You are on page 1of 8

EUFEMIA EVANGELISTA, MANUELA EVANGELISTA, and FRANCISCA EVANGELISTA, petitioners, vs.

THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. G.R. No. L-9996 !to"er #$, #9$% FACTS T&at t&e petitioners 'EVANGELISTAS( "orro)ed *ro+ t&eir *at&er t&e s,+ o* -$9,#.//.// )&i!& a+o,nt to0et&er )it& t&eir persona1 +onies )as ,sed "2 t&e+ *or t&e p,rpose o* ",2in0 rea1 properties,. n Fe"r,ar2 3, #9.4, t&e2 "o,0&t *ro+ Mrs. 5ose*ina F1orentino a 1ot )it& an area o* 4,%#4../ s6. +. in!1,din0 i+prove+ents t&ereon *ro+ t&e s,+ o* -#//,///.//7 t&is propert2 &as an assessed va1,e o* -$%,$#%.// as o* #9.87 n Apri1 4, #9.. t&e2 p,r!&ased *ro+ Mrs. 5ose*a pp,s 3# par!e1s o* 1and )it& an a00re0ate area o* 4,%#8../ s6. +. in!1,din0 i+prove+ents t&ereon *or -#4/,///.//7 t&is propert2 &as an assessed va1,e o* -83,3$$.// as o* #9.87 n Apri1 38, #9.. t&e2 p,r!&ased *ro+ t&e Ins,1ar Invest+ents In!., a 1ot o* .,4$4 s6. +. in!1,din0 i+prove+ents t&ereon *or -#/8,83$.//. T&is propert2 &as an assessed va1,e o* -.,984.// as o* #9.87 n Apri1 38, #9.. t&e2 "o,0&t *or+ Mrs. Va1entina A*a"1e a 1ot o* 8,4%# s6. +. in!1,din0 i+prove+ents t&ereon *or -34%,34..4.. T&is propert2 &as an assessed va1,e o* -$9,#./.// as o* #9.87 In a do!,+ent dated A,0,st #6, #9.$, t&e2 appointed t&eir "rot&er Si+eon Evan0e1ista to 9+ana0e t&eir properties )it& *,11 po)er to 1ease7 to !o11e!t and re!eive rents7 to iss,e re!eipts t&ere*or7 in de*a,1t o* s,!& pa2+ent, to "rin0 s,its a0ainst t&e de*a,1tin0 tenants7 to si0n a11 1etters, !ontra!ts, et!., *or and in t&eir "e&a1*, and to endorse and deposit a11 notes and !&e!:s *or t&e+. A*ter &avin0 "o,0&t t&e a"ove-+entioned rea1 properties t&e petitioners &ad t&e sa+e rented or 1eases to vario,s tenants7 Fro+ t&e +ont& o* Mar!&, #9.$ ,p to an in!1,din0 ;e!e+"er, #9.$, t&e tota1 a+o,nt !o11e!ted as rents on t&eir rea1 properties )as -9,$99.// )&i1e t&e e<penses a+o,nted to -4,6$/.// t&ere"2 1eavin0 t&e+ a net renta1 in!o+e o* -$,9.8.447 n #9.6, t&e2 rea1i=ed a 0ross renta1 in!o+e o* in t&e s,+ o* -3.,%86.4/, o,t o* )&i!& a+o,nt )as ded,!ted in t&e s,+ o* -#6,388.3% *or e<penses t&ere"2 1eavin0 t&e+ a net renta1 in!o+e o* -%,.98.#47 In #9.8, t&e2 rea1i=ed a 0ross renta1 in!o+e o* -#%,.$4.// o,t o* t&e )&i!& a+o,nt )as ded,!ted t&e s,+ o* -.,84%.6$ as e<penses, t&ere"2 1eavin0 t&e+ a net renta1 in!o+e o* -#3,6#$.4$. n Septe+"er 3., #9$. respondent Co11e!tor o* Interna1 Reven,e de+anded t&e pa2+ent o* in!o+e ta< on !orporations, rea1 estate dea1er9s *i<ed ta< and !orporation residen!e ta< *or t&e 2ears #9.$-#9.9. Said 1etter o* de+and and !orrespondin0 assess+ents )ere de1ivered to petitioners on ;e!e+"er 4, #9$., )&ere,pon t&e2 instit,ted t&e present !ase in t&e Co,rt o* Ta< Appea1s, )&i!& rendered *or t&e respondent, and a petition *or re!onsideration and ne) tria1 &avin0 "een s,"se6,ent12 denied, t&e !ase is no) "e*ore Us *or revie) at t&e instan!e o* t&e petitioners. T&e iss,e in t&is !ase )&et&er petitioners *or+ed a >partners&ip? or i* t&e2 are !o-o)ners, not !opartners. Arti!1e #%6% o* t&e Civi1 Code o* t&e -&i1ippines provides@ A2 t&e !ontra!t o* partners&ip t)o or +ore persons "ind t&e+se1ves to !ontri",te +one2, proper12, or ind,str2 to a !o++on *,nd, )it& t&e intention o* dividin0 t&e pro*its a+on0 t&e+se1ves. -,rs,ant to t&e arti!1e, t&e essentia1 e1e+ents o* a partners&ip are t)o, na+e12@ 'a( an a0ree+ent to !ontri",te +one2, propert2 or ind,str2 to a !o++on *,nd7 and '"( intent to divide t&e pro*its a+on0 t&e !ontra!tin0 parties. T&e *irst e1e+ent is ,ndo,"ted12 present in t&e !ase at "ar, *or, ad+itted12, petitioners &ave a0reed to, and did, !ontri",te +one2 and propert2 to a !o++on *,nd. Ben!e, t&e iss,e narro)s do)n to t&eir intent in a!tin0 as t&e2 did. Upon !onsideration o* a11 t&e *a!ts and !ir!,+stan!es s,rro,ndin0 t&e !ase, )e are *,112 satis*ied t&at t&eir p,rpose )as to en0a0e in rea1 estate transa!tions *or +onetar2 0ain and t&en divide t&e sa+e a+on0 t&e+se1ves, "e!a,se@ #. Said !o++on *,nd )as not so+et&in0 t&e2 *o,nd a1read2 in e<isten!e. It )as not propert2 in&erited "2 t&e+ pro indiviso. T&e2 !reated it p,rpose12. C&at is +ore t&e2 jointly borrowed a s,"stantia1 portion t&ereo* in order to esta"1is& said !o++on *,nd.

3. T&e2 invested t&e sa+e, not +ere12 not +ere12 in one transa!tion, ",t in a series o* transa!tions. ne !annot ",t per!eive a !&ara!ter o* &a"it,a112 pe!,1iar to ",siness transa!tions en0a0ed in t&e p,rpose o* 0ain. 4. T&e a*oresaid 1ots )ere not devoted to residentia1 p,rposes, or to ot&er persona1 ,ses, o* petitioners &erein. T&e properties )ere 1eased separate12 to severa1 persons, )&o, *ro+ #9.$ to #9.8 in!1,sive, paid t&e tota1 s,+ o* -%/,/68.4/ "2 )a2 o* renta1s. .. Sin!e A,0,st, #9.$, t&e properties &ave "een ,nder t&e +ana0e+ent o* one person, na+e12 Si+eon Evan0e1ista, )it& *,11 po)er to 1ease, to !o11e!t rents, to iss,e re!eipts, to "rin0 s,its, to si0n 1etters and !ontra!ts, and to indorse and deposit notes and !&e!:s. T&,s, t&e a**airs re1ative to said properties &ave "een &and1ed as i* t&e sa+e "e1on0ed to a !orporation or ",siness and enterprise operated *or pro*it. $. T&e *ore0oin0 !onditions &ave e<isted *or +ore t&an ten '#/( 2ears, or, to "e e<a!t, over *i*teen '#$( 2ears, sin!e t&e *irst propert2 )as a!6,ired, and over t)e1ve '#3( 2ears, sin!e Si+eon Evan0e1ista "e!a+e t&e +ana0er. 6. -etitioners &ave not testi*ied or introd,!ed an2 eviden!e, eit&er on t&eir p,rpose in !reatin0 t&e set ,p a1read2 adverted to, or on t&e !a,ses *or its !ontin,ed e<isten!e. T&e2 did not even tr2 to o**er an e<p1anation t&ere*or. A1t&o,0&, ta:en sin012, t&e2 +i0&t not s,**i!e to esta"1is& t&e intent ne!essar2 to !onstit,te a partners&ip, t&e !o11e!tive e**e!t o* t&ese !ir!,+stan!es is s,!& as to 1eave no roo+ *or do,"t on t&e e<isten!e o* said intent in petitioners &erein. n12 one or t)o o* t&e a*ore+entioned !ir!,+stan!es )ere present in t&e !ases !ited "2 petitioners &erein, and, &en!e, t&ose !ases are not in point. -etitioners insist, &o)ever, t&at t&e2 are +ere !o-o)ners, not !o-partners t&is pretense )as !orre!t12 reDe!ted "2 t&e Co,rt o* Ta< Appea1s. To "e0in )it&, t&e ta< in 6,estion is one i+posed ,pon >!orporations>, )&i!&, stri!t12 spea:in0, are distin!t and di**erent *ro+ >partners&ips>. C&en o,r Interna1 Reven,e Code in!1,des >partners&ips> a+on0 t&e entities s,"De!t to t&e ta< on >!orporations>, said Code +,st a11,de, t&ere*ore, to or0ani=ations )&i!& are not ne!essari12 >partners&ips>, in t&e te!&ni!a1 sense o* t&e ter+. As de*ined in se!tion 8.'"( o* said Code, >t&e ter+ !orporation in!1,des partners&ips, no matter how created or organized. A0ain, p,rs,ant to said se!tion 8.'"(, t&e ter+ >!orporation> in!1,des, a+on0 ot&er, Doint a!!o,nts, 'cuentas en participation(> and >asso!iations,> none of which has a legal personality of its own, independent of that of its members . A!!ordin012, t&e 1a)+a:er !o,1d not &ave re0arded t&at persona1it2 as a !ondition essentia1 to t&e e<isten!e o* t&e partners&ips t&erein re*erred to. In *a!t, as a"ove stated, >d,12 re0istered 0enera1 !opartners&ips> E which are possessed of the aforementioned personality E &ave "een e<press12 e<!1,ded "2 1a) 'se!tions 3. and 8. F"G *ro+ t&e !onnotation o* t&e ter+ >!orporation> It +a2 not "e a+iss to add t&at petitioners9 a11e0ation to t&e e**e!t t&at t&eir 1ia"i1it2 in !onne!tion )it& t&e 1easin0 o* t&e 1ots a"ove re*erred to, ,nder t&e +ana0e+ent o* one person E even i* tr,e, on )&i!& )e e<press no opinion E tends to increase t&e si+i1arit2 "et)een t&e nat,re o* t&eir vent,re and t&at !orporations, and is, t&ere*ore, an additiona1 ar0,+ent in favor o* t&e i+position o* said ta< on !orporations. For p,rposes o* t&e ta< on !orporations, our National Internal Revenue Code, includes these partnerships E )it& t&e e<!eption on12 o* d,12 re0istered 0enera1 !opartners&ips E within the purview of the term "corporation." It is, t&ere*ore, !1ear to o,r +ind t&at petitioners &erein !onstit,te a partners&ip, inso*ar as said Code is !on!erned and are s,"De!t to t&e in!o+e ta< *or !orporations.

