Digest: Sancho vs Lizarraga

MAXIMILIANO SANCHO, vs. SEVERIANO LIZARRAGA

G.R.No. L-33580 February 6, 1931
Subject: BusOrg 1
FACTS:
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.
ISSUE:
WON plaintiff acquired the right to demand rescission of the partnership contract
according to article 1124 of the Civil Code.
HELD:
The SC ruled that owing to the defendants 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

FACTS: Lozana entered into a contract with Depakakibo to operate, maintain, and
distribute electric light and power in Dumangas, Iloilo under a franchise issued to
Buenaflor. They established a partnership, capitalized at P30,000, with
contributions at 60% for Lozana and 40% for Depakakibo. However, the franchise
in favor of Buenaflor was cancelled and revoked by the Public Service
Commission. A temporary certificate of Public Service Commission was issued in
the name of Decolongon instead. Because of this, Lozana sold a Buda generator to
the grantee. Depakakibo on the other hand, sold one Crossly Engine to Sps.
Harder. 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. Defendant
answered by saying that generator and equipment was contributed to the
partnership entered by them. In addition, Lozana sold his partnership
contribution in violation of the terms of agreement. CFI declared Lozano owner of
the equipment. Depakakibo appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: WON the partnership is void and if the disposal of the contribution of the
parties is allowed
HELD: Validity of the Partnership.
Partnership is valid. The fact of furnishing the current to the holder of the
franchise alone, without the previous approval of the Public Service Commission,
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.
Facts show that parties entered into the contract of partnership, Lozana
contributing the amount of P18, 000, and there has not been liquidation prior to
the sale of the contributed properties: Buda Diesel Engine and 70 posts. It
necessarily follows that the Buda diesel engine contributed by the plaintiff had
become the property of the partnership. As properties of the partnership, 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.