Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    10 Scra Cases

    Uploaded by

    kenner
    WOODHOUSE V. HALILI93 PHIL 526, July 31, 1953 FACTS: Woodhouse represented to Halili that he is the grantee of an exclusive franchise to bottle and distribute Mission Dry products in the Philippines, when in truth, he was only granted a 30-day option. After negotiations between them, they entered into a partnership agreement where it was agreed upon that Woodhouse is entitled to 30% of the profits. When Halili found out after their US trip that Woodhouse is not such grantee, Halili did not execute the agreement they had. Thus, Woodhouse filed a complaint for accounting of profits and execution of the contract. ISSUE: WON Halili could be compelled to execute the agreement RULING: A contract to form a partnership cannot be executed. It entails an obligation to do. The law recognizes the individual’s freedom to do an act he has promised to do, or not to do it, as he pleases. This is a very personal act of which courts may not compel compliance, as it is considered as an act of violence to do so. LOZANO V. DEPAKAKIBO 107 PHIL 728, April 27, 1960 FACTS: Lozana and Depakakibo established a partnership for the purpose of maintaining, operating, and distributing electric light and power in the Municipality of Dumangas. The partnership is capitalized at the sum of P30, 000.00 where Lozana agreed to furnish 60% while Depakakibo, 40%. However, the franchise for venture in favor of Buenaflor was cancelled and revoked by the Public Service Commission. Lozana thereafter sold Generator Buda [Lozana’s contribution to the partnership; no liquidation made] to Decologon. When the decision was appealed, a temporary certificate of public convenience was issued in the name of Decolongon. Depakakibo sold one Crossly Diesel Engine [Depakakibo’s contribution to the partnership] to Spouses Jimenea and Harder. Lozana brought action against Depakakibo alleging the latter wrongfully detained the Generator Buda and wooden posts to which he is entitled to the possession of. Lozano prayed the properties be delivered back to him. ISSUES: W/N disposal of contribution of parties is allowed. RULING: An equipment which was contributed by one of the partners to the partnership becomes the property of the partnership and as such cannot be disposed of by the party contributing the same without the consent of the partnership or the other partner. MORA ELECTRIC CO. V. MATIC 68 PHIL 356, June 26, 1939 FACTS: Matic obtained from Manila City a concession to provide the lighting system of Manila cemeteries on All Souls’ Day of 1934. The amount was P8,773 to be guaranteed by Luzon Surety Co. Matic then authorized Quiogue to contract with Mora Electric Co., Inc. for the installation materials and labor, and that both are under the duty to pay P8,773 to the City of Manila (which Mora Electric was to take from the payment made to it by Matic and Quiogue). When the business failed, the parties did not pay the amount due to the City. Luzon Surety had to pay the said amount, and so it filed a suit of recovery against Matic and Quiogue. Both respondents also filed an action against Mora to recover P8,773 from the latter. ISSUE: WON mora electric is liable to pay the city of Manila as stipulated in the contract RULING: The amount sought to be recovered is not claimed as a loss or profit, but as the contribution which petitioner bound itself to make to the partnership and which it was under a duty to pay, although it was paid instead by M and Q. The liquidation of the partnership is not now being sought. Indeed, there is no reason for such liquidation. While it is mentioned in the appealed decision that the business produced a relevant amount, it doesn’t appear that the parties have made a report, as they have agreed to do, and it is not possible to determine whether there was a profit or loss and what is the extent thereof and the measure of the respective liability or benefit SANCHO V. LIZARRAGA 55 PHIL 601, February 6, 1931 FACTS: Sancho and Lizarraga entered

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    10 Scra Cases

    Uploaded by

    kenner
    96 views2 pages
    WOODHOUSE V. HALILI93 PHIL 526, July 31, 1953 FACTS: Woodhouse represented to Halili that he is the grantee of an exclusive franchise to bottle and distribute Mission Dry products in the Philippines, when in truth, he was only granted a 30-day option. After negotiations between them, they entered into a partnership agreement where it was agreed upon that Woodhouse is entitled to 30% of the profits. When Halili found out after their US trip that Woodhouse is not such grantee, Halili did not execute the agreement they had. Thus, Woodhouse filed a complaint for accounting of profits and execution of the contract. ISSUE: WON Halili could be compelled to execute the agreement RULING: A contract to form a partnership cannot be executed. It entails an obligation to do. The law recognizes the individual’s freedom to do an act he has promised to do, or not to do it, as he pleases. This is a very personal act of which courts may not compel compliance, as it is considered as an act of violence to do so. LOZANO V. DEPAKAKIBO 107 PHIL 728, April 27, 1960 FACTS: Lozana and Depakakibo established a partnership for the purpose of maintaining, operating, and distributing electric light and power in the Municipality of Dumangas. The partnership is capitalized at the sum of P30, 000.00 where Lozana agreed to furnish 60% while Depakakibo, 40%. However, the franchise for venture in favor of Buenaflor was cancelled and revoked by the Public Service Commission. Lozana thereafter sold Generator Buda [Lozana’s contribution to the partnership; no liquidation made] to Decologon. When the decision was appealed, a temporary certificate of public convenience was issued in the name of Decolongon. Depakakibo sold one Crossly Diesel Engine [Depakakibo’s contribution to the partnership] to Spouses Jimenea and Harder. Lozana brought action against Depakakibo alleging the latter wrongfully detained the Generator Buda and wooden posts to which he is entitled to the possession of. Lozano prayed the properties be delivered back to him. ISSUES: W/N disposal of contribution of parties is allowed. RULING: An equipment which was contributed by one of the partners to the partnership becomes the property of the partnership and as such cannot be disposed of by the party contributing the same without the consent of the partnership or the other partner. MORA ELECTRIC CO. V. MATIC 68 PHIL 356, June 26, 1939 FACTS: Matic obtained from Manila City a concession to provide the lighting system of Manila cemeteries on All Souls’ Day of 1934. The amount was P8,773 to be guaranteed by Luzon Surety Co. Matic then authorized Quiogue to contract with Mora Electric Co., Inc. for the installation materials and labor, and that both are under the duty to pay P8,773 to the City of Manila (which Mora Electric was to take from the payment made to it by Matic and Quiogue). When the business failed, the parties did not pay the amount due to the City. Luzon Surety had to pay the said amount, and so it filed a suit of recovery against Matic and Quiogue. Both respondents also filed an action against Mora to recover P8,773 from the latter. ISSUE: WON mora electric is liable to pay the city of Manila as stipulated in the contract RULING: The amount sought to be recovered is not claimed as a loss or profit, but as the contribution which petitioner bound itself to make to the partnership and which it was under a duty to pay, although it was paid instead by M and Q. The liquidation of the partnership is not now being sought. Indeed, there is no reason for such liquidation. While it is mentioned in the appealed decision that the business produced a relevant amount, it doesn’t appear that the parties have made a report, as they have agreed to do, and it is not possible to determine whether there was a profit or loss and what is the extent thereof and the measure of the respective liability or benefit SANCHO V. LIZARRAGA 55 PHIL 601, February 6, 1931 FACTS: Sancho and Lizarraga entered

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    WOODHOUSE V. HALILI93 PHIL 526, July 31, 1953 FACTS: Woodhouse represented to Halili that he is the grantee of an exclusive franchise to bottle and distribute Mission Dry products in the Philippines, when in truth, he was only granted a 30-day option. After negotiations between them, they entered into a partnership agreement where it was agreed upon that Woodhouse is entitled to 30% of the profits. When Halili found out after their US trip that Woodhouse is not such grantee, Halili did not execute the agreement they had. Thus, Woodhouse filed a complaint for accounting of profits and execution of the contract. ISSUE: WON Halili could be compelled to execute the agreement RULING: A contract to form a partnership cannot be executed. It entails an obligation to do. The law recognizes the individual’s freedom to do an act he has promised to do, or not to do it, as he pleases. This is a very personal act of which courts may not compel compliance, as it is considered as an act of violence to do so. LOZANO V. DEPAKAKIBO 107 PHIL 728, April 27, 1960 FACTS: Lozana and Depakakibo established a partnership for the purpose of maintaining, operating, and distributing electric light and power in the Municipality of Dumangas. The partnership is capitalized at the sum of P30, 000.00 where Lozana agreed to furnish 60% while Depakakibo, 40%. However, the franchise for venture in favor of Buenaflor was cancelled and revoked by the Public Service Commission. Lozana thereafter sold Generator Buda [Lozana’s contribution to the partnership; no liquidation made] to Decologon. When the decision was appealed, a temporary certificate of public convenience was issued in the name of Decolongon. Depakakibo sold one Crossly Diesel Engine [Depakakibo’s contribution to the partnership] to Spouses Jimenea and Harder. Lozana brought action against Depakakibo alleging the latter wrongfully detained the Generator Buda and wooden posts to which he is entitled to the possession of. Lozano prayed the properties be delivered back to him. ISSUES: W/N disposal of contribution of parties is allowed. RULING: An equipment which was contributed by one of the partners to the partnership becomes the property of the partnership and as such cannot be disposed of by the party contributing the same without the consent of the partnership or the other partner. MORA ELECTRIC CO. V. MATIC 68 PHIL 356, June 26, 1939 FACTS: Matic obtained from Manila City a concession to provide the lighting system of Manila cemeteries on All Souls’ Day of 1934. The amount was P8,773 to be guaranteed by Luzon Surety Co. Matic then authorized Quiogue to contract with Mora Electric Co., Inc. for the installation materials and labor, and that both are under the duty to pay P8,773 to the City of Manila (which Mora Electric was to take from the payment made to it by Matic and Quiogue). When the business failed, the parties did not pay the amount due to the City. Luzon Surety had to pay the said amount, and so it filed a suit of recovery against Matic and Quiogue. Both respondents also filed an action against Mora to recover P8,773 from the latter. ISSUE: WON mora electric is liable to pay the city of Manila as stipulated in the contract RULING: The amount sought to be recovered is not claimed as a loss or profit, but as the contribution which petitioner bound itself to make to the partnership and which it was under a duty to pay, although it was paid instead by M and Q. The liquidation of the partnership is not now being sought. Indeed, there is no reason for such liquidation. While it is mentioned in the appealed decision that the business produced a relevant amount, it doesn’t appear that the parties have made a report, as they have agreed to do, and it is not possible to determine whether there was a profit or loss and what is the extent thereof and the measure of the respective liability or benefit SANCHO V. LIZARRAGA 55 PHIL 601, February 6, 1931 FACTS: Sancho and Lizarraga entered

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    96 views2 pages

    10 Scra Cases

    Uploaded by

    kenner
    WOODHOUSE V. HALILI93 PHIL 526, July 31, 1953 FACTS: Woodhouse represented to Halili that he is the grantee of an exclusive franchise to bottle and distribute Mission Dry products in the Philippines, when in truth, he was only granted a 30-day option. After negotiations between them, they entered into a partnership agreement where it was agreed upon that Woodhouse is entitled to 30% of the profits. When Halili found out after their US trip that Woodhouse is not such grantee, Halili did not execute the agreement they had. Thus, Woodhouse filed a complaint for accounting of profits and execution of the contract. ISSUE: WON Halili could be compelled to execute the agreement RULING: A contract to form a partnership cannot be executed. It entails an obligation to do. The law recognizes the individual’s freedom to do an act he has promised to do, or not to do it, as he pleases. This is a very personal act of which courts may not compel compliance, as it is considered as an act of violence to do so. LOZANO V. DEPAKAKIBO 107 PHIL 728, April 27, 1960 FACTS: Lozana and Depakakibo established a partnership for the purpose of maintaining, operating, and distributing electric light and power in the Municipality of Dumangas. The partnership is capitalized at the sum of P30, 000.00 where Lozana agreed to furnish 60% while Depakakibo, 40%. However, the franchise for venture in favor of Buenaflor was cancelled and revoked by the Public Service Commission. Lozana thereafter sold Generator Buda [Lozana’s contribution to the partnership; no liquidation made] to Decologon. When the decision was appealed, a temporary certificate of public convenience was issued in the name of Decolongon. Depakakibo sold one Crossly Diesel Engine [Depakakibo’s contribution to the partnership] to Spouses Jimenea and Harder. Lozana brought action against Depakakibo alleging the latter wrongfully detained the Generator Buda and wooden posts to which he is entitled to the possession of. Lozano prayed the properties be delivered back to him. ISSUES: W/N disposal of contribution of parties is allowed. RULING: An equipment which was contributed by one of the partners to the partnership becomes the property of the partnership and as such cannot be disposed of by the party contributing the same without the consent of the partnership or the other partner. MORA ELECTRIC CO. V. MATIC 68 PHIL 356, June 26, 1939 FACTS: Matic obtained from Manila City a concession to provide the lighting system of Manila cemeteries on All Souls’ Day of 1934. The amount was P8,773 to be guaranteed by Luzon Surety Co. Matic then authorized Quiogue to contract with Mora Electric Co., Inc. for the installation materials and labor, and that both are under the duty to pay P8,773 to the City of Manila (which Mora Electric was to take from the payment made to it by Matic and Quiogue). When the business failed, the parties did not pay the amount due to the City. Luzon Surety had to pay the said amount, and so it filed a suit of recovery against Matic and Quiogue. Both respondents also filed an action against Mora to recover P8,773 from the latter. ISSUE: WON mora electric is liable to pay the city of Manila as stipulated in the contract RULING: The amount sought to be recovered is not claimed as a loss or profit, but as the contribution which petitioner bound itself to make to the partnership and which it was under a duty to pay, although it was paid instead by M and Q. The liquidation of the partnership is not now being sought. Indeed, there is no reason for such liquidation. While it is mentioned in the appealed decision that the business produced a relevant amount, it doesn’t appear that the parties have made a report, as they have agreed to do, and it is not possible to determine whether there was a profit or loss and what is the extent thereof and the measure of the respective liability or benefit SANCHO V. LIZARRAGA 55 PHIL 601, February 6, 1931 FACTS: Sancho and Lizarraga entered

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    WOODHOUSE V.

