This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-06-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The transfer of the possession of the parcels of land and the improvements thereon to respondents was only for a specific purpose: the winding up of partnership affairs, and the partition and distribution of the net partnership assets as provided by law.[57] After all, Article 1836 of the New Civil Code provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties in their JVA, respondents have the right to wind up the partnership affairs: Art. 1836. Unless otherwise agreed, the partners who have not wrongfully dissolved the partnership or the legal representative of the last surviving partner, not insolvent, has the right to wind up the partnership affairs, provided, however, that any partner, his legal representative or his assignee, upon cause shown, may obtain winding up by the court. It must be stressed, too, that although respondents acquired possession of the lands and the improvements thereon, the said lands and improvements remained partnership property, subject to the rights and obligations of the parties, inter se, of the creditors and of third parties under Articles 1837 and 1838 of the New Civil Code, and subject to the outcome of the settlement of the accounts between the parties as provided in Article 1839 of the New Civil Code, absent any agreement of the parties in their JVA to the contrary.[58] Until the partnership accounts are determined, it cannot be ascertained how much any of the parties is entitled to, if at all. | |||||
|
2000-10-04 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| "x x x. The right to choose with whom a person wishes to associate himself is the very foundation and essence of that partnership. Its continued existence is, in turn, dependent on the constancy of that mutual resolve, along with each partner's capability to give it, and the absence of cause for dissolution provided by the law itself. Verily, any one of the partners may, at his sole pleasure, dictate a dissolution of the partnership at will. He must, however, act in good faith, not that the attendance of bad faith can prevent the dissolution of the partnership but that it can result in a liability for damages."[41] | |||||