Scribd
Upload
107 views2 pages

Estanislao, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. NO. 49982 Date of Promulgation Ponente Facts

Petitioner and respondent are siblings who co-owned land that was leased to Shell Company. [1] They agreed to open a gas station using the lease payments, and executed documents to manage the business together. [2] After some time, petitioner stopped providing financial reports, and it was shown he earned substantial profits without accounting to respondent. [3] Respondent filed a case demanding accounting and payment of lawful shares from profits, which the trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of, finding the parties had formed a partnership.

Uploaded by

Ira
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
107 views2 pages

Estanislao, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. NO. 49982 Date of Promulgation Ponente Facts

Petitioner and respondent are siblings who co-owned land that was leased to Shell Company. [1] They agreed to open a gas station using the lease payments, and executed documents to manage the business together. [2] After some time, petitioner stopped providing financial reports, and it was shown he earned substantial profits without accounting to respondent. [3] Respondent filed a case demanding accounting and payment of lawful shares from profits, which the trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of, finding the parties had formed a partnership.

Uploaded by

Ira
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

Estanislao, Jr. Vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. NO.  49982
Date of
Promulgation April 27, 1988

Ponente GANCAYCO, J

Facts Petitioner and Respondent are siblings and co-owners of a


plot of land being leased by the Shell Company. They agreed
to open and operate a gas station using the advance rentals
due to them from Shell from occupancy of the lots. A Joint
Affidavit was executed on April 11, 1966.

Petitioner Eligio Estanislao was to operate and manage the


gasoline service station of the family. Eligio was also made to
apply for the dealership in his own name as Shell’s policy is
to only allow one dealer. Respondent Remedios Estanislao
helped petitioner manage the operations.

On May 26, 1966, the parties herein entered into an


Additional Cash Pledge Agreement with SHELL which
reiterated the deposit of the 15,000 pesos with Shell to cover
advances of fuel. Such agreement contained a provision
which "cancels and supersedes the Joint Affidavit dated 11
April 1966 executed by the co-owners."

Following this, the petitioner continued to provide financial


statements to respondent regarding the business for a period
of time before failing to render subsequent accounting. After
respondent demanded such accounting records, it was shown
that petitioner received a profit of P 87,293.79 by the end of
1968 and P 150,000.00 by the end of 1969.

Respondent subsequently filed complaint with the CFI of Rizal


praying that petitioner be ordered:

1.) to execute a public document embodying all the


provisions of the partnership agreement entered into
between plaintiffs and defendant as provided in Article 1771
of the New Civil Code

2.) to render a formal accounting of the business

3.) to pay the plaintiffs their lawful shares and participation


in the net profits of the business

4.) to pay atty’s fees and cost of suit

CFI’s Decision Respondent’s petition granted. Petitioner ordered to


comply with the demands of respondent.
CA’s Decision CFI’s decision affirmed

Issue/s Whether or not petitioner and respondent were partners

Ratio
Decidendi Yes. Petitioner contends that due to the stipulation
cancelling and superseding the Joint Agreement, any
previous partnership agreement had thereby been
abrogated. The Court finds no merit in this argument.
Such cancelling and superseding stipulation was
necessary to avoid a duplication of reference.

It is entirely evident that there was in fact a partnership


agreement between the parties.

1.) Petitioner submitted periodic accounting of the


business to respondents.

2.) Petitioner gave a written authority to private


respondent Remedies Estanislao, his sister, to examine
and audit the books of their "common business'

3.) Respondent Remedios assisted in the running of the


business.

There is no doubt that the parties hereto formed a


partnership when they bound themselves to contribute
money to a common fund with the intention of dividing
the profits among themselves.

Ruling Judgement of the CA is affirmed.

You might also like