CASE DIGEST: JARANTILLA, JR. v. JARANTILLA (G.R. No.154486)

  1. [NO RECOMMENDED CITATION]
  2. PJP UNDOCKETED: This content is yet to be peer reviewed and has not yet received any favorable recommendation for citation. It may or may not be queued up for citation recommendation or peer review. Caution is advised.
  3. CONTACT US: For immediate action on requests, comments, concerns, suggestions, and other forms of feedback, please message us on Facebook at www.m.me/projectjuris.

CASE DIGEST: FEDERICO JARANTILLA, JR., PETITIONER, V. ANTONIETA JARANTILLA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. (G.R. NO.154486; DECEMBER 1, 2010)

FACTS: The spouses Andres Jarantilla and Felisa Jaleco were survived by eight children: Federico, Delfin, Benjamin, Conchita, Rosita, Pacita, Rafael and Antonieta. Petitioner Federico Jarantilla, Jr. is the grandchild of the late Jarantilla spouses by their son Federico Jarantilla, Sr.

In 1948, the Jarantilla heirs extrajudicially partitioned amongst themselves the real properties of their deceased parents. In the same year, the spouses Rosita Jarantilla and Vivencio Deocampo entered into an agreement with the spouses Buenaventura Remotigue and Conchita Jarantilla to provide mutual assistance to each other by way of financial support to any commercial and agricultural activity on a joint business arrangement.This business relationship proved to be successful. This partnership ended in 1973. The spouses Buenaventura and Conchita Remotigue executed a document wherein they acknowledged that while registered only in Buenaventura Remotigues name, they were not the only owners of the capital of the businesses Manila Athletic Supply and Remotigue Trading.In this same "Acknowledgement of Participating Capital," they stated the participating capital of their co-owners as of the year 1952, with Antonieta Jarantillas stated as eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00) and Federico Jarantilla, Jr.s as five thousand pesos (P5,000.00).

The present case stems from the amended complaint filed by Antonieta Jarantilla against Buenaventura Remotigue, Cynthia Remotigue, Federico Jarantilla, Jr., Doroteo Jarantilla and Tomas Jarantilla, for the accounting of the assets and income of the co-ownership, for its partition and the delivery of her share corresponding to eight percent (8%), and for damages.During the course of the trial at the RTC,petitioner Federico Jarantilla, Jr., who was one of the original defendants, entered into a compromise agreement with Antonieta Jarantilla wherein he supported Antonietas claims and asserted that he too was entitled to six percent (6%) of the supposed partnership in the same manner as Antonieta was.

ISSUE:

Is Federico Jarantilla, Jr. entitled to a six per centum (6%) share of the ownership of the real properties acquired by the other defendants using common funds from the businesses where he had owned such share?

HELD:

Both the petitioner and Antonieta Jarantilla characterize their relationship with the respondents as a co-ownership, but in the same breath, assert that a verbal partnership was formed and was affirmed in the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital.

There is a co-ownership when an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. It is a partnership when two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.

Under Article 1767 of the Civil Code, there are two essential elements in a contract of partnership:(a) an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to divide the profits among the contracting parties.The first element is undoubtedly present in the case at bar, for, admittedly, all the parties in this case have agreed to, and did, contribute money and property to a common fund.Hence, the issue narrows down to their intent in acting as they did. It is not denied that all the parties in this case have agreed to contribute capital to a common fund to be able to later on share its profits.They have admitted this fact, agreed to its veracity, and even submitted one common documentary evidence to prove such partnership - the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital.

It is clear from the foregoing that a partner is entitled only to his share as agreed upon, or in the absence of any such stipulations, then to his share in proportion to his contribution to the partnership.The petitioner himself claims his share to be 6%, as stated in the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital.However, petitioner fails to realize that this document specifically enumerated the businesses covered by the partnership: Manila Athletic Supply, Remotigue Trading in Iloilo City and Remotigue Trading in Cotabato City. Since there was a clear agreement that the capital the partners contributed went to the three businesses, then there is no reason to deviate from such agreement and go beyond the stipulations in the document.Therefore, petitioners share is limited to the assets of the businesses enumerated in the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital.

The petitioner further asserts that he is entitled to respondents properties based on the concept of trust.He claims that since the subject real properties were purchased using funds of the partnership, wherein he has a 6% share, then "law and equity mandates that he should be considered as a co-owner of those properties in such proportion." The petitioner has failed to prove that there exists a trust over the subject real properties.Aside from his bare allegations, he has failed to show that the respondents used the partnerships money to purchase the said properties.Even assuming arguendo that some partnership income was used to acquire these properties, the petitioner should have successfully shown that these funds came from his share in the partnership profits.

Petitioners only piece of documentary evidence is the Acknowledgement of Participating Capital, which as discussed above, failed to prove that the real properties he is claiming co-ownership of were acquired out of the proceeds of the businesses covered by such document.Therefore, petitioners theory has no factual or legal leg to stand on.

DENIED.

[NEEDS MORE CITATIONS]