Scribd
Upload
340 views2 pages

01 Task Performance 1

The Supreme Court case involved a dispute over ownership of real property between family members who had previously agreed to form a partnership. The facts indicate that several siblings extrajudicially divided inheritance from their parents and agreed to contribute profits from the real properties to fund their siblings' education. Later, some of the siblings and in-laws formed a partnership that operated various businesses. A document from 1952 outlined each partner's capital contribution, but did not mention the disputed real properties. The Supreme Court ruled that since the partnership agreement specifically listed the businesses it covered and did not include the real properties, there was no evidence the properties were partnership assets. Therefore, the petitioner's claim to ownership through the partnership was denied.

Uploaded by

Kimberly Ann Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
340 views2 pages

01 Task Performance 1

The Supreme Court case involved a dispute over ownership of real property between family members who had previously agreed to form a partnership. The facts indicate that several siblings extrajudicially divided inheritance from their parents and agreed to contribute profits from the real properties to fund their siblings' education. Later, some of the siblings and in-laws formed a partnership that operated various businesses. A document from 1952 outlined each partner's capital contribution, but did not mention the disputed real properties. The Supreme Court ruled that since the partnership agreement specifically listed the businesses it covered and did not include the real properties, there was no evidence the properties were partnership assets. Therefore, the petitioner's claim to ownership through the partnership was denied.

Uploaded by

Kimberly Ann Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

BM1905

TASK PERFORMANCE

Case Digest

A digest is a summary of the Supreme Court cases. It has three (3) parts: facts, issue, and ruling. The
facts part consists only of the essential facts relevant to the ruling in the case while the issue should be
relevant to the topic under which the case belongs. The ruling should answer the issue raised in the case.

 The cases can be found on elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph


 The case digest should be handwritten on a sheet of yellow pad paper.
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.

Rubric for grading:

CRITERIA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS POINTS


Included significant facts and clear legal issues and jurisdictions,
Content 6
and provided clear conclusions and answers
Grammar Used correct grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization 1
Organization of Expressed the points in clear and logical arrangement of ideas in
Ideas 2
the paragraph
Format Adhered to the required style or appearance 1
TOTAL 10

01 Task Performance 1 *Property of STI


Page 1 of 1

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy