Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Digested Cases 334
Digested Cases 334
Lim
( Trucking Business )
F: Petitioners insists that Jose Lim was the
partner of Norberto and Jimmy and not
Elfledo (late husband of respondent) and
therefore all the properties acquired by
Elfledo and respondent form part of the
estate of Jose, having been derived from the
alleged partnership.
I: W/N Elfledo is a partner of the said trucking
company.
H:
Tocao vs. CA
F: Petitioners maintain that there was no
partnership between petitioner Belo, on one
hand, and respondent Nenita Anay, on the
other hand; and that the latter being merely
an employee of petitioner Tocao. It was found
out that Belo sometimes would participate in
Geminesse Enterprise meetings to help
petitioner Tocao.
Ortega vs. CA
F: Petitioner filed a MR for the decision of the
SEC en banc which dissolved the partnership
of Bito, Misa & Lozada upon withdrawal of
Atty. Joaquin L. Misa. He also asked for an
appointment of a receiver to take over the
assets of the dissolved partnership and to
take charge of the winding up of its affairs.
H:
and
proportionately,
such
act
was
tantamount to actually contributing
such incomes to a common fund and,
in effect they thereby formed an
unregistered partnership taxable by
law.
Reyes vs. CIR
F: Petitioners purchased a lot and building.
The initial payment was shared equally by
the respondents. At the time of the purchase,
the building was leased to various tenants,
whose rights under the lease contracts with
the
original
owners,
the
purchasers,
petitioners herein, agreed to respect. The
administration of the building was entrusted
to an administrator who collected the rents;
kept books and records and rendered
statement of accounts to the owners.
Petitioners divided equally the income of
operation and maintenance.
The CTA held that petitioners formed a
partnership taxable by law applying the
ruling in Evangelista case.
I: W/N petitioners indeed formed
partnership as contemplated by law.
Sardane vs. CA
F: Petitioner advanced the theory that he is a
partner of private respondent and not a mere
employee indebted to the latter. Petitioners
bases are the promissory notes executed by
private respondent in favor of petitioner as
allegedly his share or contribution for the
partnership.
I: W/N there exists a partnership between
petitioner and private respondent.
H:
H:
H:
H: