Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evidence of Partnership:
1. Contribution in the form of credit and industry
2. Lim approached Yao, already partners with Chua, to engage in commercial fishing
3. Compromise Agreement agreeing to split the profit or evenly pay the loss of the sale of
the boats
In this case, the 2nd and 3rd requirements are surely there. However, the intent to form the
partnership is derived from the following evidences:
1. The fund did not exist beforehand. There was an effort to create the fund for the
purpose of profit
2. Investments were a SERIES of transactions
3. The lots were not residential
4. Managed by one person similar to a business
5. The condition existed for more than 15 years
No. Art. 1773 will not make the partnership agreement void for purposes of liability within the
partnership i.e. no involvement of 3rd persons.
The purposes of Art. 1773 is to protect 3rd persons such as creditors so that they would know
the value of the partnership and know which properties they can go after. In this case, there is
no involvement of any 3rd persons so voiding the partnership agreement would be unnecessary.
Further, nothing prevents the court from treating the partnership agreement as an ordinary
contract which contains rights and obligations. In other words, the partnership may be void
technically but in the interest of justice it may be a source of rights and obligations.
A partnership contract which states that the partnership is established “to operate a fishpond”
(not “to engage in a fi shpond business”) is not rendered void because no inventory of the
fishpond was made where it did not clearly and positively appear in the articles of partnership
that the real property had been contributed by anyone of the partners.
The contribution in this case is the Php210,000 for the spouses and the industry of Mercado.
The immovable property may be the land used for growing Lanzones but it is not a
contribution to the partnership.