Litonjua vs Fernandez

Aurelio and Eduardo are brothers. In 1973, Aurelio

alleged that Eduardo entered into a contract of
partnership with him. Aurelio showed as evidence a letter
sent to him by Eduardo that the latter is allowing Aurelio
to manage their family business (if Eduardos away) and
in exchange thereof he will be giving Aurelio P1 million
or 10% equity, whichever is higher. A memorandum was
subsequently made for the said partnership agreement.
The memorandum this time stated that in exchange of
Aurelio, who just got married, retaining his share in the
family business (movie theatres, shipping and land
development) and some other immovable properties, he
will be given P1 Million or 10% equity in all these
businesses and those to be subsequently acquired by
them whichever is greater.
In 1992 however, the relationship between the brothers
went sour. And so Aurelio demanded an accounting and
the liquidation of his share in the partnership. Eduardo
did not heed and so Aurelio sued Eduardo.
ISSUE: Whether or not there exists a partnership.
HELD: No. The partnership is void and legally
nonexistent. The documentary evidence presented by
Aurelio, i.e. the letter from Eduardo and the
Memorandum, did not prove partnership.
The 1973 letter from Eduardo on its face, contains
typewritten entries, personal in tone, but is unsigned and
undated. As an unsigned document, there can be no
quibbling that said letter does not meet the public
instrumentation requirements exacted under Article 1771
(how partnership is constituted) of the Civil Code.
Moreover, being unsigned and doubtless referring to a
partnership involving more than P3,000.00 in money or
property, said letter cannot be presented for notarization,
let alone registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), as called for under the Article 1772
(capitalization of a partnership) of the Code. And
inasmuch as the inventory requirement under the

succeeding Article 1773 goes into the matter of validity

when immovable property is contributed to the
partnership, the next logical point of inquiry turns on the
nature of Aurelios contribution, if any, to the supposed
partnership.
The Memorandum is also not a proof of the partnership
for the same is not a public instrument and again, no
inventory was made of the immovable property and no
inventory was attached to the Memorandum. Article
1773 of the Civil Code requires that if immovable
property is contributed to the partnership an inventory
shall be had and attached to the contract.

Africa vs Caltex
In March 1948, in Rizal Avenue, Manila, a tank truck was
hosing gasoline into the underground storage of Caltex.
Apparently, a fire broke out from the gasoline station and

the fire spread and burned several houses including the

house of Spouses Bernabe and Soledad Africa.
Allegedly, someone (a passerby) threw a cigarette while
gasoline was being transferred which caused the fire.
But there was no evidence presented to prove this
theory and no other explanation can be had as to the
real reason for the fire. Apparently also, Caltex and the
branch owner (Mateo Boquiren) failed to install a
concrete firewall to contain fire if in case one happens.
ISSUE: Whether or not Caltex and Boquiren are liable to
pay for damages.
HELD: Yes. This is pursuant to the application on the
principle of res ipsa loquitur (the transaction speaks for
itself) which states: where the thing which caused
injury, without fault of the injured person, is under the
exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such
as in the ordinary course of things does not occur if he
having such control use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of the explanation,
that the injury arose from defendants want of care. The
gasoline station, with all its appliances, equipment and
employees, was under the control of Caltex and
Boquiren. A fire occurred therein and spread to and
burned the neighboring houses. The persons who knew
or could have known how the fire started were Boquiren,
Caltex and their employees, but they gave no
explanation thereof whatsoever. It is a fair and
reasonable inference that the incident happened
because of want of care.
Note that ordinarily, he who charges negligence shall
prove it. However, res ipsa loquitur is the exception
because the burden of proof is shifted to the party
charged of negligence as the latter is the one who had
exclusive control of the thing that caused the injury
complained of.

Mindanao Devt Authority v CA:

A landowner, in selling his property to another, made a written
promise to work for the titling of the land, but it was not done.
The land was later sold to the government, which tried to claim
it after 28 years. The court ruled that there was no express
trust, because the written promise did not categorically create
an obligation on the part of the landowner to hold the property
in trust for the other. Neither was the subject matter of the
supposed trust clearly described.
There might have been an implied trust created, because the
land was registered in the landowners name though it
belonged to another. An implied trust, however, prescribes in
10 years, and 28 years had lapsed by the time the local
government tried to claim the land.

implied trust:
those which, without being expressed, are deducible from
the nature of the transaction as matters of intent, or
superinduced on the transaction by operation of law as a
matter of equity, independently of the intent of the parties
1448. when property is sold, and titled to one, but the price is
paid by another person, for the purpose of having the
beneficial interest of the property. Resulting trust.
1449. when a donation is made to a person, who either has no
beneficial interest or only a part thereon. Resulting trust.
1450. when property is paid by one for the benefit of another,
and the title is given to the one who paid for it, but only to
secure the payment of the debt. In this case the one who
borrowed the money may, after paying his debt, compel a

conveyance of the property. Constructive trust , meant to

prevent unjust enrichment.
1451. when one inherits land but he has it titled to another.
Resulting trust, because there is intent.
1452. when two or more people agree to buy property and,
with their consent, have it titled only to one of them. Resulting
trust.
1453. when property is given to a person in reliance upon his
declared intention to hold it or transfer it to another. Resulting
trust.
1454. when property is conveyed to another to secure the
performance of an obligation. When the obligation becomes
due, and the grantor offers to fulfill it, he may demand the
reconveyance of the property. Constructive trust.
1455. when any trustee, guardian or other person holding a
fiduciary relationship uses trust funds to buy property and has it
titled to him or to a third person. Constructive trust.
1456. if property is acquired through mistake or fraud.
Two kinds of implied trust:
1. resulting trust presumed to have been contemplated by
the parties, the intent found in the nature of the transaction,
though not expressed in the deed or instrument of conveyance;
found in articles 1448-1455
2. constructive trust raised by construction of law, or by
operation of law
created not by intent, but by the construction of equity in
order to satisfy the demands of justice (Art. 1456)