Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    EUFRACIO D. ROJAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CONSTANCIO B. MAGLANA, Facts

    Uploaded by

    Hello123
    The main issue in this case is the legal relationship between Maglana and Rojas after their third partner, Pahamotang, retired. The court held that the original partnership agreement continued to govern their business relationship, as evidenced by their continued use of the original partnership name and capital contributions. While the second partnership dissolved with Pahamotang's retirement, the first partnership remained in effect. Maglana's letter to Rojas regarding capital contributions and duties further confirmed that both partners viewed themselves as still bound by the terms of the original registered partnership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    EUFRACIO D. ROJAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CONSTANCIO B. MAGLANA, Facts

    Uploaded by

    Hello123
    46 views1 page
    The main issue in this case is the legal relationship between Maglana and Rojas after their third partner, Pahamotang, retired. The court held that the original partnership agreement continued to govern their business relationship, as evidenced by their continued use of the original partnership name and capital contributions. While the second partnership dissolved with Pahamotang's retirement, the first partnership remained in effect. Maglana's letter to Rojas regarding capital contributions and duties further confirmed that both partners viewed themselves as still bound by the terms of the original registered partnership.

    Original Title

    Document (41)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The main issue in this case is the legal relationship between Maglana and Rojas after their third partner, Pahamotang, retired. The court held that the original partnership agreement continued to govern their business relationship, as evidenced by their continued use of the original partnership name and capital contributions. While the second partnership dissolved with Pahamotang's retirement, the first partnership remained in effect. Maglana's letter to Rojas regarding capital contributions and duties further confirmed that both partners viewed themselves as still bound by the terms of the original registered partnership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    46 views1 page

    EUFRACIO D. ROJAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CONSTANCIO B. MAGLANA, Facts

    Uploaded by

    Hello123
    The main issue in this case is the legal relationship between Maglana and Rojas after their third partner, Pahamotang, retired. The court held that the original partnership agreement continued to govern their business relationship, as evidenced by their continued use of the original partnership name and capital contributions. While the second partnership dissolved with Pahamotang's retirement, the first partnership remained in effect. Maglana's letter to Rojas regarding capital contributions and duties further confirmed that both partners viewed themselves as still bound by the terms of the original registered partnership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    EUFRACIO D.

    ROJAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.  CONSTANCIO B. MAGLANA,

    Facts

    Issue

    The main issue in this case is the nature of the partnership and legal relationship of the
    Maglana-Rojas after Pahamotang retired from the second partnership.

    Held

    it was not the intention of the partners to dissolve the first partnership, upon the
    constitution of the second one, which they unmistakably called an "Additional Agreement"
    (Exhibit "9-B") (Brief for Defendant-Appellee, pp. 24-25). Except for the fact that they took
    in one industrial partner; gave him an equal share in the profits and fixed the term of the
    second partnership to thirty (30) years, everything else was the same. Thus, they adopted
    the same name, EASTCOAST DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, they pursued the same
    purposes and the capital contributions of Rojas and Maglana as stipulated in both
    partnerships call for the same amounts. Just as important is the fact that all subsequent
    renewals of Timber License No. 35-36 were secured in favor of the First Partnership, the
    original licensee. To all intents and purposes therefore, the First Articles of Partnership were
    only amended, in the form of Supplementary Articles of Co-Partnership (Exhibit "C") which
    was never registered (Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant, p. 5). Otherwise stated, even during the
    existence of the second partnership, all business transactions were carried out under the
    duly registered articles. As found by the trial court, it is an admitted fact that even up to
    now, there are still subsisting obligations and contracts of the latter (Decision, R.A. pp. 950-
    957). No rights and obligations accrued in the name of the second partnership except in
    favor of Pahamotang which was fully paid by the duly registered partnership

    On the other hand, there is no dispute that the second partnership was dissolved by
    common consent. Said dissolution did not affect the first partnership which continued to
    exist. Significantly, Maglana and Rojas agreed to purchase the interest, share and
    participation in the second partnership of Pahamotang and that thereafter, the two (Maglana
    and Rojas) became the owners of equipment contributed by Pahamotang. Even more
    convincing, is the fact that Maglana on March 17, 1957, wrote Rojas, reminding the latter of
    his obligation to contribute either in cash or in equipment, to the capital investment of the
    partnership as well as his obligation to perform his duties as logging superintendent. This
    reminder cannot refer to any other but to the provisions of the duly registered Articles of
    Co-Partnership. As earlier stated, Rojas replied that he will not be able to comply with the
    promised contributions and he will not work as logging superintendent. By such statements,
    it is obvious that Roxas understood what Maglana was referring to and left no room for
    doubt that both considered themselves governed by the articles of the duly registered
    partnership

    Under the circumstances, the relationship of Rojas and Maglana after the withdrawal of
    Pahamotang can neither be considered as a De Facto Partnership, nor a Partnership at Will,
    for as stressed, there is an existing partnership, duly registered.

    You might also like