Heirs of Tan Eng Kee vs.

CA (October 3, 2000)Facts: The heirs of Tan Eng Kee, composed of his children and his wife, claims thattheir father was a partner of Tan Eng Lay in Benguet Lumber Company. Tan Eng Layi s t h e brother of the petitioners' father who accordung to them entered into a partnership with the former after the WW were they both pooled in their money inorder to recapitali!e the business. "etitioners wants to account, li#uidate and windup the partnership as well as the e#ual di$ision of the net assets of the company. They alleged that since Tan Eng Kee was c o n d u c t i n g t h e a f f a i r s o f t h e company%business with his brother, &a$e orders to the employees, prepared ordersf o r t h e s u p p l i e r s , t h e i r f a m i l i e s b e i n d e m p l o y e d i n t h e b u s i n e s s a n d t h a t t h e i r families li$ed in the same compound where the Benguet Lumber Company is foundthen these establishes the e'istence of a partnership. They also allege that theirfather was a co(owner of some )* pieces of &. . +heets and that their father was also recei$ing money from the company.Benguet Lumber Company, represented by Tan Eng Lay, answered by stating that Tan Eng Kee was merely an employee of the said company e$idenced by payrollsand the +++ co$erage of petitioners' father. They also showed the registration of thebusiness as that of a proprietorship. The ,TC of Baguio ruled that there was a partnership between the two brothers inthe form of a -oint($enture. The C. re$ersed the decision of the ,TC. Iss e: W/0 Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay were partners in Benguet Lumber1 He!": 0o partnership was established as the e$idence presented was insufficient. Tan Eng Kee was merely an employee recei$ing wages. The partnership contract isre#uired to be in writing the capital of which e'ceeds "2,*** and the findings of thelower courts re$eals the absence of such contract. Co(ownership or co(possession isn o t a n i n d i c i u m o f the e'istence of a partnership. . demand for a p e r i o d i c accounting is e$idence of a partnership which was not done by Tan Eng Kee duringhis lifetime being his right if e$er he was a partner. The documents presented, not$alidly declared falsified by another court, further pro$es the non( e'istence of ap a r t n e r s h i p r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o b r o t h e r s b u t a n e m p l o y e r ( e m p l o y e e relationship. 3urthermore, petitioners did not offer or present e$idence that their father recei$ed amounts pertaining to his share in the profits of the company. Theallegations of petitioners merely shows that their father was merely in$ol$ed in theoperations of Benguet Lumber but does not establish in what capacity. 4Bus /rg Tips and 5igests 6- 6endo!a