of New York, a foreign banking
association duly licensed to do business in
the Philippines.
June 3, 1949 - said overdraft account has a
P6,134.92 balance. Due to the failure of
Stasikinocey to make the required payment,
said balance was converted into an ordinary
loan for which a promissory joint note, nonnegotiable was executed on the same day
by Da Costa for and in the name of Cardinal
Rattan, himself and Gorcey.
June 7, 1949 - said promissory note was
secured by a chattel mortgage executed by
Da Costa, general partner for and in the
name of Stasikinocey. Said mortgage was
constituted over the following:
1. Fargo truck with motor No. T-118202839, Serial No. 81410206 and with
plate No. T-7333 (1949)
2. Plymouth Sedan automobile motor No.
T-5638876, Serial No. 11872718 and
with plate No. 10372
3. Fargo Pick-Up FKI-16, with motor No. T112800032, Serial No. 8869225 and with
plate No. T-7222 (1949)
The mortgage deed was duly registered
with the Office of the Register of Deeds
Pasig, Rizal. It has the following stipulations:
1. mortgagor shall not sell or otherwise
dispose of the said chattels without the
mortgagees written consent
2. mortgagee may foreclose the mortgage
at any time, after breach of any
waiving the 30- day notice of foreclosure
June 7, 1949 - Gorcey and Da Costa
executed an agreement purporting to
convey and transfer all their rights, title and
participation in Stasikinocey to Shaeffer,
cancellation of an indebtedness of P25,000
owed by them and Stasikinocey to the
latter. Said agreement is said to be in
violation of the Bulk Sales Law.
June 24, 1949 - during the subsistence of
Stasikinocey,, through Gorcey and Da Costa
transferred to MacDonald the Fargo truck
and Plymouth sedan
June 28, 1949 - Shaeffer sold the Fargo pickup to MacDonald
July 19, 1944 [what the case stated but I
guess it should be 1949] - Paul MacDonald
sold the Fargo truck and Plymouth sedan to
Benjamin Gonzales
When the National City Bank learned of
these transactions, it filed an action against
Stasikinocey, Da Costa, Gorcey, MacDonald
and Gonzales to recover its credit and to

foreclose the chattel mortgage.

CFI: annulled the sale of the vehicles to
Gonzales; ordered Da Costa and Gorcey to
pay the Bank jointly and severally
P6,132.92 with legal interest; ordered
Gonzales to deliver the vehicles to the Bank
for sale at public auction if Da Costa and
Gorcey fails to pay; ordered Da Costa,
Gorcey and MacDonald to pay the Bank
jointly and severally any deficiency that
remains unpaid should the proceeds of the
auction sale be insufficient
MacDonald and Gonzales appealed to the
CA: modified the CFI decision by ruling that
MacDonald is not jointly and severally liable
with Gorcey and Da Costa to pay any
Whether or not the partnership, Stasikinocey is
estopped from asserting that it does not have
juridical personality since it is an unregistered
commercial partnership.
Yes. While an unregistered commercial
partnership has no juridical personality,
nevertheless, where two or more persons
attempt to create a partnership failing to
comply with all the legal formalities, the law
considers them as partners and the
association is a partnership in so far as it is
a favorable to third persons, by reason of
the equitable principle of estoppel.
Da Costa and Gorcey cannot deny that they
transactions with the National City Bank
they represented themselves as such.
McDonald cannot disclaim knowledge of the
partnership Stasikinocey because he dealt
with said entity in purchasing two of the
vehicles in question through Gorcey and Da
Costa. The sale of the vehicles to
MacDonald being void, the sale to Gonzales
is also void since a buyer cannot have a
better right than the seller.
As was held in Behn Meyer & Co. vs.
Rosatzin, where a partnership not duly
organized has been recognized as such in
its dealings with certain persons, it shall be
considered as partnership by estoppel
and the persons dealing with it are
estopped from denying its partnership
If the law recognizes a defectively organized
partnership as de facto as far as third
persons are concerned, for purposes of its
de facto existence it should have such
attribute of a partnership as domicile.
On the Validity of the Chattel Mortgage
The chattel mortgage is in the form required
by law, and there is therefore the
presumption of its due execution which
cannot be easily destroyed by the biased
testimony of the one who executed it.
The interested version of Da Costa that the
affidavit of good faith appearing in the
chattel mortgage was executed in Quezon
City before a notary public for and in the
City of Manila was correctly rejected by the
trial court and the Court of Appeals.
In view of the conclusion that Stasikinocey
is a de facto partnership, and Da Costa
appears as a co-manager in the letter of
Gorcey to the National City Bank and in the
promissory note executed by Da Costa, and
that even the partners considered him as

such1, the partner who executed the

chattel mortgage in question must be
deemed to be so fully authorized.
Section 6 of the Chattel Mortgage Law
provides that when a partnership is a party
to the mortgage, the affidavit may be made
and subscribed by one member thereof.
In this case the affidavit was executed and
subscribed by Da Costa, not only as a
partner but as a managing partner.