Magdusa v. Alparan

10/4/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 005
VOL. 5, JUNE 30, 1962 511

Magdusa vs. Albaran
No. L-17526. June 30, 1962.
GREGORIO MAGDUSA, ET AL., petitioners, vs.

GERUNDIO ALBARAN, ET AL., respondents.
Partnership; Dissolution and Liquidation; When a partner's

share may be returned.—A partner's share can not be returned
without first dissolving and liquidating the partnership (Po Yeng
Cheo vs.Lim Ka Yam, 44 Phil. 177), for the return is dependent on
the discharge of the creditors, whose claims enjoy preference over
those of the partners; and it is self-evident that all members of the
partnership are interested in its assets and business, and are
entitled to be heard in the matter of the firm's liquidation and the
distribution of its property.
Same; Same; Same; Preference of creditors over partnership
assets.—Unless a proper accounting and liquidation of the
partnership affairs is first had, the capital shares of the retiring
partners can not be repaid, for the firm's outside creditors have
preference over the assets of the enterprise (Civil Code, Art.
1839), and the firm's property can not be diminished to their
prejudice.
Same; Same; Same; Remaining partner not personally liable
for partner's shares.—Aremaining partner can not be held liable
in his personal capacity for the payment of partners shares, for he
does not hold them except as manager of, or
512
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Magdusa vs. Albaran
trusteefor, the partnership. It is the latter who must refund their

shares to the retiring partners.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ee46980925d634b9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/4
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Montenegro, Madayag, Viola & Hernandez, Olimpio
R. Epis, David C. Ocangas and Bonifacio M. Belderol for
petitioners.
Lozano, Soria, Muaña,, Ruiz & Morales for
respondents.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals (G.R. No.

24248-R) reversing a judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Bohol and ordering appellant Gregorio
Magdusa to pay to appellees, by way of refund of their
shares as partners, the following amounts: Gerundio
Albaran, P8,979.10; Pascual Albaran, P5,394.78; Zosimo
Albaran, P1,979.28; and Telesforo Bebero, P3,020.27; plus
legal interests from the filing of the complaint, and costs.
The Court of Appeals found that appellant and
appellees, together with various other persons, had
verbally formed a partnership de facto, for the sale of
general merchandise in Surigao, Surigao, to which
appellant contributed P2,000 as capital, and the others
contributed their labor, under the condition that out of the
net profits of the business 25% would be added to the
original capital, and the remaining 75% would be divided
among the members in proportion to the length of service of
each. Sometime in 1953 and 1954, the appellees expressed
their desire to withdraw from the partnership, and
appellant thereupon made a computation to determine the
value of the partners' shares to that date. The results of the
computation were embodied In the document Exhibit "C",
drawn in the handwriting of appellant. Appellees
thereafter made demands upon appellant for payment, but
appellant having refused, they filed the initial complaint in
the court below. Appellant defended by denying any
partnership with appellees, whom he claimed to be mere
employees of his.
The Court of First Instance of Bohol refused to give
credence to Exhibit "C", and dismissed the complaint on
the ground that the other parties were indispensable par-
513
VOL. 5, JUNE 29, 1962 513

Magdusa vs. Albaran
ties but had not been impleaded. Upon appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed, with the result noted at the start of this
opinion.
Gregorio Magdusa then petitioned for a review of the
decision, and we gave it due course.
The main argument of appellant is that the appellees'
action can not be entertained, because in the distribution of
all or part of a partnership's assets, all the partners have
no interest and are indispensable parties without whose
intervention no decree of distribution can be validly
entered. This argument was considered and answered by
the Court of Appeals in the following words:
"We now come to the last issue involved. While finding that some
amounts are due the plaintiffs, the lower court withheld an award
in their favor, reasoning that a judgment ordering the defendant
to pay might affect the rights of other partners who were not
made parties in this case. The reason cited by the lower court does
not constitute a legal impediment to a judgment for the plaintiffs
in this case. This is not an action for a dissolution of a partnership
and winding up of its affairs or liquidation of its assets in which
the interest of other partners who are not brought into the case
may be affected. The action of the plaintiffs is one for the recovery
of a sum of money with Gregorio Magdusa as the principal
defendant. The partnership, with Gregorio Magdusa as managing
partner, was brought into the case as an alternative defendant
only. Plaintiffs' action was based on the allegation, substantiated
in evidence, that Gregorio Magdusa, having taken delivery of
their shares, failed and refused and still fails and refuses to pay
them their claims. The liability, therefore, is personal to Gregorio
Magdusa, and the judgment should be against his sole interest,
not against the partnership's although the judgment creditors
may satisfy the judgment against the interest of Gregorio
Magdusa in the partnership subject to the conditions imposed by
Article 1814 of the Civil Code."
We do not find the preceding reasoning tenable. A partner's

share can not be returned without first dissolving and
liquidating the partnership (Po Yeng Cheo vs. Lim Ka
Yam, 44 Phil. 177), for the return is dependent on the
discharge of the creditors, whose claims enjoy preference
over those of the partners; and it is self-evident that all
members of the partnership are interested in his assets
and business, and are entitled to be heard in the matter of
the firm's liquidation and the distribution of its prop-
514
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Magdusa vs. Albaran
erty. The liquidation Exhibit "C" is not signed by the other

members of the partnership besides appellees and
appellant; it does not appear that they have approved,
authorized, or ratified the same, and, therefore, it is not
binding upon them. At the very least, they are entitled to
be heard upon its correctness.
In addition, unless a proper accounting and liquidation
of the partnership affairs is first had, the capital shares of
the appellees, as retiring partners, can not be repaid, for
the firm's outside creditors have preference over the assets
of the enterprise (Civ. Code, Art. 1839), and the firm's
property can not be diminished to their prejudice. Finally,
the appellant can not be held liable in his personal capacity
for the payment of partners' shares, for he does not hold
them except as manager of, or trustee for, the partnership.
It is the latter that must refund their shares to the retiring
partners. Since not all the members of the partnership
have been impleaded, no judgment for refund can be
rendered, and the action should have been dismissed.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of the
Court of Appeals is reversed and the action ordered
dismissed, without prejudice to a proper proceeding for the
dissolution and liquidation of the common enterprise. Costs
against appellees.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,

Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Maka-
lintal, JJ., concur.
Decision reversed and action dismissed.
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Magdusa v. Alparan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magdusa v. Alparan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magdusa v. Alparan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/4/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 005

VOL. 5, JUNE 30, 1962 511

No. L-17526. June 30, 1962.

GREGORIO MAGDUSA, ET AL., petitioners, vs.

Partnership; Dissolution and Liquidation; When a partner's

512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Magdusa vs. Albaran

trusteefor, the partnership. It is the latter who must refund their

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals (G.R. No.

VOL. 5, JUNE 29, 1962 513

We do not find the preceding reasoning tenable. A partner's

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

erty. The liquidation Exhibit "C" is not signed by the other

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,

Decision reversed and action dismissed.

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like

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