ISABELO MORAN, JR., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIANO E. PECSON, respondents. G.R. No. L-59956 Octo !" #$, $9%& FACTS On February 22, 1971 Pecson and Moran entered into an agreement whereby both would contribute P1 ,!!! each "or the purpose o" printing 9 ,!!! posters #"eaturing the delegates to the 1971 $onstitutional $onvention%, with Moran actually supervising the wor&' that Pecson would receive a commission o" P l,!!! a month starting on (pril 1 , 1971 up to )ecember 1 , 1971' that on )ecember 1 , 1971, a li*uidation o" the accounts in the distribution and printing o" the 9 ,!!! posters would be made, that Pecson gave Moran P1!,!!! "or which the latter issued a receipt' that only a "ew posters were printed' that on or about May 2+, 1971, Moran e,ecuted in "avor o" Pecson a promissory note in the amount o" P2!,!!! payable in two e*ual installments #P1!,!!! payable on or be"ore -une 1 , 1971 and P1!,!!! payable on or be"ore -une .!, 1971%, the whole sum becoming due upon de"ault in the payment o" the "irst installment on the date due, complete with the costs o" collection. Private respondent Pecson "iled with the $ourt o" First /nstance o" Manila an action "or the recovery o" a sum o" money and alleged in his complaint0 #1% on the alleged partnership agreement, the return o" his contribution o" P1!,!!!.!!, payment o" his share in the pro"its that the partnership would have earned, and, payment o" unpaid commission' #2% on the alleged promissory note, payment o" the sum o" P2!,!!!.!!' and, #.% moral and e,emplary damages and attorney1s "ees. $ourt o" First /nstance ordered /sabelo $. Moran, -r. to return to plainti"" Mariano 2. Pecson the sum o" P17,!!!.!!. 3oth parties appealed to the respondent $ourt o" (ppeals. 4he latter li&ewise rendered a decision against the petitioner. /5562 7O8 moran is liable to pecson 4he rule is, when a partner who has underta&en to contribute a sum o" money "ails to do so, he becomes a debtor o" the partnership "or whatever he may have promised to contribute #(rt. 17+9, $ivil $ode% and "or interests and damages "rom the time he should have complied with his obligation #(rt. 17++, $ivil $ode%. /n the instant case, there is no evidence whatsoever that the partnership between the petitioner and the private respondent would have been a pro"itable venture. /n "act, it was a "ailure doomed "rom the start. /n this case, there was mutual breach. Private respondent "ailed to give his entire contribution in the amount o" P1 ,!!!.!!. :e contributed only P1!,!!!.!!. 4he petitioner li&ewise "ailed to give any o" the amount e,pected o" him. :e "urther "ailed to comply with the agreement to print 9 ,!!! copies o" the posters. /nstead, he printed only 2,!!! copies. A"t'c(! $)9) o* t+! C','( Cod! -"o,'d!./ T+! (o..!. and -"o*'t. .+a(( ! d'.t"' 0t!d 'n con*o"1't2 3't+ t+! a4"!!1!nt. I* on(2 t+! .+a"! o* !ac+ -a"tn!" 'n t+! -"o*'t. +a. !!n a4"!!d 0-on, t+! .+a"! o* !ac+ 'n t+! (o..!. .+a(( ! 'n t+! .a1! -"o-o"t'on. 3eing a contract o" partnership, each partner must share in the pro"its and losses o" the venture. 4hat is the essence o" a partnership. (nd even with an assurance made by one o" the partners that they would earn a huge amount o" pro"its, in the absence o" "raud, the other partner cannot claim a right to recover the highly speculative pro"its. /t is a rare business venture guaranteed to give 1!!; pro"its. /n this case, on an investment o" P1 ,!!!.!!, the respondent was supposed to earn a guaranteed P1,!!!.!! a month "or eight months and around P1<2, !!.!! on 9 ,!!! posters costing P2.!! each but 2,!!! o" which were sold at P .!! each.

