TALACTAC, Aira Rowena A.

2017400080
PAT 2C

1.
a. NO, the sale of the property to Maria is not valid. The law states that authority to sell
immovable property shall be in writing and the agent must be given specific authority on
how to conduct business. In the absence of a written authority, the sale of the land shall
be considered void. In the case at bar, Pedro verbally authorized Juan to sell the property.
Such authority was not in writing. Thus, the sale of the property to Maria is not valid.

b. NO, Juan cannot purchase the property he was asked to sell. The authority to sell a
property does not include the authority to purchase the same for himself. It is the role of
the agent to protect the interest of the principal. Thus, selling to the property to himself
will be prejudicial to the interest of the principal.

c. The sale of same property by Pedro to Manuel shall be valid. Pedro, as a principal or
owner of the property, has the right to sell his property. And given that Juan’s authority is
invalid, Pedro has the right to sell that same property to Manuel. Thus, the sell shall be
valid.

2. The contractual relationship among BB, CC, DD and EE is a limited partnership. Limited
partnership is formed by at least one general partners and two or more limited partners. The
limited partners shall not be personally liable for partnership debt. In the case at bar, BB, CC and
DD are limited partners who contribute cash or property to the partnership. It is also stipulated
that EE shall have a free hand in running the business without any interference from the others. It
means that EE is a general partner who is in charge with the management the partnership. Thus,
the contractual relationship among the parties is a limited partnership.

3. NO, the revocation is not proper. Article 1921 applies when the principal has revoked the
agency but the third party has acted in good faith without notice of the revocation. In case at bar,
PTV, as a third party to the agency, was not notified as to the revocation of the agency. As to the
third party or a former customer, actual notice must be sent to his or her home. Thus, the
revocation is not proper.

4.
a. NO, the contention of C and D is not correct. A partner cannot be forced to stay in a
partnership because that acts would be tantamount to involuntary servitude. Thus, C and
D cannot refused the dissolution and compel A and B to finish the entire term of 20 years.
C and D’s contentions are incorrect.

b. If the dissolution happened in this case, the rights of a partner depends whether she or he
is an innocent partner or the guilty partner. An innocent partner is one who has not
caused the dissolution wrongfully or in contravention of agreement. While the guilty
partner is one who cause the dissolution wrongfully. In the case at bar, A and B are the
guilty partners because they asked for the dissolution even before the agreed term. The
 innocent partner shall have the rights to have the partnership property applied for the
payment of its liabilities and to receive in cash his share of the surplus. He or she shall
also be indemnified for damages, entitled to possess partnership property and to continue
the business in the same name. As for the guilty partner, it varies whether or not the
business is continued. If it is continued, he or she shall have the right to have the
partnership property applied to discharge liabilities and damages and to receive the
surplus in cash. And if the business is continued, he or she shall have the right to the
value of the interest less damages and be released from all existing and future liabilities.

5.
a. Partner’s lien: A partner contributes his or her whole amount of salary to the partnership.
At the termination of the partnership, he or she shall be entitled to the surplus of the
partnership in proportion to his or her contribution.

b. Doctrine of Marshalling of Assets: It involves a situation wherein a partner in a

partnership has debt to an individual creditor, it must be paid through the individual
assets of such partner. While in case that the partnership itself has contracted a debt it
shall be paid through the common funds of the partnership

c. Goodwill of a business: An example would be a fast food restaurant where the majority
of its customers are continuing to enjoy its product for it has a quality service
management in preparing the food as well as the attitude and efficiency of its drivers in
its delivery system.

d. Dissolution versus Winding up: A new partner has been admitted to the partnership
causing the dissolution of the same. Thereafter, the partners decided to settle the
partnership accounts and liabilities to effect the winding-up of the business.

e. Apparent or Ostensible Authority: For instance, if the principal and owner of a car
dealership through a public advertisement was able to show third persons that Agent A is
an authorized agent to sell his cars and to sell insurance policies where in fact the agent's
authority is to sell cars only. The principal will be liable to those third persons.

6.
a. The kind of partnership formed is general partnership. General partnership is a
partnership composed of general partners who may contribute money, property or
industry to the partnership. While limited partnership is composed of the general and
limited partners. In the case at bar, the partners contributed the equal amount of money.
There are no general partners because they all contributed to the money to the
partnership. Thus, general partnership is formed.

b. YES, a partner can be both a general and a limited partner at the same time. Article 1853
of the Civil Code states that a person may be a general partner and a limited partner in the
same partnership at the same time. It is allowable where such fact is stated in the
certificate. In this case, the partner shall have all the rights, powers, and restrictions of a
 general partnership. Thus, a partner can be a general and a limited partner at the same
time.

7. NO, the admission of Justo will not bind Michelle, Jay and Carmelita. A partner shall not be
allowed to confess judgment that will jeopardize the partnership. In the case at bar, the
confession of Justo that the bike was indeed defective will jeopardize the partnership. Thus, the
admission of Justo will not bind Michelle, Jay and Carmelita.

8. Trust is a relationship between one person having an equitable ownership of a property and
another person possessing legal title. In trust, equitable ownership means that the one possessing
legal title shall perform certain duties and certain powers. While, in partnership, two or more
persons bind themselves to contribute money, service or property to a common fund and
thereafter dividing the profits among themselves.