You are on page 1of 1

MAURICIO AGAD capital.

Mabato seeks that the complaint be dismissed and


Vs SEVERINO MABATO & MABATO & AGAD CO. that the 1952 instrument be declared void ab initio.
3) Mabato subsequently filed a Motion to dismiss, on the
G.R. No. L-24193, June 28, 1968 ground that the complaint states no cause of action and that
the lower court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
[Concepcion, C.J.] 4) The court granted the motion to dismiss, basing its
reasoning on the theory that the contract of partnership was
Summary and Doctrine: indeed null and void and pursuant to CC 1773, because an
inventory of the fishpond referred in said instrument had not
Agad and Mabato are partners in a fishpond business. Agad been attached thereto. The lower court said that “it is really
filed a complaint against Mabato for his share in the profits inconceivable how a partnership engaged in the fishpond
and to wind up the business. Mabato denies the existence
business could exist without said fishpond property (being)
of the partnership despite the execution of the contract and
that even if there was indeed a partnership, it is void since contributed to the partnership.”
according to the Civil Code, a contract of partnership is void, 5) Agad raised the matter on appeal
whenever immovable property is contributed thereto, if
inventory of said property is not made, signed by the II. ISSUE
parties; and attached to the public instrument
WoN “immovable property or real rights” have been contributed
SC: Contract says that the partnership was established to to the partnership, such that CC 1773 would apply - NO
operate a fishpond and NOT to engage in a fishpond
business. Also, none of the partners contributed any real III. RULING
right to any fishpond. Their contributions were limited to 1) CC 1771: A partnership may be constituted in any
P1000 each. The contract did not mention that a fishpond form, except where immovable property or real rights
nor a real right thereto was contributed to the partnership or are contributed thereto, in which case a public
became part of the capital, even if a fishpond or a real right instrument shall be necessary.
thereto could become part of its assets
2) CC 1773: A contract of partnership is void, whenever
DOCTRINE: If immovable property has not been immovable property is contributed thereto, if inventory
contributed to the partnership, it is not necessary to include of said property is not made, signed by the parties; and
an inventory in the public instrument attached to the public instrument.

3) Despite the lower court’s pronouncement, it is clear in


I. FACTS: the 1952 public instrument that the partnership was
1) Agad alleges that he and Mabato are partners in a fishpond established "to operate a fishpond", NOT to "engage in
business, pursuant to an Aug 29, 1952 public instrument. a fishpond business".
Agad filed a complaint against Mabato and Mabato & Agad
4) Moreover, none of the partners contributed either a
Company seeking for judgment that Mabato pay him P14k
as share in the partnership profits from 1957-1963,
fishpond or a real right to any fishpond. Their
inaddition to attorney’s fees and the demand to have the contributions, according to the 1952 instrument, was
partnersip dissolved. In it, Agad alleges that: limited to P1k from each of them.
a. He contributed P1k to the capital, with right to 5) The operation of the fishpond mentioned in Annex "A"
receive 50% of the profits was the purpose of the partnership. Neither said
b. Mabato handled the partnership funds, and from fishpond nor a real right thereto was contributed to
1952 to 1956, had yearly rendered accounts of the the partnership or became part of the capital
operations of the partnership thereof, even if a fishpond or a real right thereto
c. Mabato had failed & refused to render accounts could become part of its assets.
for 1957-1963, despite repeated demands.
6) Hence, CC 1773 is NOT in point
2) Mabato, in his answer, admitted the formal allegations and
denied the existence of the partnership, on the ground tha
the contract for it had not been perfected, despite the DISPOSITIVE: Appeal granted; case remanded to lower court
execution of the 1952 public instrument, as Agad had for further proceedings
allegedly failed to give his P1k contribution to the partnership