:idden ris&s in any business venture have to be considered. /t does not "ollow however that the private respondent is not entitled to recover any amount "rom the petitioner. 4he records show that the private respondent gave P1!,!!!.!! to the petitioner. 4he latter used this amount "or the printing o" 2,!!! posters at a cost o" P2.!! per poster or a total printing cost o" P<,!!!.!!. 4he records "urther show that the 2,!!! copies were sold at P .!! each. 4he gross income there"ore was P1!,!!!.!!. )educting the printing costs o" P<,!!!.!! "rom the gross income o" P1!,!!!.!! and with no evidence on the cost o" distribution, the net pro"its amount to only P9,!!!.!!. 4his net pro"it o" P9,!!!.!! should be divided between the petitioner and the private respondent. (nd since only P<,!!!.!! was undesirable by the petitioner in printing the 2,!!! copies, the remaining P9,!!!.!! should there"ore be returned to the private respondent. 4he petition is =>(842). 4he decision o" the respondent $ourt o" (ppeals #now /ntermediate (ppellate $ourt% is hereby 524 (5/)2 and a new one is rendered ordering the petitioner /sabelo Moran, -r., to pay private respondent Mariano Pecson 5/? 4:O65(8) #P9,!!!.!!% P25O5 representing the amount o" the private respondent1s contribution to the partnership but which remained unused' and 4:>22 4:O65(8) #P.,!!!.!!% P25O5 representing one hal" #1@2% o" the net pro"its gained by the partnership in the sale o" the two thousand #2,!!!% copies o" the posters, with interests at the legal rate on both amounts "rom the date the complaint was "iled until "ull payment is made.

5ICENTE S6, TRINI7A7 PAULINO, 6B8S TRUC9ING CORPORATION, and SBT:$; TRUC9ING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JAIME SAHOT, respondents. :G.R. No. $&<<9#. F! "0a"2 <), <==#; F($45 5ometime in 19 +, private respondent -aime 5ahot A B started wor&ing as a truc& helper "or petitionersC "amilyDowned truc&ing business named Eicente 5y 4ruc&ing. /n 199 , he became a truc& driver o" the same "amily business, renamed 4. Paulino 4ruc&ing 5ervice, later 93Cs 4ruc&ing $orporation in 19+ , and therea"ter &nown as 534 4ruc&ing $orporation since 199<. 4hroughout all these changes in names and "or .9 years, private respondent continuously served the truc&ing business o" petitioners. /n (pril 199<, 5ahot was already 9 years old. :e had been incurring absences as he was su""ering "rom various ailments. Particularly causing him pain was his le"t thigh, which greatly a""ected the per"ormance o" his tas& as a driver. :e in*uired about his medical and retirement bene"its with the 5ocial 5ecurity 5ystem #555% on (pril 2 , 199<, but discovered that his premium payments had not been remitted by his employer. 5ahot had "iled a wee&Dlong leave sometime in May 199<. On May 27th, he was medically e,amined and treated "or 2O>, presleyopia, hypertensive retinopathy = //, :PM, 64/, Osteoarthritis and heart enlargement. On said grounds, 3elen Paulino o" the 534 4ruc&ing 5ervice management told him to "ile a "ormal re*uest "or e,tension o" his leave. (t the end o" his wee&Dlong absence, 5ahot applied "or e,tension o" his leave "or the whole month o" -une, 199<. /t was at this time when petitioners #Eicente sy, 4rinidad Paulino and 9b truc&ing% allegedly threatened to terminate his employment should he re"use to go bac& to wor&. (t this point, 5ahot "ound himsel" in a dilemma. :e was "acing dismissal i" he re"used to wor&, 3ut he could not retire on pension because petitioners never paid his correct 555 premiums. 4he "act remained he could no longer wor& as his le"t thigh hurt abominably. Petitioners ended his dilemma. 4hey carried out their threat and dismissed him "rom wor&, e""ective -une .!, 199<. :e ended up sic&, Fobless and penniless. On 5eptember 1., 199<, 5ahot "iled with the 8G>$ 8$> (rbitration 3ranch, a complaint "or illegal dismissal, but the 8G>$ ruled that there was no illegal dismissal in 5ahotCs case. Private respondent had "ailed to report to wor&. On appeal, the 8ational Gabor >elations $ommission modi"ied the Fudgment and ordered petitioners to pay private respondent separation pay in the amount o" P9!,.2!.!!. Petitioners assailed the decision o" the 8G>$ be"ore the $ourt o" (ppeals which a""irmed with modi"ication the Fudgment o" the 8G>$ and held that private respondent was indeed an employee o" petitioners since 19 +. /5562 #1% 7hether or not an employerDemployee relationship e,isted between petitioners and respondent 5ahot >6G/8= $rucial to the resolution o" this case is the determination o" the "irst issue. 3e"ore a case "or illegal dismissal can prosper, an employerDemployee relationship must "irst be established.A1<B 4he elements to determine the e,istence o" an employment relationship are0 #a% the selection and engagement o" the employee' #b% the payment o" wages' #c% the power o" dismissal' and #d% the employerCs power to control the employeeCs conduct. 4he most important element is the employerCs control o" the employeeCs conduct, not only as to the result o" the wor& to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it. (s "ound by the appellate court, petitioners owned and operated a truc&ing business since the 19 !s and by their own allegations, they determined private respondentCs wages and rest

day.A2!B >ecords o" the case show that private respondent actually engaged in wor& as an employee. )uring the entire course o" his employment he did not have the "reedom to determine where he would go, what he would do, and how he would do it. :e merely "ollowed instructions o" petitioners and was content to do so, as long as he was paid his wages. /ndeed, said the $(, private respondent had wor&ed as a truc& helper and driver o" petitioners not "or his own pleasure but under the latterCs control. A"t'c(! $)6) o* t+! C','( Cod! .tat!. t+at 'n a cont"act o* -a"tn!".+'- t3o o" 1o"! -!".on. 'nd t+!1.!(,!. to cont"' 0t! 1on!2, -"o-!"t2 o" 'nd0.t"2 to a co11on *0nd, 3't+ t+! 'nt!nt'on o* d','d'n4 t+! -"o*'t. a1on4 t+!1.!(,!.. 8ot one o" these circumstances is present in this case. 8o written agreement e,ists to prove the partnership between the parties. Private respondent did not contribute money, property or industry "or the purpose o" engaging in the supposed business. 4here is no proo" that he was receiving a share in the pro"its as a matter o" course, during the period when the truc&ing business was under operation. 8either is there any proo" that he had actively participated in the management, administration and adoption o" policies o" the business. -aime 5ahot was not an industrial partner but an employee o" petitioners "rom 19 + to 199<. 4he e,istence o" an employerDemployee relationship is ultimately a *uestion o" "act A2.B and the "indings thereon by the 8G>$, as a""irmed by the $ourt o" (ppeals, deserve not only respect but "inality when supported by substantial evidence. 5ubstantial evidence is such amount o" relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as ade*uate to Fusti"y a conclusion.A2<B 4ime and again this $ourt has said that Hi" doubt e,ists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales o" Fustice must be tilted in "avor o" the latter.IA2 B :ere, we entertain no doubt. Private respondent since the beginning was an employee o", not an industrial partner in, the truc&ing business.

HEIRS OF JOSE LIM, REPRESENTED BY ELENITO LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. JULIET VILLA LIM, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 172690 M!"#$ 0%, 2010& FACTS Petitioners are the heirs of the late Jose Lim (Jose), namely: Jose's widow Cresencia Palad (Cresencia); and their children lenito, !elia, "melda, delyna and dison, all s#rnamed Lim ($etitioners), re$resented %y lenito Lim ( lenito)& They filed a Com$laint '() for Partition, Acco#ntin* and +ama*es a*ainst res$ondent J#liet ,illa Lim (res$ondent), widow of the late lfledo Lim ( lfledo), who was the eldest son of Jose and Cresencia& Petitioners alle*ed that Jose was the liaison officer of "nterwood Sawmill in Ca*siay, -a#%an, .#e/on& Sometime in 0123, Jose, to*ether with his friends Jimmy 4# (Jimmy) and 5or%erto 6y (5or%erto), formed a $artnershi$ to en*a*e in the tr#c7in* %#siness& "nitially, with a contri%#tion of P83,333&33 each, they $#rchased a tr#c7 to %e #sed in the ha#lin* and trans$ort of l#m%er of the sawmill& Jose mana*ed the o$erations of this tr#c7in* %#siness #ntil his death on A#*#st 08, 0120& Thereafter, Jose's heirs, incl#din* lfledo, and $artners a*reed to contin#e the %#siness #nder the mana*ement of lfledo& The shares in the $artnershi$ $rofits and income that formed $art of the estate of Jose were held in tr#st %y lfledo, with $etitioners' a#thority for lfledo to #se, $#rchase or ac9#ire $ro$erties #sin* said f#nds& At that time, lfledo was a fresh commerce *rad#ate ser!in* as his father's dri!er in the tr#c7in* %#siness& :e was ne!er a $artner or an in!estor in the %#siness and merely s#$er!ised the $#rchase of additional tr#c7s #sin* the income from the tr#c7in* %#siness of the $artners& ;y the time the $artnershi$ ceased, it had nine tr#c7s, which were all re*istered in lfledo's name& Petitioners asse!erated that it was also thro#*h lfledo's mana*ement of the $artnershi$ that he was a%le to $#rchase n#mero#s real $ro$erties %y #sin* the $rofits deri!ed therefrom, all of which were re*istered in his name and that of res$ondent& "n addition to the nine tr#c7s, lfledo also ac9#ired fi!e other motor !ehicles& <n -ay 02, 0118, lfledo died, lea!in* res$ondent (=#lieta lim)as his sole s#r!i!in* heir& Petitioners claimed that res$ondent too7 o!er the administration of the aforementioned $ro$erties, which %elon*ed to the estate of Jose, witho#t their consent and a$$ro!al& Claimin* that they are co>owners of the $ro$erties, $etitioners re9#ired res$ondent to s#%mit an acco#ntin* of all income, $rofits and rentals recei!ed from the estate of lfledo, and to s#rrender the administration thereof& ?es$ondent ref#sed; th#s, the filin* of this case& Trial on the merits ens#ed& <n A$ril 0@, @33(, the ?TC rendered its decision in fa!or of $etitioners& A**rie!ed, res$ondent a$$ealed to the CA which re!ersed and set aside the ?TC's decision, dismissin* $etitioners' com$laint for lac7 of merit& 6nda#nted, $etitioners filed their -otion for ?econsideration, '8) which the CA, howe!er, denied in its ?esol#tion :ence, this Petition&, raisin* the sole 9#estion, viz.: "5 T: APP? C"AT"<5 ;4 T: C<6?T <F T: ,"+ 5C S6;-"TT + ;4 T: PA?T" S, CA5 T: T ST"-<54 <F <5 <F T: P T"T"<5 ?S ; A", 5 A? AT ? B "A:T T:A5 T:AT ;4 A F<?- ? PA?T5 ? <5 T: "SS6 <F T: "+ 5T"T4 <F T: <T: ? PA?T5 ?S "5 T: PA?T5 ?S:"PC 'D) B<5 lfledo was A $artner <n the merits of the case, we find that the instant Petition is %ereft of merit& A $artnershi$ eEists when two or more $ersons a*ree to $lace their money, effects, la%or, and s7ill in lawf#l commerce or %#siness, with the #nderstandin* that there shall %e a $ro$ortionate sharin* of the $rofits and losses amon* them& A contract of $artnershi$ is defined %y the Ci!il Code as one where two or more $ersons %ind themsel!es to contri%#te money, $ro$erty, or ind#stry to a common f#nd, with the intention of di!idin* the $rofits amon* themsel!es& '0@) 6ndo#%tedly, the %est e!idence wo#ld ha!e %een the contract of $artnershi$ or the articles of $artnershi$& 6nfort#nately, there is none in this case, %eca#se the alle*ed $artnershi$ was ne!er formally or*ani/ed& 5onetheless, we are as7ed to determine who %etween Jose and lfledo was the F$artnerF in the tr#c7in* %#siness& A caref#l re!iew of the records $ers#ades #s to affirm the CA decision& The e!idence $resented %y $etitioners falls short of the 9#ant#m of $roof re9#ired to esta%lish that: (0) Jose was the $artner and not lfledo; and (@) all the $ro$erties ac9#ired %y lfledo and res$ondent form $art of the estate of Jose, ha!in* %een deri!ed from the alle*ed $artnershi$& Art& 0DG1& "n determinin* whether a $artnershi$ eEists, these r#les shall a$$ly: (0) Ece$t as $ro!ided %y Article 02@8, $ersons who are not $artners as to each other are not $artners as to

