You are on page 1of 2

Clemente vs. Galvan Leyte-Samar-Sales and K. Tomassi vs.

Cea and
O. Castrilla
Facts:
Facts:
 Plaintiff and defendant organized a civil
partnership which they named "Galvan y  Thisis a suit for damages by the Leyte-
Compañia" to engage in the manufacture Samar Sales Co. (hereinafter called
and sale of paper and other stationery. LESSCO) and Raymond Tomassi against
 Plaintiff ask for dissolution which the the Far Eastern Lumber & Commercial Co.
defendant confirm but with a condition (unregistered commercial partnership
that having covered a deficit incurred by hereinafter called FELCO), Arnold Hall,
the partnership amounting to P4,000 with Fred Brown and Jean Roxas, judgment
his own money, plaintiff reimburse him of against defendants jointly and severally
one-half of said sum. for the amount of P31,589.14 plus costs.
 Juan D. Mencarini, assigned as receiver  The decision having become final, the
and liquidator. Upon acting on his duty, sheriff sold at auction on June 9, 1951 to
the court ordered him to deliver certain Robert Dorfe and Pepito Asturias "all the
machines which were then at Nos. 705- rights, interests, titles and participation"
707 Ylaya Street. of the defendants in certain buildings and
 But before he could take actual properties described in the certificate
possession of said machines, upon the  on June 4, 1951 Olegario Lastrilla filed in
strong opposition of defendant, the court, the case a motion, wherein he claimed to
on motion of the latter, suspended the be the owner by purchase on September
effects of its order 29, 1949, of all the "shares and interests"
 In the meantime the judgments rendered of defendant Fred Brown
in cases Nos. 42794 and 43070 ordering  June 13, 1951, granted Lastrilla's motion.
Clemente to pay a sum of money. On August 14, 1951, modified its order of
 He mortgage the machines with his delivery and merely declared that
nephew, the intervenor (plaintiff in the Lastrilla was entitled to 17 per cent of the
herein case.) For having expired the properties sold.
terms in the mortgage the intervenor  the petitioners seek relief by certiorari,
commenced case No. 49629 to collect his their position being the such orders were
mortgage credit. null and void for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue: W/N the mortgage between Clemente and Issue: W/N the court acted with excess of its
his nephew (intervenor, plaintiff in the case) is jurisdiction?
valid?
Rule: Yes. The parties were not notified, and
Rule: No. The machines in contention originally
obviously took no part in the proceedings on the
belonged to the defendant and from him were
motion. A valid judgment cannot be rendered
transferred to the partnership Galvan y Compania.
where there is a want of necessary parties, and a
This being the case, said machines belong to the
court cannot properly adjudicate matters involved
partnership and not to him, and shall belong to it
in a suit when necessary and indispensable parties
until partition is effected according to the result
to the proceedings are not before it. (49 C.J.S., 67.).
thereof after the liquidation. Also, Clemente did
All the defendants would have reasonable motives
not have actual possession of the machines, he
to object to the delivery of 17 per cent of the
could not in any manner mortgage them.
proceeds to Lustrial, because it is so much money
deducted, and for which the plaintiffs might as
another levy on their other holdings or resources.

Us v. his remedy is to the prejudice of another. might buy and sell mangoes. Issue: W/N the conviction is correct. goods. The defendant appealed. Clarin suffered losses.” (as. received as a deposit on commission for administration or in any other producing the In other words. but the provincial fiscal filed an information only against Eusebio Clarin  First Instance of Pampanga. it would have to answer to  Pedro Larin delivered to Pedro Tarug P172. Eusebio Clarin.  Larin charged them with the crime of estafa. which the sheriff is directed by section 14. and insist. if the partnership.00 having been received by the partnership. but did not comply with the terms of the contract by delivering to Larin his half of the profits. or any kind of sale.) otherwise the result would be that. the business commenced and profits accrued. court. The P172.) between him and them. therefore for example. Eusebio Clarin. the action that lies with the partner who furnished the capital for the recovery of his money is not a criminal action for estafa. instead of obtaining profits. the owner of property wrongfully sold may not voluntarily come to obligation to deliver or return the same. The received the money under obligation to return profits were to be divided equally it. as it could not be held liable civilly for the share of the capitalist partner Facts: who reserved the ownership of the money brought in by him. shall appropriate to claim "the property". in commodatum. in company the charge of estafa. sentenced the defendant. Rule: No. and give me the proceeds because I am the owner". (NOTE: The then Penal Code provides that those who are guilty of estafa are those “who. other unilateral contracts which require the The reason is that the sale was made for the return of the same thing received) does not judgment creditor (who paid for the fees and include money received for a partnership. personal property which they may have Rule 39 to deliver unto the judgment creditors. in order that the latter. notices).  Pedro Tarug. and not for anybody else. neither did they render him any account of the capital. and Carlos de Guzman did in fact trade in mangoes and obtained P203 from the business. . for which it would be with Eusebio Clarin and Carlos de sufficient to argue that the partnership had Guzman.(NOTE: If Lastrilla was a partner. "I approve the sale. not the proceeds of the or misapply any money. to six months'arresto mayor. but a civil one arising from the partnership contract for a liquidation of the partnership and a levy on its assets if there should be any. precarium.