Concept of Partnership

G.R. No. 154486 Federico Jarantilla, Jr ., Petitioner, Vs. Antonieta Jarantilla, Buenaventura Remotigue,
Substituted by Cynthia Remotigue, Doroteo Jarantilla and Tomas Jarantilla, Respondents December 01,
2010

Facts:

The spouses Andres Jarantilla and Felisa Jaleco were survived by eight children: Federico, Delfin,
Benjamin, Conchita, Rosita, Pacita, Rafael and Antonieta. Petitioner Federico Jarantilla, Jr. is the
grandchild of the late Jarantilla spouses by their son Federico Jarantilla, Sr. and his wife Leda Jamili.
Petitioner also has two other brothers: Doroteo and Tomas Jarantilla.

The Jarantilla heirs extrajudicially divided amongst themselves the real properties of their deceased
parents. With the exception of the real property arbitrated to Pacita Jarantilla, the heirs also agreed to
allot the produce of the said real properties for the years 1947-1949 for the studies of Rafael and
Antonieta Jarantilla.

Rosita Jarantilla and Vivencio Deocampo went into an agreement with the spouses Buenaventura
Remotigue and Conchita Jarantilla to provide shared help to one another by way of financial support to
any commercial and agricultural activity on a joint business plan. This ended up being effective as they
were able to establish a manufacturing and trading business, acquire real properties, and construct
buildings, among other things. The same ended in 1973 upon their voluntary dissolution.

The spouses Buenaventura and Conchita Remotigue executed a document Acknowledgement of

Participating Capital stating the participating capital of their co-owners as of the year 1952, with
Antonieta Jarantilla stated as eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00) and Federico Jarantilla, Jr. as five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00).

Respondents denied having formed a partnership. They did not deny the existence and validity of the
"Acknowledgement of Participating Capital" and in fact used this as evidence to support their claim that
Antonietas 8% share was limited to the businesses enumerated therein. Petitioner Federico Jr joined his
aunt Antonieta and likewise asserted his share in the supposed partnership.

The RTC delivered judgment for Antonieta and Federico. On appeal, the CA set the RTC Decision.
Petitioner filed a petition for review to the SC

Issue: Whether or not the partnership subject of the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital funded
the subject real properties.

Ruling:
Under Article 1767 of the Civil Code, there are two essential elements in a contract of partnership: (a) an
agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to divide the
profits among the contracting parties. The first element is undoubtedly present in the case at bar, for,
admittedly, all the parties in this case have agreed to, and did, contribute money and property to a
common fund. Hence, the issue narrows down to their intent in acting as they did. It is not denied that
all the parties in this case have agreed to contribute capital to a common fund to be able to later on
share its profits.

They have admitted this fact, agreed to its veracity, and even submitted one common documentary
evidence to prove such partnership - the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital. The petitioner
himself claims his share to be 6%, as stated in the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital. However,
petitioner fails to realize that this document specifically enumerated the businesses covered by the
partnership: Manila Athletic Supply, Remotigue Trading in Iloilo City and Remotigue Trading in Cotabato
City.

Since there was a clear agreement that the capital the partners contributed went to the three
businesses, then there is no reason to deviate from such agreement and go beyond the stipulations in
the document. There is no evidence that the subject real properties were assets of the partnership
referred to in the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital. Petition denied.

Concept of Partnership

G.R. No. 154486 Federico Jarantilla, Jr ., Petitioner, Vs. Antonieta Jarantilla, Buenaventura Remotigue,
Substituted by Cynthia Remotigue, Doroteo Jarantilla and Tomas Jarantilla, Respondents December 01,
2010

FACTS:

Eight children, Federico, Delfin, Benjamin, Conchita, Rosita, Pacita, Rafael, and Antonieta, survived their
parents, Andres Jarantilla and Felisa Jaleco. Federico Jarantilla, Jr., the petitioner, is a grandson of the
deceased Jarantilla spouses through their son Federico Jarantilla, Sr. and his wife Leda Jamili. Doroteo
and Tomas Jarantilla serve as the petitioner's other two brothers.

The real estate of the person who passed away parents were divided unlawfully among the Jarantilla
heirs. Apart from the real estate unjustly awarded to Pacita Jarantilla, the heirs also agreed to use the
produce of the said real estate for the academic pursuits of Rafael and Antonieta Jarantilla during the
years 1947-1949.

With the spouses of Buenaventura Remotigue and Conchita Jarantilla, Rosita Jarantilla and Vivencio
Deocampo entered into an agreement to mutually support one another by way of financial support to
any commercial and agricultural activity on their shared business plan. This turned out to be successful
since they were able to launch a manufacturing and trading company, buy real estate, and build
buildings, among other things. When they voluntarily parted in 1973, the same came to an end.

The document Acknowledgement of Participating Capital was signed by Buenaventura and Conchita
Remotigue and listed Antonieta Jarantilla's participating capital as of 1952 as eight thousand pesos
(P8,000.00) and Federico Jarantilla, Jr.'s as five thousand pesos (P5,000.00).

The respondents denied creating a relationship. They were not questioning the authenticity or existence
of the "Acknowledgement of Participating Capital," and in fact used it as proof in support of their claim
that Antonieta's 8% stake in the company was restricted to the businesses indicated in. Federico Jr., the
petitioner, joined his aunt Antonieta and also claimed some of the alleged partnership.

Federico and Antonieta received judgment from the RTC. After review, the CA reinstated the RTC
Decision. The petitioner submitted a request for review to the SC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the partnership that serves as the subject of the Acknowledgement of Participating
Capital provided funds to the related real estate.

RULING:

An agreement to contribute money, assets, or business to a common fund and an intention to divide the
gains among the contracting parties are the two prerequisites for a partnership agreement, according to
Article 1767 of the Civil Code. Since all of the parties in this case admittedly agreed to and did donate
money and property to a common fund, the first requirement is clearly met in the current case. This
reduces the focus of the problem to their motivation for acting in that way. It is viewed that everyone
involved in this case agreed to donate money to a common fund in order to later split the fund's profits.

They have acknowledged this fact, agreed that it is true, and even provided one usual documentary
proof of such partnership—the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital—to support their claims. As
indicated in the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital, the petitioner argues that his ownership
interest is 6%. But the petitioner is unaware that this agreement listed the companies that made up the
partnership in detail: Manila Athletic Supply, Remotigue Trading in Iloilo City, and Remotigue Trading in
Cotabato City.

There was a clear understanding that the capital the partners invested went to the three enterprises,
therefore there is no need to depart from that understanding and go beyond the terms of the contract.
There is no proof the real estate in question belonged to the partnership stated in the Acknowledgement
of Participating Capital as an asset. Request declined.