JURISPRUDENCE BASTIDA vs.

MENZI *→ articles of association by which 2 or more persons obligate themselves to place in a common fund any property, industry, or any of these things, in order to obtain profit, shall be COMMERCI ! BORJA vs. ADDISON *→ a surviving husband may form a partnership with the heirs of the deceased wife for the management and control of the community property → "#$ in the absence of the formalities prescribed by the Civil Code, %nowledge of the e&istence of the new partnership or community of property must at least be brought home to third persons dealing with the surviving husband in regard to the community real property in order to bind them by the community agreement KIEL vs. SABERT *→ the declarations of one partner, not made in the presence of his co'partner, are not competent to prove the e&istence of a partnership between them as against such partner *→ the e&istence of a partnership cannot be established by general reputation, rumor or hearsay EVENGELISTA vs. C.I.R. *→ "y the contract of partnership 2 or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS of a PARTNERSHIP () an agreement to CO*$RI"#$E money, property, or industry to a COMMO* +#*, 2) intent to divide the profits among the contracting parties *→ when our internal Revenue Code includes -partnerships. among the entities sub/ect to the ta& on -corporations., said code which are not necessarily -partnerships. in the technical sense of the term *→ PARTNERSHIPS – includes a 01*,IC $E, 2RO#3, 3OO!, 4OI*$ 5E*$#RE, or other unincorporated organi6ation, through or by the means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on *→ a /oint venture need not be underta%en in any of the standard forms, or in conformity with the usual re7uirements of the law on partnerships, in order that one could be deemed constituted for purposes of the $ 8 on corporations

PASCUAL vs. C.I.R. *→ 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 *→ the sharing of gross returns does not itself establish a partnership, within the persons sharing them have a /oint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived *→ aside from the circumstances of profit, the presence of other elements constituting partnership is necessary, such as9 () the clear intent to form a partnership 2) the e&istence of a /uridical personality different from that of the individual partners *, :) the freedom to transfer or assign any interest in the property by one with the consent of the others *→ an isolated transaction whereby 2 or more persons contribute funds to buy certain real estate for profit in the absence of other circumstances showing a contrary intention cannot be considered a partnership *→ persons who contribute property or funds for a common enterprise and agree to share the gross returns of that enterprise in proportion to their contribution, "#$ who severally retain the title to their respective contribution, are not thereby rendered partners → they have no common stoc% or capital and no community of interest as principal proprietors in the business itself which the proceeds derived *→ a /oint purchase of land, by two does not constitute a co'partnership in respect thereto, *OR does an agreement to share the profits and losses on the sale of land create a partnership *→ in order to constitute a PARTNERSHIP INTER SESE there must e! ; an intent to form the same "; generally participating in both profits and losses *, C; such a community of interest, as far as third persons are concerned as enables each party to ma%e a contract, manage the business, and dispose of the whole property *→ the common ownership of property does not itself create a partnership between the owners, though they may use it for the purpose of ma%ing gains *, they may without becoming partners, agree among themselves as to the management and use of such property and the application of the proceeds therefrom

E him from the firm OR 2) 5 I! themselves of the benefits which he may have obtained in violation of this provision → with a right to . vs. by which one is to contribute his services and the other to provide the capital. MABATO *→ a partnership may be constituted in any form E8CE3$ where immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto.*→ the sharing of returns does not in itself establish a partnership within the persons sharing therein have a /oint or common right or interest in the property → there must e! () clear intent to form a partnership 2) the e&istence of a /uridical personality different from the individual partners *. "#$ a contract of partnership to divide the fishpond after such award is I!!E2 ! *→ one of the causes of dissolution is < any event which ma%e it unlawful for the business of the partnership to be carried on or for the members to carry it on in partnership C. #*!E00 the partnership e&pressly permits him to do so → I+ =E 0=O#!. of said property is not made.O 0O. the capitalist partners may either9 () E8C!#. CASTEEL *→ a contract of partnership to e&ploit a fishpond pending its award to any 7ualified party or applicant is 5 !I. SUTER *→ a #*I5ER0 ! 3 R$*ER0=I3 re7uires either that the ob/ect of the association be9 () all the present property of the partners as contributed by them to the common fund OR 2) all that the partners may ac7uire by their industry or wor% during the e&istence of the partnership *→ the subse7uent marriage of the partners could not operate to dissolve the partnership because it is not one of the causes provided for dissolution by law with regards to limited partnerships *→ partnership has distinct and separate personality from that of its partners *→ a husband and wife may not enter into a contract of general co'partnership> #*I5ER0 ! partnership ACOAD vs.#0$RI ! 3 R$*ER cannot engage in "#0I*E00 +OR =IM0E!+. :) the freedom of each party to transfer or assign the whole property DUTERTE vs.I. signed by the parties and attached to the public instrument EVANGELISTA vs. in which case a public instrument shall be necessary *→ A C"NTRACT of PARTNERSHIP is #"ID → whenever immovable property is contributed thereto. M 2E0 in either case *→ the prohibition against an industrial partner engaging in business for himself see%s to prevent any conflict of interest between the industrial partner and the partnership and to ensure faithful compliance by said partner with his prostation . the profits to be divided between them. . if -inventory. constitutes a partnership DELUAO vs. RALLOS *→ an agreement between 2 persons to operate a coc%pit. ABAD SANTOS *→ an I*.R.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful