Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-11840 December 10, 1963
ANTONIO C. GOQUIOLAY, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
WASHINGTON Z. SYCIP, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Norberto J. Quisumbing and Sycip, Salazar and Associates for defendants-appellees.
Jose C. Calayco for plaintiffs-appellants..
R E S O L U T I O N
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
The matter now pending is the appellant's motion for reconsideration of our main decision, wherein we have upheld the validity of the sale of the lands owned by the partnership Goquiolay & Tan Sin An, made in 1949 by the widow of the managing partner, Tan Sin An (Executed in her dual capacity as Administratrix of the husband's estate and as partner in lieu of the husband), in favor of the buyers Washington Sycip and Betty Lee for the following consideration:
| Cash paid | P37,000.00 |
| Debts assumed by purchaser: |
|
| To Yutivo | 62,415.91 |
| To Sing Yee Cuan & Co., | 54,310.13 |
| T O T A L |
P153,726.04 |
Appellant Goquiolay, in his motion for reconsideration, insist that, contrary to our holding, Kong Chai Pin, widow of the deceased partner Tan Sin An, never became more than a limited partner, incapacitated by law to manage the affairs of partnership; that the testimony of her witness Young and Lim belies that she took over the administration of the partnership property; and that, in any event, the sale should be set aside because it was executed with the intent to defraud appellant of his share in the properties sold.
Three things must be always held in mind in the discussion of this motion to reconsider, being basic and beyond controversy:
(a) That we are dealing here with the transfer of partnership property by one partner, acting in behalf of the firm, to a stranger. There is no question between partners inter se, and this aspect to the case was expressly reserved in the main decision of 26 July 1960;
(b) That partnership was expressly organized: "to engage in real estate business, either by buying and selling real estate". The Articles of co-partnership, in fact, expressly provided that:
IV. The object and purpose of the copartnership are as follows:
1. To engage in real estate business, either by buying and selling real estates; to subdivide real estates into lots for the purpose of leasing and selling them.;
(c) That the properties sold were not part of the contributed capital (which was in cash) but land precisely acquired to be sold, although subject to a mortgage in favor of the original owners, from whom the partnership had acquired them.
With these points firmly in mind, let us turn to the points insisted upon by appellant.
It is first averred that there is "not one iota of evidence" that Kong Chai Pin managed and retained possession of the partnership properties. Suffice it to point out that appellant Goquiolay himself admitted that —
... Mr. Yu Eng Lai asked me if I can just let Mrs. Kong Chai Pin continue to manage the properties (as) she had no other means of income. Then I said, because I wanted to help Mrs. Kong Chai Pin, she could just do it and besides I am not interested in agricultural lands. I allowed her to take care of the properties in order to help her and because I believe in God and — wanted to help her.
Q — So the answer to my question is you did not take any steps?
A — I did not.
Q — And this conversation which you had with Mrs. Yu Eng Lai was few months after 1945?
A — In the year 1945. (Emphasis supplied).
The appellant subsequently ratified this testimony in his deposition of 30 June 1956, pages 8-9, wherein he stated:
that plantation was being occupied at that time by the widow, Mrs. Tan Sin An, and of course they are receiving quiet a lot benefit from the plantation.
Discarding the self-serving expressions, these admissions of Goquiolay are certainly entitled to greater weight than those of Hernando Young and Rufino Lim, having been made against the party's own interest.
Moreover, the appellant's reference to the testimony of Hernando Young, that the witness found the properties "abandoned and undeveloped", omits to mention that said part of the testimony started with the question:
Now, you said that about 1942 or 1943 you returned to Davao. Did you meet Mrs. Kong Chai Pin there in Davao at that time?
Similarly, the testimony of Rufino Lim, to the effect that the properties of the partnership were undeveloped, and the family of the widow (Kong Chai Pin) did not receive any income from the partnership properties, was given in answer to the question:
According to Mr. Goquiolay, during the Japanese occupation Tan Sin an and his family lived on the plantation of the partnership and derived their subsistence from that plantation. What can you say to that? (Dep. 19 July 1956, p. 8).
And also —
What can you say as to the development of these other properties of the partnership which you saw during the occupation? (Dep. p. 13, Emphasis supplied).
to which witness gave the following answer:
I saw the properties in Mamay still undeveloped. The third property which is in Tigato is about eleven (11) hectares and planted with abaca seedlings planted by Mr. Sin An. When I went there with Hernando Young we saw all the abaca destroyed. The place was occupied by the Japanese Army. They planted camotes and vegetables to feed the Japanese Army. Of course they never paid any money to Tan Sin An or his family. (Dep., Lim, pp. 13-14. Emphasis supplied).
Plainly, both Young and Lim's testimonies do not belie, or contradict, Goquiolay's admission that he told Mr. Yu Eng Lai that the widow "could just do it" (i.e., continue to manage the properties). Witnesses Lim and Young referred to the period of Japanese occupation; but Goquiolay's authority was, in fact, given to the widow in 1945, after the occupation.
Again, the disputed sale by the widow took place in 1949. That Kong Chai Pin carried out no acts of management during the Japanese occupation (1942-1944) does not mean that she did not do so from 1945 to 1949.
We thus find that Goquiolay did not merely rely on reports from Lim and Young; he actually manifested his willingness that the widow should manage the partnership properties. Whether or not she complied with this authority is a question between her and the appellant, and is not here involved. But the authority was given, and she did have it when she made the questioned sale, because it was never revoked.