third $ersons; (@) Co>ownershi$ or co>$ossession does not of itself esta%lish a $artnershi$, whether s#ch co>owners or co> $ossessors do or do not share any $rofits made %y the #se of the $ro$erty; (H) The sharin* of *ross ret#rns does not of itself esta%lish a $artnershi$, whether or not the $ersons sharin* them ha!e a =oint or common ri*ht or interest in any $ro$erty from which the ret#rns are deri!ed; (() The recei$t %y a $erson of a share of the $rofits of a %#siness is a $rima facie e!idence that he is a $artner in the %#siness, %#t no s#ch inference shall %e drawn if s#ch $rofits were recei!ed in $ayment: (a) As a de%t %y installments or otherwise; (%) As wa*es of an em$loyee or rent to a landlord; (c) As an ann#ity to a widow or re$resentati!e of a deceased $artner; (d) As interest on a loan, tho#*h the amo#nt of $ayment !ary with the $rofits of the %#siness; (e) As the consideration for the sale of a *oodwill of a %#siness or other $ro$erty %y installments or otherwise& A$$lyin* the le*al $ro!ision to the facts of this case, the followin* circ#mstances tend to $ro!e that lfledo was himself the $artner of Jimmy and 5or%erto: 0) Cresencia testified that Jose *a!e lfledo P83,333&33, as share in the $artnershi$, on a date that coincided with the $ayment of the initial ca$ital in the $artnershi$; '08) (@) lfledo ran the affairs of the $artnershi$, wieldin* a%sol#te control, $ower and a#thority, witho#t any inter!ention or o$$osition whatsoe!er from any of $etitioners herein; '0G)(H) all of the $ro$erties, $artic#larly the nine tr#c7s of the $artnershi$, were re*istered in the name of lfledo; (() Jimmy testified that lfledo did not recei!e wa*es or salaries from the $artnershi$, indicatin* that what he act#ally recei!ed were shares of the $rofits of the %#siness;'0D) and (8) none of the $etitioners, as heirs of Jose, the alle*ed $artner, demanded $eriodic acco#ntin* from lfledo d#rin* his lifetime& As re$eatedly stressed in Heirs of Tan Eng Kee,'02) a demand for $eriodic acco#ntin* is e!idence of a $artnershi$& Finally, we a*ree with the =#dicio#s findin*s of the CA, to wit: The a%o!e testimonies $ro!e that lfledo was not =#st a hired hel$ %#t one of the $artners in the tr#c7in* %#siness, acti!e and !isi%le in the r#nnin* of its affairs from day one #ntil this ceased o$erations #$on his demise& The eEtent of his control, administration and mana*ement of the $artnershi$ and its %#siness, the fact that its $ro$erties were $laced in his name, and that he was not $aid salary or other com$ensation %y the $artners, are indicati!e of the fact that lfledo was a $artner and a controllin* one at that& "t is a$$arent that the other $artners only contri%#ted in the initial ca$ital %#t had no say thereafter on how the %#siness was ran& !idently it was thro#*h lfredo's efforts and hard wor7 that the $artnershi$ was a%le to ac9#ire more tr#c7s and otherwise $ros$er& !en the a$$ellant $artici$ated in the affairs of the $artnershi$ %y actin* as the %oo77ee$er sans salary& "t is nota%le too that Jose Lim died when the $artnershi$ was %arely a year old, and the $artnershi$ and its %#siness not only contin#ed %#t also flo#rished& "f it were tr#e that it was Jose Lim and not lfledo who was the $artner, then #$on his death the $artnershi$ sho#ld ha!e %een dissol!ed and its assets li9#idated& <n the contrary, these were not done %#t instead its o$eration contin#ed #nder the helm of lfledo and witho#t any $artici$ation from the heirs of Jose Lim& Bhate!er $ro$erties a$$ellant and her h#s%and had ac9#ired, this was thro#*h their own concerted efforts and hard wor7& lfledo did not limit himself to the %#siness of their $artnershi$ %#t en*a*ed in other lines of %#sinesses as well& 'HEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED& The assailed Co#rt of A$$eals +ecision dated J#ne @1, @338 is AFFIRMED&