Article 1820

As a general rule, a person is not bound by the act, admission, statement or agreement of another of which he has no
knowledge or to which he has not given his consent except by virtue of a particular relation between them.
(1) Admissions by a party as testified to by a third person are admissible in evidence against him in litigation.
(2) Admissions by another are received against a party if the former is acting in the capacity of agent of the latter. Thus,
under Article 1820, the admission of a partner made during the existence of the partnership (and co-partners) when such
admissions refer to a matter concerning partnership affairs and made within the scope of his authority.
(3) When a partner makes admissions for himself only without purporting to act for the partnership, he alone shall be
chargeable with his admissions.
(4) After dissolution, admission made by a partner will bind the co-partners if connected with the winding up of partnership
affairs.

An admission or representation made by any partner concerning the partnership affairs within the scope of his authority in
accordance with this authority in accordance with this Title is evidence against the partnership.

 Anything a partner says or admits, as long as it is concerning the partnership affairs and it is within the scope of his
authority, is sufficient evidence against the partnership.

 This article is a rule of evidence.

 In order that admission/representation made can be used as evidence, the existence of the partnership must be
established and proved first.

Example:
(1) Partner A borrows money from the bank and declares that the money borrowed is for the partnership.
-This statement, made by A, is enough evidence against the partnership and the bank may use this in case the
partnership does not pay back the money borrowed.
(2) A, B, and C are partners. A told D, a 3rd person, that the debtor already paid his obligation to the partnership. Is
this enough evidence against the partnership?
-Yes, since it concerns partnership affairs and the partner has authority to say so.
Partnership is not bound by admissions or statements made by a former partner after the latter has withdrawn from the
partnership as to what took place during the period of partnership.

REQUISITES TO MAKE A PARTNER’S ADMISSION OR REPRESENTATION ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE PARTNERSHIP:

1. The admission or representation must be connected with partnership affairs
2. It is within the scope of the partner’s authority
3. It is made during the existence of the firm (Pineda, 2006). ADMISSION AFTER DISSOLUTION: An admission made by a
partner after the dissolution of the firm will be binding upon the partnership only if connected with the winding up affairs of the firm.

GENERAL RULE:
 An ADMISSION OR REPRESENTATION made by a partner concerning the partnership affairs and within the scope of his
authority shall be an EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PARTNERSHIP

Points:

1. GENERALLY, a person shall not be BOUND by the ACT, ADMISSION, STATEMENT or AGREEMENT made by another WITHOUT
HIS KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT

Exception: But he may be bound by virtue of the existing RELATION between them

2. GR: Admissions by a party and testified to by a 3rd person will be an EVIDENCE AGAINSTTHE FORMER

Exception: An admission made by a party may be received against ANOTHER if the former is acting as an AGENT for the latter

NB; This is the basis for the rule under Art, 1820 that when a partner makes an admission during the existence of the partnership, the
latter as well astheco-partnerswill be bound by the admission if the admission: a. Pertains to the partnership affairs b. The admission is
within the authority of the partner making the admission

3. But where the admission is made by a party on his behalf alone, then, the same shall only be used against him

Yes, provided that the admission has something to do with the winding up of the partnership affairs

Points:

For the admission of the partner to bind the partnership, the following must concur:

1. The partner making the admission mustbeactingwithinthescopeof his authority at the time of making the declaration

2. The statement is made in the COURSE OF, RELATED TO AND MATERIAL TO THE TRANSACTION OF THE BUSINESS OF

THE PARTNERSHIP

3. The partnership relation must be shown before the partnership can be charged with the admission of a partner under Art, 1820

4. The proof of such relation must be established by an evidence OTHER THAN THE ADMISSION itself e.g. If C denies the existence
of a partnership, then B, in the above example must show the existence of the partnership other than by the admission made by A to
him. Otherwise, such admission will not bind C.

Exception: The ADMISSION made by a partner may be used to establish the partnership relations if the party to be charged by such
admission is present at the time of the making of the declaration e.g. If A made a statement to the effect that he and Care partners, and
C did not react (as in fact he is present), then, the admission made by A that partnership X and Co exists may be admitted to show that
A and C are partners

5. Any admission made by a partner at the time when HE WAS NO LONGER A PARNTER will not be admissible in evidence against
the partnership - Congco v. Triliana

Article 1821
 Notice to any partner of any matter relating to partnership affairs, and the knowledge of the partner acting in the particular
matter, acquired while a partner or then present to his mind, and the knowledge of any other partner who reasonably could and should
have communicated it to the acting partner, operate as notice to or knowledge of the partnership, except in the case of fraud on the
partnership, committed by or with the consent of that partner.

GR: Notice to or KNOWLEDGE of any partner of any matter relating to the partnership affairs operates as notice to or knowledge of the
partnership

EXPN: Except in case of fraud on the partnership committed by or with the consent of that partner

Points:

1. A 3 person desiring to notify the partnership as regards any matter relating to the partnership affairs need NOT notify ALL the
partners

2. It is enough that he notifies 1 or ANY of the partners.

This is an effective communication even if the partner to whom the information was communicated to

FAILED or NEGLECTED to communicate such knowledge or notice to the other co-partners

Q: CASES OF KNOWLEDGE UNDER ART.1821?

1. Knowledge of a partner acting on a particular matter ACQUIRED while a partner

2. Knowledge of a partner acting on a particular matter then PRESENT to his mind

3. Knowledge of ANY OTHER PARTNER who could and should have communicated it to the acting partner