Agad vs Mabato 22 SCRA 1223 Facts: Petitioner Mauricio Agad claims that he and defendant Severino Mabato are

partners in a fishpond business to which they contributed P1000 each. As managing partner, Mabato yearly rendered the accounts of the operations of the partnership. However, for the years 1 !"#1 $%, defendant failed to render the accounts despite repeated demands. Petitioner filed a complaint against Mabato to which a copy of the public instrument evidencing their partnership is attached. Aside from the share of profits &P1',000( and attorney)s fees &P1000(, petitioner prayed for the dissolution of the partnership and winding up of its affairs. Mabato denied the e*istence of the partnership alleging that Agad failed to pay hisP1000 contribution. He then filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lac+ of cause of action. ,he lower court dismissed the complaint finding a failure to state a cause of action predicated upon the theory that the contract of partnership is null and void, pursuant to Art. 1""% of our -ivil -ode, because an inventory of the fishpond referred in said instrument had not been attached thereto. Art. 1""1. A partnership may be constituted in any form, e*cept where immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary. Art. 1""%. A contract of partnership is void, whenever immovable property is contributed thereto, if inventory of said property is not made, signed by the parties. and attached to the public instrument. Issue: /hether or not immovable property or real rights have been contributed to the partnership. Held: 0ased on the copy of the public instrument attached in the complaint, the partnership was established to operate a fishpond1, and not to 1engage in a fishpond business.2 ,hus, Mabato)s contention that 3it is really inconceivable how a partnership engaged in the fishpond business could e*ist without said fishpond property &being( contributed to the partnership2 is without merit. ,heir contributions were limited to P1000 each and neither a fishpond nor a real right thereto was contributed to the partnership. ,herefore, Article 1""% of the -ivil -ode finds no application in the case at bar. -ase remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.