    HALILI93 PHIL 526, July 31, 1953


    FACTS: Woodhouse represented to Halili that he is the grantee of an exclusive
    franchise to bottle and distribute Mission Dry products in the Philippines, when in
    truth, he was only granted a 30-day option. After negotiations between them, they
    entered into a partnership agreement where it was agreed upon that Woodhouse is
    entitled to 30% of the profits. When Halili found out after their US trip that
    Woodhouse is not such grantee, Halili did not execute the agreement they had.
    Thus, Woodhouse filed a complaint for accounting of profits and execution of the
    contract.
    ISSUE: WON Halili could be compelled to execute the agreement
    RULING: A contract to form a partnership cannot be executed. It entails an
    obligation to do. The law recognizes the individuals freedom to do an act he has
    promised to do, or not to do it, as he pleases. This is a very personal act of which
    courts may not compel compliance, as it is considered as an act of violence to do
    so.

    LOZANO V. DEPAKAKIBO 107 PHIL 728, April 27, 1960


    FACTS: Lozana and Depakakibo established a partnership for the purpose of
    maintaining, operating, and distributing electric light and power in the Municipality
    of Dumangas. The partnership is capitalized at the sum of P30, 000.00 where
    Lozana agreed to furnish 60% while Depakakibo, 40%. However, the franchise for
    venture in favor of Buenaflor was cancelled and revoked by the Public Service
    Commission. Lozana thereafter sold Generator Buda [Lozanas contribution to the
    partnership; no liquidation made] to Decologon. When the decision was appealed, a
    temporary certificate of public convenience was issued in the name of Decolongon.
    Depakakibo sold one Crossly Diesel Engine [Depakakibos contribution to the
    partnership] to Spouses Jimenea and Harder. Lozana brought action against
    Depakakibo alleging the latter wrongfully detained the Generator Buda and wooden
    posts to which he is entitled to the possession of. Lozano prayed the properties be
    delivered back to him.
    ISSUES: W/N disposal of contribution of parties is allowed.
    RULING: An equipment which was contributed by one of the partners to the
    partnership becomes the property of the partnership and as such cannot be
    disposed of by the party contributing the same without the consent of the
    partnership or the other partner.

    MORA ELECTRIC CO. V. MATIC 68 PHIL 356, June 26, 1939

    FACTS: Matic obtained from Manila City a concession to provide the lighting system
    of Manila cemeteries on All Souls Day of 1934. The amount was P8,773 to be
    guaranteed by Luzon Surety Co. Matic then authorized Quiogue to contract with
    Mora Electric Co., Inc. for the installation materials and labor, and that both are
    under the duty to pay P8,773 to the City of Manila (which Mora Electric was to take
    from the payment made to it by Matic and Quiogue). When the business failed, the
    parties did not pay the amount due to the City. Luzon Surety had to pay the said
    amount, and so it filed a suit of recovery against Matic and Quiogue. Both
    respondents also filed an action against Mora to recover P8,773 from the latter.
    ISSUE: WON mora electric is liable to pay the city of Manila as stipulated in the
    contract
    RULING: The amount sought to be recovered is not claimed as a loss or profit, but
    as the contribution which petitioner bound itself to make to the partnership and
    which it was under a duty to pay, although it was paid instead by M and Q. The
    liquidation of the partnership is not now being sought. Indeed, there is no reason for
    such liquidation. While it is mentioned in the appealed decision that the business
    produced a relevant amount, it doesnt appear that the parties have made a report,
    as they have agreed to do, and it is not possible to determine whether there was a
    profit or loss and what is the extent thereof and the measure of the respective
    liability or benefit

    SANCHO V. LIZARRAGA 55 PHIL 601, February 6, 1931


    FACTS: Sancho and Lizarraga entered into a contract of partnership. Sancho
    thereafter brought an action for the rescission of the partnership and prayed for the
    reimbursement of the P 50, 000 investment he contributed with interest at 12% per
    annum against Lizarraga. Lizarraga denied allegations and asked for the dissolution
    of their partnership and payment to him as manager and administrator of the
    partnership of P500 monthly from October 15, 1920 [the day the contract was
    entered into] until final dissolution.
    ISSUE: W/N plaintiff acquired the right to demand rescission of the partnership
    contract according to article 1124 of the Civil Code.
    RULING: Owing to the failure of a partner to pay the partnership the whole amount
    which he bound himself to pay, he becomes indebted to it for the remainder, with
    interest and any damages occasioned thereby, but the plaintiff didnt thereby
    acquire the right to demand rescission of the partnership contract.

    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