11. Litonjua,jr v. Litonjua, Sr. et al., GR No.

166299-300, December 13,2005

LITONJUA V. LITONJUA
G.R. No. 166299-300; December 13, 2005

FACTS:
Aurelio Litonjua and Eduardo Litonjua executed a private document entering into a partnership
with Yang for the formation of a Cineplex business. To this, Aurelio Litonjua would act as an
industrial partner and contribute his shares in the Litonjua family businesses (theatres, shipping
land development).
After the relationship between the two brothers became sour, Aurelio filed with the court for
specific performance of accounting for his share in the business and the payment to him of such.
Eduardo contended that Aurelio had no cause of action such that the agreement forming the
partnership had not been a public instrument, and as such, is void for violating the provisions of
Art. 1771, Art. 1772, Art. 1773 of the NCC.
ISSUE:
1. Is the partnership void?
2. May Aurelio demand specific performance of his share in the partnership?
RULING:
1. Yes. The Court held that the partnership is void precisely because of the legal provisions
raised. Aurelio contributed real rights to immovable properties, which should be executed in a
public instrument. Moreover, the contributions exceeded P3,000.00, which should also be in a
public instrument and recorded with SEC.
Moreover, an inventory had to be made and hereby attached to the public instrument.
Furthermore, the Court gave notice of the fact that Aurelio cannot contend that the contributions
of real property were only made after the formation of the partnership as evidence proves
otherwise.
2. No. The Court held that the partnership is void, and as such, Aurelio has no cause of action to
which to enforce specific performance.