Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Clemente vs.

Galvan Facts:
Facts:
Plaintiff and defendant organized a civil partnership which
Pedro Larin delivered to Pedro Tarug P172, in order that the
they named "Galvan y Compaia" to engage in the
latter, in company with Eusebio Clarin and Carlos de Guzman,
manufacture and sale of paper and other stationery.
might buy and sell mangoes. The profits were to be divided
Plaintiff ask for dissolution which the defendant confirm but
equally between him and them.
with a condition that having covered a deficit incurred by the
Pedro Tarug, Eusebio Clarin, and Carlos de Guzman did in
partnership amounting to P4,000 with his own money, plaintiff
fact trade in mangoes and obtained P203 from the business,
reimburse him of one-half of said sum.
but did not comply with the terms of the contract by delivering
Juan D. Mencarini, assigned as receiver and liquidator. Upon
to Larin his half of the profits; neither did they render him any
acting on his duty, the court ordered him to deliver certain
account of the capital.
machines which were then at Nos. 705-707 Ylaya Street.
Larin charged them with the crime of estafa, but the provincial
But before he could take actual possession of said machines,
fiscal filed an information only against Eusebio Clarin
upon the strong opposition of defendant, the court, on motion
First Instance of Pampanga, sentenced the defendant,
of the latter, suspended the effects of its order
Eusebio Clarin, to six months'arresto mayor. The defendant
In the meantime the judgments rendered in cases Nos. 42794
appealed.
and 43070 ordering Clemente to pay a sum of money.
Issue: W/N the conviction is correct.
He mortgage the machines with his nephew, the intervenor
(plaintiff in the herein case.) For having expired the terms in Rule: No. The P172.00 having been received by the partnership, the
the mortgage the intervenor commenced case No. 49629 to business commenced and profits accrued, the action that lies with the
collect his mortgage credit. partner who furnished the capital for the recovery of his money is not a
Issue: W/N the mortgage between Clemente and his nephew criminal action for estafa, but a civil one arising from the partnership
(intervenor, plaintiff in the case) is valid? contract for a liquidation of the partnership and a levy on its assets if
there should be any.
Rule: No. The machines in contention originally belonged to the
defendant and from him were transferred to the partnership Galvan y (NOTE: The then Penal Code provides that those who are guilty of
Compania. This being the case, said machines belong to the partnership estafa are those who, to the prejudice of another, shall appropriate or
and not to him, and shall belong to it until partition is effected according misapply any money, goods, or any kind of personal property which they
to the result thereof after the liquidation. Also, Clemente did not have may have received as a deposit on commission for administration or in
actual possession of the machines, he could not in any manner any other producing the obligation to deliver or return the same, (as, for
mortgage them. example, in commodatum, precarium, and other unilateral contracts
which require the return of the same thing received) does not include
Leyte-Samar-Sales and K. Tomassi vs. Cea and O. Castrilla money received for a partnership; otherwise the result would be that, if
Facts: the partnership, instead of obtaining profits, suffered losses, as it could
Thisis a suit for damages by the Leyte-Samar Sales Co. not be held liable civilly for the share of the capitalist partner who
(hereinafter called LESSCO) and Raymond Tomassi against reserved the ownership of the money brought in by him, it would have
the Far Eastern Lumber & Commercial Co. (unregistered to answer to the charge of estafa, for which it would be sufficient to argue
commercial partnership hereinafter called FELCO), Arnold that the partnership had received the money under obligation to return
Hall, Fred Brown and Jean Roxas, judgment against it.)
defendants jointly and severally for the amount of P31,589.14
plus costs.
The decision having become final, the sheriff sold at auction
on June 9, 1951 to Robert Dorfe and Pepito Asturias "all the
rights, interests, titles and participation" of the defendants in
certain buildings and properties described in the certificate
on June 4, 1951 Olegario Lastrilla filed in the case a motion,
wherein he claimed to be the owner by purchase on
September 29, 1949, of all the "shares and interests" of
defendant Fred Brown
June 13, 1951, granted Lastrilla's motion. On August 14,
1951, modified its order of delivery and merely declared that
Lastrilla was entitled to 17 per cent of the properties sold.
the petitioners seek relief by certiorari, their position being the
such orders were null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
Issue: W/N the court acted with excess of its jurisdiction?

Rule: Yes. The parties were not notified, and obviously took no part in
the proceedings on the motion. A valid judgment cannot be rendered
where there is a want of necessary parties, and a court cannot properly
adjudicate matters involved in a suit when necessary and indispensable
parties to the proceedings are not before it. (49 C.J.S., 67.). All the
defendants would have reasonable motives to object to the delivery of
17 per cent of the proceeds to Lustrial, because it is so much money
deducted, and for which the plaintiffs might as another levy on their other
holdings or resources.

(NOTE: If Lastrilla was a partner, his remedy is to claim "the


property", not the proceeds of the sale, which the sheriff is directed
by section 14, Rule 39 to deliver unto the judgment creditors.

In other words, the owner of property wrongfully sold may not


voluntarily come to court, and insist, "I approve the sale, therefore
give me the proceeds because I am the owner". The reason is that
the sale was made for the judgment creditor (who paid for the fees
and notices), and not for anybody else.)
Us v. Clarin

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen