Antonio C. Goquilay, ET AL. vs. Washington Z. Sycip, ET AL. GR NO.
L-11840, December 10, 1963
FACTS:
Tan Sin An and Goquiolay entered into a general commercial partnership under the partnership name
“Tan Sin An and Antonio Goquiolay” for the purpose of dealing in real estate. The agreement lodged upon
Tan Sin An the sole management of the partnership affairs. The lifetime of the partnership was fixed at
ten years and the Articles of Co-partnership stipulated that in the event of death of any of the partners
before the expiration of the term, the partnership will not be dissolved but will be continued by the heirs or
assigns of the deceased partner. But the partnership could be dissolved upon mutual agreement in
writing of the partners. Goquiolay executed a GPA in favor of Tan Sin An. The plaintiff partnership
purchased 3 parcels of land which was mortgaged to “La Urbana” as payment of P25,000. Another 46
parcels of land were purchased by Tan Sin An in his individual capacity which he assumed payment of a
mortgage debt for P35K. A downpayment and the amortization were advanced by Yutivo and Co. The two
obligations were consolidated in an instrument executed by the partnership and Tan Sin An, whereby the
entire 49 lots were mortgaged in favor of “Banco Hipotecario”
Tan Sin An died leaving his widow, Kong
Chai Pin and four minor children. The widow subsequently became the administratrix of the estate.
Repeated demands were made by Banco Hipotecario on the partnership and on Tan Sin An.
Defendant
Sing Yee, upon request of defendant Yutivo Sons , paid the remaining balance of the mortgage debt, the
mortgage was cancelled Yutivo Sons and Sing Yee filed their claim in the intestate proceedings of Tan
Sin An for advances, interest and taxes paid in amortizing and discharging their obligations to “La
Urbana” and “Banco Hipotecario.” Kong Chai Pin filed a petition with the probate court for authority to sell
all the 49 parcels of land. She then sold it to Sycip and Lee in consideration of P37K and of the vendees
assuming payment of the claims filed by Yutivo Sons and Sing Yee. Later, Sycip and Lee executed in
favor of Insular Development a deed of transfer covering the 49 parcels of land.
When Goquiolay learned
about the sale to Sycip and Lee, he filed a petition in the intestate proceedings to set aside the order of
the probate court approving the sale in so far as his interest over the parcels of land sold was concerned.
Probate court annulled the sale executed by the administratrix w/ respect to the 60% interest of Goquiolay
over the properties Administratrix appealed.
The decision of probate court was set aside for failure to
include the indispensable parties. New pleadings were filed. The second amended complaint prays for
the annulment of the sale in favor of Sycip and Lee and their subsequent conveyance to Insular
Development. The complaint was dismissed by the lower court hence this appeal.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not a widow or substitute become also a general partner or only a limited partner.
Whether or not the lower court err in holding that the widow succeeded her husband Tan Sin An in the
sole management of the partnership upon Tan’s death Whether or not the consent of the other partners
was necessary to perfect the sale of the partnership properties to Sycip and Lee?
HELD:
Kong Chai Pin became a mere general partner. By seeking authority to manage partnership property, Tan
Sin An’s widow showed that she desired to be considered a general partner. By authorizing the widow to
manage partnership property (which a limited partner could not be authorized to do), Goqulay recognized
her as such partner, and is now in estoppel to deny her position as a general partner, with authority to
administer and alienate partnership property. The articles did not provide that the heirs of the deceased
would be merely limited partners; on the contrary, they expressly stipulated that in case of death of either
partner, “the co partnership will have to be continued” with the heirs or assignees. It certainly could not be
continued if it were to be converted from a general partnership into a limited partnership since the
difference between the two kinds of associations is fundamental, and specially because the conversion
into a limited association would leave the heirs of the deceased partner without a share in the
management. Hence, the contractual stipulation actually contemplated that the heirs would become
general partners rather than limited ones.