It is argued that the authority given by Goquiolay to the widow Kong Chai Pin was only to manage the property, and that it did not include the power to alienate, citing Article 1713 of the Civil Code of 1889. What this argument overlooks is that the widow was not a mere agent, because she had become a partner upon her husband's death, as expressly provided by the articles of copartnership. Even more, granting that by succession to her husband, Tan Sin An, the widow only became a limited partner, Goquiolay's authorization to manage the partnership property was proof that he considered and recognized her as general partner, at least since 1945. The reason is plain: Under the law (Article 148, last paragraph, Code of Commerce), appellant could not empower the widow, if she were only a limited partner, to administer the properties of the firm, even as a mere agent:
Limited partners may not perform any act of administration with respect to the interests of the copartnership, not even in the capacity of agents of the managing partners. (Emphasis supplied).
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), Goquiolay 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.
Besides, as we pointed out in our main decision, the heir ordinarily (and we did not say "necessarily") becomes a limited partner for his own protection, because he would normally prefer to avoid any liability in excess of the value of the estate inherited so as not to jeopardize his personal assets. But this statutory limitation of responsibility being designed to protect the heir, the latter may disregard it and instead elect to become a collective or general partner, with all the rights and privileges of one, and answering for the debts of the firm not only with the inheritance but also with the heir's personal fortune. This choice pertains exclusively to the heir, and does not require the assent of the surviving partner.
It must be remember that the articles of co-partnership here involved expressly stipulated that:
In the event of the death of any of the partners at any time before the expiration of said term, the co-partnership shall not be dissolved but will have to be continued and the deceased partner shall be represented by his heirs or assigns in said co-partnership (Art. XII, Articles of Co-Partnership).
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 assigns. 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 have the heirs of the deceased partner without a share in the management. Hence, the contractual stipulation does actually contemplate that the heirs would become general partners rather than limited ones.
Of course, the stipulation would not bind the heirs of the deceased partner should they refuse to assume personal and unlimited responsibility for the obligations of the firm. The heirs, in other words, can not be compelled to become general partners against their wishes. But because they are not so compellable, it does not legitimately follow that they may not voluntarily choose to become general partners, waiving the protective mantle of the general laws of succession. And in the latter event, it is pointless to discuss the legality of any conversion of a limited partner into a general one. The heir never was a limited partner, but chose to be, and became, a general partner right at the start.
It is immaterial that the heir's name was not included in the firm name, since no conversion of status is involved, and the articles of co-partnership expressly contemplated the admission of the partner's heirs into the partnership.
It must never be overlooked that this case involved the rights acquired by strangers, and does not deal with the rights existing between partners Goquiolay and the widow of Tan Sin An. The issues between the partners inter se were expressly reserved in our main decision. Now, in determining what kind of partner the widow of partner Tan Sin an Had elected to become, strangers had to be guided by her conduct and actuations and those of appellant Goquiolay. Knowing that by law a limited partner is barred from managing the partnership business or property, third parties (like the purchasers) who found the widow possessing and managing the firm property with the acquiescence (or at least without apparent opposition) of the surviving partners were perfectly justified in assuming that she had become a general partner, and, therefore, in negotiating with her as such a partner, having authority to act for, and in behalf of the firm. This belief, be it noted, was shared even by the probate court that approved the sale by the widow of the real property standing in the partnership name. That belief was fostered by the very inaction of appellant Goquiolay. Note that for seven long years, from partner Tan Sin An's death in 1942 to the sale in 1949, there was more than ample time for Goquiolay to take up the management of these properties, or at least ascertain how its affairs stood. For seven years Goquiolay could have asserted his alleged rights, and by suitable notice in the commercial registry could have warned strangers that they must deal with him alone, as sole general partner. But he did nothing of the sort, because he was not interested (supra), and he did not even take steps to pay, or settle the firm debts that were overdue since before the outbreak of the last war. He did not even take steps, after Tan Sin An died, to cancel, or modify, the provisions of the partnership articles that he (Goquiolay) would have no intervention in the management of the partnership. This laches certainly contributed to confirm the view that the widow of Tan Sin An had, or was given, authority to manage and deal with the firm's properties apart from the presumption that a general partner dealing with partnership property has to requisite authority from his co-partners (Litton vs. Hill and Ceron, et al., 67 Phil. 513; quoted in our main decision, p. 11).
The stipulation in the articles of partnership that any of the two managing partners may contract and sign in the name of the partnership with the consent of the other, undoubtedly creates on obligation between the two partners, which consists in asking the other's consent before contracting for the partnership. This obligation of course is not imposed upon a third person who contracts with the partnership. Neither it is necessary for the third person to ascertain if the managing partner with whom he contracts has previously obtained the consent of the other. A third person may and has a right to presume that the partner with whom he contracts has, in the ordinary and natural course of business, the consent of his copartner; for otherwise he would not enter into the contract. The third person would naturally not presume that the partner with whom he enters into the transaction is violating the articles of partnership, but on the contrary is acting in accordance therewith. And this finds support in the legal presumption that the ordinary course of business has been followed (No. 18, section 334, Code of Civil Procedure), and that the law has been obeyed (No. 31, section 334). This last presumption is equally applicable to contracts which have the force of law between the parties. (Litton vs. Hill & Ceron, et al., 67 Phil. 409, 516). (Emphasis supplied.)
It is next urged that the widow, even as a partner, had no authority to sell the real estate of the firm. This argument is lamentably superficial because it fails to differentiate between real estate acquired and held as stock-in-trade and real estate held merely as business site (Vivante's "taller o banco social") for the partnership. Where the partnership business is to deal in merchandise and goods, i.e., movable property, the sale of its real property (immovables) is not within the ordinary powers of a partner, because it is not in line with the normal business of the firm. But where the express and avowed purpose of the partnership is to buy and sell real estate (as in the present case), the immovables thus acquired by the firm from part of its stock-in-trade, and the sale thereof is in pursuance of partnership purposes, hence within the ordinary powers of the partner. This distinction is supported by the opinion of Gay de Montella1 , in the very passage quoted in the appellant's motion for reconsideration:
La enajenacion puede entrar en las facultades del gerante, cuando es conforme a los fines sociales. Pero esta facultad de enajenar limitada a las ventas conforme a los fines sociales, viene limitada a los objetos de comercio o a los productos de la fabrica para explotacion de los cuales se ha constituido la Sociedad. Ocurrira una cosa parecida cuando el objeto de la Sociedad fuese la compra y venta de inmuebles, en cuyo caso el gerente estaria facultado para otorgar las ventas que fuere necesario. (Montella) (Emphasis supplied).
The same rule obtains in American law.
In Rosen vs. Rosen, 212 N.Y. Supp. 405, 406, it was held:
a partnership to deal in real estate may be created and either partner has the legal right to sell the firm real estate.
In Chester vs. Dickerson, 54 N. Y. 1, 13 Am. Rep. 550:
And hence, when the partnership business is to deal in real estate, one partner has ample power, as a general agent of the firm, to enter into an executory contract for the sale of real estate.
And in Revelsky vs. Brown, 92 Ala. 522, 9 South 182, 25 Am. St. Rep. 83:
If the several partners engaged in the business of buying and selling real estate can not bind the firm by purchases or sales of such property made in the regular course of business, then they are incapable of exercising the essential rights and powers of general partners and their association is not really a partnership at all, but a several agency.
Since the sale by the widow was in conformity with the express objective of the partnership, "to engage ... in buying and selling real estate" (Art. IV, No. 1 Articles of Copartnership), it can not be maintained that the sale was made in excess of her power as general partner.
Considerable stress is laid by appellant in the ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio in McGrath, et al., vs. Cowen, et al., 49 N.E., 338. But the facts of that case are vastly different from the one before us. In the McGrath case, the Court expressly found that:
The firm was then, and for some time had been, insolvent, in the sense that its property was insufficient to pay its debts, though it still had good credit, and was actively engaged in the prosecution of its business. On that day, which was Saturday, the plaintiff caused to be prepared, ready for execution, the four chattel mortgages in question, which cover all the tangible property then belonging to the firm, including the counters, shelving, and other furnishings and fixtures necessary for, and used in carrying on, its business, and signed the same in this form: "In witness whereof, the said Cowen & McGrath, a firm, and Owen McGrath, surviving partner, of said firm, and Owen McCrath, individually, have hereunto set their hands, this 20th day of May, A.D. 1893. Cowen & Mcgrath, by Owen McGrath. Owen McGrath, Surviving partner of Cowen & McGrath. Owen McGrath." At the same time, the plaintiff had prepared, ready for filing, the petition for the dissolution of the partnership and appointment of a receiver which he subsequently filed, as hereinafter stated. On the day the mortgages were signed, they were placed in the hands of the mortgagees, which was the first intimation to them that there was any intention to make them. At the time none of the claims secured by the mortgages were due, except, it may be, a small part of one of them, and none of the creditors to whom the mortgages were made had requested security, or were pressing for the payment of their debts. ... The mortgages appear to be without a sufficient condition of defiance, and contain a stipulation authorizing the mortgagees to take immediate possession of the property, which they did as soon as the mortgages were filed through the attorney who then represented them, as well as the plaintiff; and the stores were at once closed, and possession delivered by them to the receiver appointed upon the filing of the petition. The avowed purposes of the plaintiff, in the course pursued by him, was to terminate the partnership, place its properly beyond the control of the firm, and insure the preference of the mortgagees, all of which was known to them at the time; .... (Cas cit., p. 343, Emphasis supplied).
It is natural that form these facts the Supreme Court of Ohio should draw the conclusion that the conveyances were made with intent to terminate the partnership, and that they were not within the powers of McGrath as a partner. But there is no similarity between those acts and the sale by the widow of Tan Sin An. In the McGrath case, the sale included even the fixtures used in the business; in our case, the lands sold were those acquired to be sold. In the McGrath case, none of the creditors were pressing for payment; in our case, the creditors had been unpaid for more than seven years, and their claims had been approved by the probate court for payment. In the McGrath case, the partnership received nothing beyond the discharge of its debts; in the present case, not only were its debts assumed by the buyers, but the latter paid, in addition, P37,000.00 in cash to the widow, to the profit of the partnership. Clearly, the McGrath ruling is not applicable.
We will now turn to the question of fraud. No direct evidence of it exists; but appellant point out, as indicia thereof, the allegedly low price paid for the property, and the relationship between the buyers, the creditors of the partnership, and the widow of Tan Sin An.
First, as to the price: As already noted, this property was actually sold for a total of P153,726.04, of which P37,000.00 was in cash, and the rest in partnership debts assumed by the purchaser. These debts (62,415.91 to Yutivo, and P54,310.13 to Sing Ye Cuan & Co.) are not questioned; they were approved by the court, and its approval is now final. The claims were, in fact, for the balance on the original purchase price of the land sold (sue first to La Urbana, later to the Banco Hipotecario) plus accrued interests and taxes, redeemed by the two creditors-claimants. To show that the price was inadquate, appellant relies on the testimony of the realtor Mata, who is 1955, six years after the sale in question, asserted that the land was worth P312,000.00. Taking into account the continued rise of real estate values since liberation, and the fact that the sale in question was practically a forced sale because the partnership had no other means to pay its legitimate debts, this evidence certainly does not show such "gross inadequacy" as to justify recission of the sale. If at the time of the sale (1949) the price of P153,726.04 was really low, how is it that appellant was not able to raise the amount, even if the creditor's representative, Yu Khe Thai, had already warned him four years before (1945) that the creditors wanted their money back, as they were justly entitled to?
It is argued that the land could have been mortgaged to raise the sum needed to discharge the debts. But the lands were already mortgaged, and had been mortgaged since 1940, first to La Urbana, and then to the Banco Hipotecario. Was it reasonable to expect that other persons would loan money to the partnership when it was unable even to pay the taxes on the property, and the interest on the principal since 1940? If it had been possible to find lenders willing to take a chance on such a bad financial record, would not Goquiolay have taken advantage of it? But the fact is clear on the record that since liberation until 1949 Goquiolay never lifted a finger to discharge the debts of the partnership. Is he entitled now to cry fraud after the debts were discharged with no help from him.
With regard to the relationship between the parties, suffice it to say that the Supreme Court has ruled that relationship alone is not a badge of fraud (Oria Hnos. vs. McMicking, 21 Phil. 243; also Hermandad del Smo. Nombre de Jesus vs. Sanchez, 40 Off. Gaz., 1685). There is no evidence that the original buyers, Washington Sycip and Betty Lee, were without independent means to purchase the property. That the Yutivos should be willing to extend credit to them, and not to appellant, is neither illegal nor immoral; at the very least, these buyers did not have a record of inveterate defaults like the partnership "Tan Sin An & Goquiolay".
Appellant seeks to create the impression that he was the victim of a conspiracy between the Yutivo firm and their component members. But no proof is adduced. If he was such a victim, he could have easily defeated the conspirators by raising money and paying off the firm's debts between 1945 and 1949; but he did not; he did not even care to look for a purchaser of the partnership assets. Were it true that the conspiracy to defraud him arose (as he claims) because of his refusal to sell the lands when in 1945 Yu Khe Thai asked him to do so, it is certainly strange that the conspirators should wait 4 years, until 1949, to have the sale effected by the widow of Tan Sin An, and that the sale should have been routed through the probate court taking cognizance of Tan Sin An's estate, all of which increased the risk that the supposed fraud should be detected.
Neither was there any anomaly in the filing of the claims of Yutivo and Sing Yee Cuan & Co., (as subrogees of the Banco Hipotecario) in proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Tan Sin An. This for two reasons: First, Tan Sin An and the partnership "Tan Sin An & Goquiolay" were solidary (Joint and several)debtors (Exhibits "N", mortgage to the Banco Hipotecario), and Rule 87, section 6 is the effect that:
Where the obligation of the decedent is joint and several with another debtor, the claim shall be filed against the decedent as if he were the only debtor, without prejudice to the right of the estate to recover contribution from the other debtor. (Emphasis supplied).
Secondly, the solidary obligation was guaranteed by a mortgage on the properties of the partnership and those of Tan Sim An personally, and a mortgage is indivisible, in the sense that each and every parcel under mortgage answers for the totality of the debt (Civ. Code of 1889, Article 1860; New Civil Code, Art. 2089).
A final and conclusive consideration: The fraud charged not being one used to obtain a party's consent to a contract (i.e., not being deceit or dolus in contrahendo), if there is fraud at al, it can only be a fraud of creditors that gives rise to a rescission of the offending contract. But by express provision of law (Article 1294, Civil Code of 1889; Article 1383, New Civil Code) "the action for rescission is subsidiary; it can not be instituted except when the party suffering damage has no other legal means to obtain reparation for the same". Since there is no allegation, or evidence, that Goquiolay can not obtain reparation from the widow and heirs of Tan Sin An, the present suit to rescind the sale in question is not maintainable, even if the fraud charged actually did exist.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Concepcion, Barrera and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Regala, J., took no part.
Separate Opinions
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J., dissenting:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao dismissing the complaint filed by Antonio C. Goquiolay, et al., seeking to annul the sale made Z. Sycip and Betty Y. Lee on the ground that it was executed without proper authority and under fraudulent circumstances. In a decision rendered on July 26, 1960 we affirmed this decision although on grounds different from those on which the latter is predicted. The case is once more before us on a motion for reconsideration filed by appellants raising both questions of fact and of law.
On May 29, 1940, Tan Sin An and Antonio C. Goquiolay executed in Davao City a commercial partnership for a period of ten years with a capital of P30,000.00 of which Goquiolay contributed P18,000.00 representing 60% while Tan Sin An P12,000.00 representing 40%. The business of the partnership was to engage in buying real estate properties for subdivision, resale and lease. The partnership was duly registered, and among the conditions agreed upon in the partnership agreement which are material to this case are: (1) that Tan Sin An would be the exclusive managing partner, and (2) in the event of the death of any of the partners the partnership would continue, the deceased to be represented by his heirs. On May 31, 1940, Goquiolay executed a general power of attorney in favor of Tan Sin An appointing the latter manager of the partnership and conferring upon him the usual powers of management.
On May 29, 1940, the partnership acquired three parcels of land known as Lots Nos. 526, 441 and 521 of the cadastral survey of Davao, the only assets of the partnership, with the capital orginally invested, financing the balance of the purchase price with a mortgage in favor of "La Urbana Sociedad Mutua de Construccion Prestamos" in the amount of P25,000.00, payable in ten years. On the same date, Tan Sin An, in his individual capacity, acquired 46 parcels of land executing a mortgage thereon in favor of the same company for the sum of P35,000.00. On September 25, 1940, these two mortgage obligations were consolidated and transferred to the Banco Hipotecario de Filipinas and as a result Tan Sin An, in his individual capacity, and the partnership bound themselves to pay jointly and severally the total amount of P52,282.80, with 8% annual interest thereon within a period of eight years mortgaging in favor of said entity the 3 parcels of land belonging to the partnership and the 46 parcels of land belonging individually to Tan Sin An.
Tan Sin An died on June 26, 1942 and was survived by his widow, defendant Kong Chai Pin, and four children, all of whom are minors of tender age. On March 18, 1944, Kong Chai Pin, was appointed administratrix of the intestate estate of Tan Sin An. And on the same date, Sing, Yee and Cuan Co., Inc. paid to the Banco Hipotecario the remaining unpaid balance of the mortgage obligation of the partnership amounting to P46,116.75 in Japanese currency.
Sometimes in 1945, after the liberation of Manila, Yu Khe Thai, president and general manager of Yutivo Sons Hardware Co. and Sing, Yee and Cuan Co., Inc., called for Goquiolay and the two had a conference in the office of the former during which he offered to buy the interest of Goquiolay in the partnership. In 1948, Kong Chai Pin, the widow, sent her counsel, Atty. Dominador Zuño, to ask Goquiolay to execute in her favor a power of attorney. Goquiolay refused both to sell his interest in the partnership as well as to execute the power of attorney.
Having failed to get Goquiolay to sell his share in the partnership, Yutivo Sons Hardware Co. and Sing, Yee and Cuan Co., Inc. filed in November, 1946 a claim each in the intestate proceedings of Tan Sin An for the sum of P84,705.48 and P66,529.91, respectively, alleging that they represent obligations of both Tan Sin An and the partnership. After first denying any knowledge of the claims, Kong Chai Pin, as administratrix, admitted later without qualification the two claims in an amended answer she filed on February 28, 1947. The admission was predicted on the ground that she and the creditors were closely related by blood, affinity and business ties. In due course, these two claims were approved by the court.
On March 29, 1949, more than two years after the approval of the claims, Kong Chai Pin filed a petition in the probate court to sell all the properties of the partnership as well as some of the conjugal properties left by Tan Sin An for the purpose of paying the claims. Following approval by the court of the petition for authority to sell, Kong Chai Pin, in her capacity as administratrix, and presuming to act as managing partner of the partnership, executed on April 4, 1949 a deed of sale of the properties owned by Tan Sin An and by the partnership in favor of Betty Y. Lee and Washington Z. Sycip in consideration of the payment to Kong Chai Pin of the sum of P37,000.00, and the assumption by the buyers of the claims filed by Yutivo & Sons Hardware Co. and Sing, Yee and Cuan Co., Inc. in whose favor the buyers executed a mortgage on the properties purchased. Betty Y. Lee and Washington Z. Zycip subsequently executed a deed of sale of the same properties in favor of their co-defendant Insular Development Company, Inc. It should be noted that these transactions took place without the knowledge of Goquiolay and it is admitted that Betty Lee and Washington Z. Sycip bought the properties on behalf of the ultimate buyer, the Insular Development Company, Inc., with money given by the latter.
Upon learning of the sale of the partnership properties, Goquiolay filed on July 25, 1949 in the intestate proceedings a petition to set aside the order of the court approving the sale. The court granted the petition. While the order was pending appeal in the Supreme Court, Goquiolay filed the present case on January 15, 1953 seeking to nullify the sale as stated in the early part of this decision. In the meantime, the Supreme Court remanded the original case to the probate court for rehearing due to lack of necessary parties.
The plaintiffs in their complaint challenged the authority of Kong Chai Pin to sell the partnership properties on the ground that she had no authority to sell because even granting that she became a partner upon the death of Tan Sin An the power of attorney granted in favor of the latter expired after his death.
Defendants, on the other hand, defended the validity of the sale on the theory that she succeeded to all the rights and prerogatives of Tan Sin an as managing partner.
The trial court sustained the validity of the sale on the ground that under the provisions of the articles of partnership allowing the heirs of the deceased partner to represent him in the partnership after his death Kong Chai Pin became a managing partner, this being the capacity held by Tan Sin an when he died.
In the decision rendered by this Court on July 26, 1960, we affirmed this decision but on different grounds, among which the salient points are: (1) the power of attorney given by Goquiloay to Tan Sin An as manager of the partnership expired after his death; (2) his widow Kong Chai Pin did not inherit the management of the partnership, it being a personal right; (3) as a general rule, the heirs of a deceased general partner come into the partnership in the capacity only of limited partners; (4) Kong Chai Pin, however, became a general partner because she exercised certain alleged acts of management; and (5) the sale being necessary to pay the obligations of the partnership properties without the consent of Goquiolay under the principle of estoppel the buyers having the right to rely on her acts of management and to believe her to be in fact the managing partner.
Considering that some of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law are without legal or factual basis, appellants have in due course filed a motion for reconsideration which because of the importance of the issues therein raised has been the subject of mature deliberation.
In support of said motion, appellants advanced the following arguments:
1. If the conclusion of the Court is that heirs as a general rule enter the partnership as limited partners only, therefore Kong Chai Pin, who must necessarily have entered the partnership as a limited partner originally, could have not chosen to be a general partner by exercising the alleged acts of management, because under Article 148 of the Code of Commerce a limited partner cannot intervene in the management of the partnership, even if given a power of attorney by the general partners. An Act prohibited by law cannot given rise to any right and is void under the express provisions of the Civil Code.
2. The buyers were not strangers to Kong Chai Pin, all of them being members of the Yu (Yutivo) family, the rest, members of the law firm which handles the Yutivo interests and handled the papers of sale. They did not rely on the alleged acts of management — they believed (this was the opinion of their lawyers) that Kong Chai Pin succeeded her husband as a managing partner and it was on this theory alone that they submitted the case in the lower court.
3. The alleged acts of management were denied and repudiated by the very witnesses presented by the defendants themselves.
The arguments advanced by appellants are in our opinion well-taken and furnish sufficient to reconsider our decision if we want to do justice to Antonio C. Goquiolay. And to justify this conclusion, it is enough that we lay stress on the following points: (1) there is no sufficient factual basis to conclude that Kong Chai Pin executed acts of management to give her the character of general manager of the partnership, or to serve as basis for estoppel that may benefit the purchasers of the partnership properties; (92) the alleged acts of management, even if proven, could not give Kong Chai Pin the character of general manager for the same contrary to law and well-known authorities; (3) even if Kong Chai Pin acted as general manager she had no authority to sell the partnership properties as to make it legal and valid; and (4) Kong Chai Pin had no necessity to sell the properties to pay the obligation of the partnership and if she did so it was merely to favor the purchasers who were close relatives to the prejudice of Goquiolay.
1. This point is pivotal for if Kong Chai Pin did not execute the acts of management imputed to her our ruling cannot be sustained. In making our aforesaid ruling we apparently gave particular importance to the fact that it was Goquiolay himself who tried to prove the acts of management. Appellants, however, have emphasized the fact, and with reason, the appellees themselves are the ones who denied and refuted the so-called acts of management imputed to Kong Chai Pin. To have a clear view of this factual situation, it becomes necessary that we analyze the evidence of record.
Plaintiff Goquiolay, it is intimated, testified on cross-examination that he had a conversation with one Hernando Young in Manila in the year 1945 who informed him that Kong Chai Pin "was attending to the properties and deriving some income therefrom and she had no other means of livelihood except those properties and some rentals derived from the properties." He went on to say by way of remark that she could continue doing this because he wanted to help her. One point that he emphasized was that he was "no interested in agricultural lands."
On the other hand, defendants presented Hernando Young, the same person referred to by Goquiolay, who was a close friend of the family of Kong Chai Pin, for the purpose of denying the testimony of Goquiolay. Young testified that in 1945 he was still in Davao, and insisted no less than six times during his testimony that he was not in Manila in 1945, the year when he allegedly gave the information to Goquiolay, stating that he arrived in Manila for the first time in 1947. He testified further that he had visited the partnership properties during the period covered by the alleged information given by him to Goquiolay and that he found them "abandoned and underdeveloped," and that Kong Chai Pin was not deriving any income from them.
The other witness for the defendants, Rufino Lim, also testified that he had seen the partnership properties and corroborated the testimony of Hernando Young in all respects: "the properties in Mamay were underdeveloped, the shacks were destroyed in Tigato, and the family of Kong Chai Pin did not receive my income from the partnership properties." He specifically rebutted the testimony of Goquiolay, in his deposition given on June 30, 1956 that Kong Chai Pin and her family were living in the partnership properties, and stated that the "family never actually lived in the properties of the partnership even before the war or after the war."
It is unquestionable that Goquiolay was merely repeating an information given to him by a third person, Hernando Young — he stressed this point twice. A careful analysis of the substance of Goquiolay's testimony will show that he merely had no objection to allowing Kong Chai Pin to continue attending to the properties in order to give her some means of livelihood, because, according to the information given him by Hernando Young, which he assumed to be true, Kong Chai Pin had no other means of livelihood. But certainly he made it very clear that he did not allow her to manage the partnership when he explained his reason for refusing to sign a general power of attorney for Kong Chai Pin which her counsel, Atty. Zuño, brought with him to his house in 1948. He said:
... Then Mr. Yu Eng Lai told me that he brought with him Atty. Zuño and he asked me if I could execute a general power of attorney for Mrs. Kong Chai Pin. Then I told Atty. Zuño what is the use of executing a general power of attorney for Mrs. Kong Chai Pin when Mrs. Kong Chai Pin had already got that plantation for agricultural purposes, I said for agricultural purposes she can use that plantation ... (T.S.N. p. 9, Hearing on May 5, 1955).
It must be noted that in his testimony Goquiolay was categorically stating his opposition to the management of the partnership by Kong Chai Pin and carefully made the distinction that his conformity was for her to attend to the partnership properties in order to give her merely a means of livelihood. It should be stated that the period covered by the testimony refers to the period of occupation when living condition was difficult and precarious. And Atty. Zuño, it should also be stated, did not deny the statement of Goquiolay.
It can therefore be seen that the question as to whether Kong Chai Pin exercised certain acts of management of the partnership properties is highly controverted. The most that we can say is that the alleged acts are doubtful more so when they are disputed by the defendants themselves who later became the purchasers of the properties, and yet these alleged acts, if at all, only refer to management of the properties and not to management of the partnership, which are two different things.
In resume, we may conclude that the sale of the partnership properties by Kong Chai Pin cannot be upheld on the ground of estoppel, first, because the alleged acts of management have not been clearly proven; second, because the record clearly shows that the defendants, or the buyers, were not misled nor did they rely on the acts of management, but instead they acted solely on the opinion of their counsel, Atty. Quisumbing, to the effect that she succeeded her husband in the partnership as managing partner by operation of law; and third, because the defendants are themselves estopped to invoke a defense which they tried to dispute and repudiate.
2. Assuming arguendo that the acts of management imputed to Kong Chai Pin are true, could such acts give as we have concluded in our decision?
Our answer is in the negative because it is contrary to law and precedents. Garrigues, a well-known commentator, is clearly of the opinion that mere acceptance of the inheritance does not maked the heir of a general partner a general partner himself. He emphasized that heir must declare that he is entering the partnership as a general partner unless the deceased partner has made it an express condition in his will that the heir accepts the condition of entering the partnership as a prerequisite of inheritance, in which case acceptance of the inheritance is enough.1 But here Tan Sin An died intestate.
Now, could Kong Chai Pin be deemed to have declared her intention to become a general partner by exercising acts of management? We believe not, for, in consonance with our ruling that as a general rule the heirs of a deceased partner succeed as limited partners only by operation of law, it is obvious that the heirs, upon entering the partnership, must make a declaration of his characters, otherwise he should be deemed as having succeeded as limited partner by the mere acceptance of the inheritance. And here Kong Chai Pin did not make such declaration. Being then a limited partner upon the death of Tan Sin An by operation of law, the peremptory prohibition contained in Article 1482 of the Code of Commerce became binding upon her and as a result she could not change her status by violating its provisions not only under the general principle that prohibited acts cannot produce any legal effect, but also because under the provisions of Article 1473 of the same Code she was precluded from acquiring more rights than those pertaining to her as a limited partner. The alleged acts of management, therefore, did not give Kong Chai Pin the character of general manager to authorized her to bind the partnership.
Assuming also arguendo that the alleged acts of management imputed to Kong Chai Pin gave her the character of a general partner, could she sell the partnership properties without authority from the other partners?
Our answer is also in the negative in the light of the provisions of the articles of partnership and the pertinent provisions of the Code of Commerce and the Civil Code. Thus, Article 129 of the Code of Commerce says: —
If the management of the general partnership has not been limited by special agreement to any of the members, all shall have the power to take part in the direction and management of the common business, and the members present shall come to an agreement for all contracts or obligations which may concern the association.
And the pertinent portions of the articles of partnership provides:
VII. The affairs of the co-partnership shall be managed exclusively by the managing partner or by his authorized agent, and it is expressly stipulated that the managing partner may delegate the entire management of the affairs of the co-partnership by irrevocable power of attorney to any person, firm or corporation he may select, upon such terms as regards compensation as he may deem proper, and vest in such person, firm or corporation full power and authority, as the agent of the co-partnership and in his name, place and stead to do anything for it or on his behalf which he as such managing partner might do or cause to be done. (Page 23, Record on Appeal).
It would thus be seen that the powers of the managing partner are not defined either under the provisions of the Code of Commerce or in the articles of partnership, a situation which, under Article 2 of the same Code, renders applicable herein the provisions of the Civil Code. And since, according to well-known authorities, the relationship between a managing partner and the partnership is substantially the same as that of the agent and his principal,4 the extent of the power of Kong Chai Pin must, therefore, be determined under the general principles governing agency. And, on this point, the law says that an agency created in general terms includes only acts of administrations, but with regard to the power to compromise, sell mortgage, and other acts of strict ownership, an express power of attorney is required.5 Here Kong Chai Pin did not have such power when she sold the properties of the partnership.
Of course, there is authority to the effect that a managing partner, even without express power of attorney may perform acts affecting ownership if the same are necessary to promote or accomplish a declared object of the partnership, but here the transaction is not for this purpose. It was effected not to promote any avowed object of the partnership.6 Rather, the sale was affected to pay an obligation of the partnership by selling its real properties which Kong Chai Pin could not do without express authority. The authorities supporting this view are overwhelming.
La enajenacion puede entrar en las facultades del gerente, cuando es conforme a los fines sociales. Pero esta facultad de enajenar limitada a las ventas conforme a los fines sociales, viene limitada a los objetos de comercio, o a los productos de la fabrica para explotacion de los cauale se ha constituido la Sociedad. Ocurrira una cosa parecida cuando el objeto de la Sociedad fuese la compra y venta de inmuebles, en cuyo caso el gerente estaria facultado para otorgar las ventas que fuere necesario. Por el contrario el generente no tiene attribuciones para vender las instalaciones del comercio, ni la fabrica, ni las maquinarias, vehiculos de transporte, etc. que forman parte de la explotacion social. En todos estas casos, equalmente que sisse tratase de la venta de una marca o procedimiento mecanico o quimico, etc., siendo actos de disposicion, seria necesario contar con la conformidad expresa de todos los socios. (R. Gay de Montella, id., pp. 223-224; Emphasis supplied).
Los poderes de los Administradores no tienen ante el silencio del contrato otros limites que los señalados por el objeto de la Sociedad y, por consiguiente, pueden llevar a cabo todas las operaciones que sirven para aquel ejercicio, incluso cambiando repetidas veces los propios acuerdos segun el interest convenido de la Sociedad. Pueden contratar y despedir a los empleados. tomar en arriendo almacenes y tiendas; expedir cambiales, girarlas, avalarlas, dar en prenda o en hipoteca los bienes de la sociedad y adquirir inmuebles destinados a su explotacion o al empleo, estable de sus capitales. Pero no podran ejecutar los actos que esten en contradiccion con la explotacion que les fue confiada; no podran cambiar el objeto, el domicilio, la razon social; fundir a la Sociedad en otro; ceder la accion, y por tanto, el uso de la firma social a otro, renunciar definitivamente el ejercicio de uno de otro ramo comercio que se les haya confiado y enajenar o pignorar el taller o el banco social, excepto que la venta o pignoracion tengan por el objeto procurar los medios necesarios para la continuacion de la empresa social. (Cesar Vivante, Tratado de Derecho Mercantil, pp. 124-125, Vol. II, 1a. ed.; Emphasis supplied).
The act of one partner, to bind the firm, must be necessary for the carrying one of its business. If all that can be said of it was that it was convenient, or that it facilitated the transaction of the business of the firm, that is not sufficient, in the absence of evidence of sanction by other partners. Nor, it, seems, will necessity itself be sufficient if it be an extraordinary necessity. What is necessary for carrying on the business of the firm under ordinary circumstances and in the usual way, is the test. Lindl. Partn. Sec. 126. While, within this rule, one member of a partnership may, in the usual and ordinary course of its business, make a valid sale or pledge, by way of mortgage or otherwise, of all or part of its effects intended for sale, to a bona fide purchaser of mortgagee, without the consent of the other members of the firm, it is not within the scope of his implied authority to make a final disposition of al of its effects, including those employed as the means of carrying on its business, the object and effect of which is to immediately terminate the partnership, and place its property beyond its control. Such a disposition, instead of being within the scope of the partnership business, or in the usual and ordinary way of carrying it on, is necessarily subversive of the object of the partnership, and contrary to the presumed intention of the partnership in its formation. (McGrath, et al. vs. Cowen, et al., 49 N.E., 338, 343; Emphasis supplied).
Since Kong Chai Pin sold the partnership properties not in line with the business of the partnership but to pay its obligation without first obtaining the consent of the other partners the sale is invalid in excess of her authority.
4. Finally, the sale under consideration was effected in a suspicious manner as may be gleaned from the following circumstances:
(a) The properties subject of the instant sale which consist of three parcels of land situated in the City of Davao have an area of 200 hectares more or less, or 2,000,000 square meters. These properties were purchased by the partnership for purposes of subdivision. According to realtor Mata, who testified in court, these properties could command at the time he testified a value of not less than P312,000.00, and according to Dalton Chen, manager of the firm which took over the administration, since the date of sale no improvement was ever made thereon precisely because of this litigation. And yet, for said properties, aside from the sum of P37,000.00 which was paid for the properties of the deceased and the partnership, only the paltry sum of P66,529.91 was paid as a consideration therefor, of which the sum of P46,116.75 was even paid in Japanese currency.
(b) Considering the area of the properties Kong Chai Pin had no valid reason to sell them if her purpose was only to pay the partnership obligation. She could have negotiated a loan if she wanted to pay it by placing the properties as security, but preferred to sell them even at such low price because of her close relationship with the purchasers and creditors who conveniently organized a partnership to exploit them, as may be seen from the following relationship of their pedigree:
KONG CHAI PIN, the administratrix, was a grandaughter of Jose P. Yutivo, founder of the defendant Yutivo Sons Hardware Co. YUTIVO SONS HARDWARE CO. and SING, YEE & CUAN CO., INC., alleged creditors, are owned by the heirs of Jose P. Yutivo (Sing, Yee & Cuan are the three children of Jose). YU KHE THAI is a grandson of the same Jose P. Yutivo, and president of the two alleged creditors. He is the acknowledged head of the Yu families. WASHINGTON Z. SYCIP, one of the original buyers, is married to Ana Yu, a daughter of Yu Khe Thai. BETTY Y. LEE, the other original buyer is also a daughter of Yu Khe Thai. The INSULAR DEVELOPMENT CO., the ultimate buyer, was organized for the specific purpose of buying the partnership properties. Its incorporators were: Ana Yu and Betty Y. Lee, Attys. Quisumbing and Salazar, the lawyers who studied the papers of the sale and have been counsel for the Yutivo interests; Dalton Chen, a brother-in-law of Yu Khe Thai and an executive of Sing, Yee & Cuan Co; Lillian Yu, daughter of Yu Eng Poh, an executive of Yutivo Sons Hardware, and Simeon Daguiwag, a trusted employee of the Yutivos.
(c) Lastly, even since Tan Sin An died in 1942 the creditors, who were close relatives of Kong Chai Pin, have already conceived the idea of possessing the lands for purposes of subdivision, excluding Goquilolay from their plan, and this is evident from the following sequence of events;lawphil.net
Tan Sin An died in 1942 and intestate proceedings were opened in 1944. In 1946, the creditors of the partnership filed their claim against the partnership in the intestate proceedings. The creditors studied ways and means of liquidating the obligation of the partnership, leading to the formation of the defendant Insular Development Co., composed of members of the Yutivo family and the counsel of record of the defendants, which subsequently bought the properties of the partnership and assumed the obligation of the latter in favor of the creditors of the partnership, Yutivo Sons Hardware and Sing, Yee & Cuan, also of the Yutivo family. The buyers took time to study the commercial potentialities of the partnership properties and their lawyers carefully studied the document and other papers involved in the transaction. All these steps led finally to the sale of the three partnership properties.
UPON THE STRENGTH OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, I vote to grant the motion for reconsideration.
Labrador, Paredes, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Tratado de Derecho Mercantil, Tomo I, Vol. 38, pp. 1211-1212.
2 ... The limited partner may not perform any act in the administration of the interests of the company, even in the capacity of attorney-in-fact of the managing partners.
3 Should any limited partner include his name or allow its inclusion in the firm name, he shall be subject, with respect to person not members, without acquiring more rights than those corresponding to his character as limited partner. (Emphasis supplied).
4 Derecho Mercanti, David Supino, 4a ed., p. 179; Cesar Vivante, Tratado de Derecho Mercantil, pp. 124-125, Vol. II, 1a. ed., R. Gay de Montella, Tratado Practico de Sociedades Mercantiles, pp. 223-224, Tomo I, 3a. ed.
5 Article 1713, Spanish Civil Code.
6 The main business of the partnership is to engage in real estate business in general, particularly in buying and selling real estate. (Page 23, Record on Appeal)
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
