Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

MARIANO P. PASCUAL and RENATO P. DRAGON, petitioners, vs.

APPEALS, respondents.
G.R. No. 78133 October 18, 1988, GANCAYCO, J.


On June 22, 1965, petitioners Mariano P. Pascual and Renato P. Dragon 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.
Petitioners realized a net profit in the sale made in 1968 in the amount of P165,224.70,
while they realized a net profit of P60,000.00 in the sale made in 1970. The corresponding
capital gains taxes were paid by petitioners in 1973 and 1974 by availing of the tax
amnesties granted in the said years.

However, in March 31, 1979 of then Acting BIR Commissioner Efren I. Plana,
petitioners were assessed and required to pay a total amount of P107,101.70 as alleged
deficiency corporate income taxes for the years 1968 and 1970. He contended that
petitioners as co-owners in the real estate transactions formed an unregistered
partnership or joint venture taxable as a corporation under the National Internal Revenue
Code, where such unregistered partnership became subject to corporate income tax as
distinguished from profits derived from the partnership by them which is subject to
individual income tax. He also averred that the availment of tax amnesty under P.D. No.
23, as amended, by petitioners relieved petitioners of their individual income tax liabilities
but did not relieve them from the tax liability of the unregistered partnership.

Petitioners filed a petition for review with the respondent Court of Tax Appeals,
which affirmed the decision and action taken by respondent commissioner. It ruled on the
basis of the principle enunciated in Evangelista1, where an unregistered partnership was
in fact formed by petitioners which, like a corporation, was subject to corporate income
tax distinct from that imposed on the partners. But in a separate dissenting opinion,
Associate Judge Constante Roaquin stated that considering the circumstances of this
case, although there might in fact be a co-ownership between the petitioners, there was
no adequate basis for the conclusion that they thereby formed an unregistered
partnership which made them liable for corporate income tax under the Tax Code.

Hence, this petition.


Whether or not the respondent court erred in making a finding, solely on the basis
of isolated sale transactions, that an unregistered partnership existed thus ignoring the

Annex C of the Petition, citing Evangelista v. Collector, G.R. No. 9996, Oct. 15,1957,102 Phil. 140.
requirements laid down by law that would warrant the presumption/conclusion that a
partnership exists.


Yes. Respondent Commissioner just assumed such unregistered partnership to

be present on the basis of the fact that petitioners purchased certain parcels of land and
became co-owners thereof.

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 but there is no adequate basis to support the proposition that they thereby
formed an unregistered partnership, making them thereby liable for corporate income tax,
as the respondent commissioner proposes. The two isolated transactions whereby they
purchased properties and sold the same a few years thereafter did not thereby make
them partners for the character of habituality, as enunciated in Evangelista case, peculiar
to business transactions for the purpose of gain was not present. 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.

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. However, as petitioners have availed of the benefits
of tax amnesty as individual taxpayers in these transactions, they are thereby relieved of
any further tax liability arising therefrom.