Está en la página 1de 2

Digest: Sancho vs Lizarraga

G.R.No. L-33580 February 6, 1931
Subject: BusOrg 1
The plaintiff brought an action for the rescission of the partnership contract
between himself and the defendant and the reimbursement of his investment
worth 50,000php with interest at 12 per cent per annum form October 15, 1920,
with costs, and any other just and equitable remedy against said defendant. The
defendant denies generally and specifically all the allegations of the complaint and
asked for the dissolution of the partnership, and the payment to him as its
manager and administrator P500 monthly from October 15, 1920 until the final
dissolution with interest.
The CFI found that the defendant had not contributed all the capital he had bound
himself to invest hence it demanded that the defendant liquidate the partnership,
declared it dissolved on account of the expiration of the period for which it was
constituted, and ordered the defendant, as managing partner, to proceed without
delay to liquidate it, submitting to the court the result of the liquidation together
with the accounts and vouchers within the period of thirty days from receipt of
notice of said judgment. The plaintiff appealed from said decision praying for the
rescission of the partnership contract between him and the defendant in
accordance with Art. 1124.
WON plaintiff acquired the right to demand rescission of the partnership contract
according to article 1124 of the Civil Code.
The SC ruled that owing to the defendant’s failure to pay to the partnership the
whole amount which he bound himself to pay, he became indebted to the
partnership for the remainder, with interest and any damages occasioned thereby,
but the plaintiff did not thereby acquire the right to demand rescission of the
partnership contract according to article 1124 of the Code. Article 1124 cannot be
applied to the case in question, because it refers to the resolution of obligations in
general, whereas articles 1681 and 1682 specifically refer to the contract of
partnership in particular. And it is a well known principle that special provisions
prevail over general provisions. Hence, SC dismissed the appeal left the decision
appealed from in full force.
5. Lozana vs Depakakibo
GR No. L-13680
RE: Property contributed

Partnership is valid. Depakakibo on the other hand. As properties of the partnership. CFI declared Lozano owner of the equipment. It necessarily follows that the Buda diesel engine contributed by the plaintiff had become the property of the partnership. Lozana contributing the amount of P18. The fact of furnishing the current to the holder of the franchise alone. Harder. However. and distribute electric light and power in Dumangas. Lozana sold his partnership contribution in violation of the terms of agreement. the same could not be disposed of by the party contributing the same without the consent or approval of the partnership or of the other partner. Depakakibo appealed to the Supreme Court. Because of this. ISSUE: WON the partnership is void and if the disposal of the contribution of the parties is allowed HELD: Validity of the Partnership. without the previous approval of the Public Service Commission.FACTS: Lozana entered into a contract with Depakakibo to operate. Defendant answered by saying that generator and equipment was contributed to the partnership entered by them. They established a partnership. In addition. Facts show that parties entered into the contract of partnership.000. capitalized at P30. and there has not been liquidation prior to the sale of the contributed properties: Buda Diesel Engine and 70 posts. maintain. Lozana sold a Buda generator to the grantee. A temporary certificate of Public Service Commission was issued in the name of Decolongon instead. 000. . sold one Crossly Engine to Sps. the franchise in favor of Buenaflor was cancelled and revoked by the Public Service Commission. Lozana brought an action against defendant alleging that he is the owner of the Buda generator and 70 wooden posts with connecting wires to the generator and the different houses supplied by electric current in Dumangas and he suffered damages as consequence of being wrongfully detained of them. Iloilo under a franchise issued to Buenaflor. with contributions at 60% for Lozana and 40% for Depakakibo. does not per se make the contract of partnership null and void from the beginning and render the partnership entered into by the parties for the purpose also void and non-existent Disposal of Contributed Property to the Partnership.