6/16/2016
G.R.No.L33580
TodayisThursday,June16,2016
RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L33580February6,1931
MAXIMILIANOSANCHO,plaintiffappellant,
vs.
SEVERIANOLIZARRAGA,defendantappellee.
JosePerezCardenasandJoseM.Casalforappellant.
CelsoB.JamoraandAntonioGonzalezforappellee.
ROMUALDEZ,J.:
The plaintiff brought an action for the rescission of a partnership contract between himself and the defendant,
entered into on October 15, 1920, the reimbursement by the latter of his 50,000 peso investment therein, with
interest at 12 per cent per annum form October 15, 1920, with costs, and any other just and equitable remedy
againstsaiddefendant.
Thedefendantdeniesgenerallyandspecificallyalltheallegationsofthecomplaintwhichareincompatiblewithhis
special defenses, crosscomplaint and counterclaim, setting up the latter and asking for the dissolution of the
partnership,andthepaymenttohimasitsmanagerandadministratorofP500monthlyfromOctober15,1920,
untilthefinaldissolution,withinterest,onehalfofsaidamounttobechargedtotheplaintiff.Healsopraysforany
otherjustandequitableremedy.
TheCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,havingheardthecause,andfindingitdulyprovedthatthedefendanthad
not contributed all the capital he had bound himself to invest, and that the plaintiff had 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,
submittingtothecourttheresultoftheliquidationtogetherwiththeaccountsandvoucherswithintheperiodof
thirtydaysfromreceiptofnoticeofsaidjudgment,withoutcosts.
Theplaintiffappealedfromsaiddecisionmakingthefollowingassignmentsoferror:
1. In holding that the plaintiff and appellant is not entitled to the rescission of the partnership contract,
ExhibitA,andthatarticle1124oftheCivilCodeisnotapplicabletothepresentcase.
2.InfailingtoorderthedefendanttoreturnthesumofP50,000totheplaintiffwithinterestfromOctober
15,1920,untilfullypaid.
3.Indenyingthemotionforanewtrial.
Inthebrieffiledbycounselfortheappellee,apreliminaryquestionisraisedpurportingtoshowthatthisappealis
prematureandthereforewillnotlie.Thepointisbasedonthecontentionthatinasmuchastheliquidationordered
bythetrialcourt,andtheconsequentaccounts,havenotbeenmadeandsubmitted,thecasecannotbedeemed
terminatedinsaidcourtanditsrulingisnotyetappealable.Insupportofthiscontentioncounselcitessection123
oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,andthedecisionofthiscourtinthecaseofNatividadvs.Villarica(31Phil.,172).
This contention is well founded. Until the accounts have been rendered as ordered by the trial court, and until
they have been either approved or disapproved, the litigation involved in this action cannot be considered as
completely decided and, as it was held in said case of Natividad vs .Villarica, also with reference to an appeal
takenfromadecisionorderingtherenditionofaccountsfollowingthedissolutionofpartnership,theappealinthe
instantcasemustbedeemedpremature.
Butevengoingintothemeritsofthecase,theaffirmationofthejudgmentappealedfromisinevitable.Inviewof
the lower court's findings referred to above, which we cannot revise because the parol evidence has not been
forwarded to this court, articles 1681 and 1682 of the Civil Code have been properly applied. Owing to the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1931/jan1931/gr_l33580_1931.html
1/2
6/16/2016
G.R.No.L33580
defendant's failure to pay to the partnership the whole amount which he bound himself to pay, he became
indebted to it for the remainder, with interest and any damages occasioned thereby, but the plaintiff did not
therebyacquiretherighttodemandrescissionofthepartnershipcontractaccordingtoarticle1124oftheCode.
Thisarticlecannotbeappliedtothecaseinquestion,becauseitreferstotheresolutionofobligationsingeneral,
whereasarticle1681and1682specificallyrefertothecontractofpartnershipinparticular.Anditisawellknown
principlethatspecialprovisionsprevailovergeneralprovisions.
Byvirtueoftheforegoing,thisappealisherebydismissed,leavingthedecisionappealedfrominfullforce,without
specialpronouncementofcosts.Soordered.
Avancea,C.J.,Johnson,Street,Malcolm,Villamor,Ostrand,JohnsandVillaReal,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1931/jan1931/gr_l33580_1931.html
2/2
