Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 299 views

    Case Digest ANG PUE vs. SECRETARY

    Uploaded by

    Hannahboi G Descky
    - Ang Pue & Company was a partnership between two Chinese citizens formed in 1953 for five years to operate a general merchandise business in the Philippines. - In 1954, the Philippine government passed a law requiring retail businesses to be wholly owned by Filipinos. This law allowed partnerships not wholly owned by Filipinos to continue operating until their term expired. - In 1958, before the original five year term expired but after the new law was passed, the partners amended the partnership agreement to extend the term another five years. However, registration of the extension was refused because it violated the new law. - The court upheld the refusal, finding that the right to form and extend partnerships was a privilege subject to laws,

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest ANG PUE vs. SECRETARY

    Uploaded by

    Hannahboi G Descky
    299 views1 page
    - Ang Pue & Company was a partnership between two Chinese citizens formed in 1953 for five years to operate a general merchandise business in the Philippines. - In 1954, the Philippine government passed a law requiring retail businesses to be wholly owned by Filipinos. This law allowed partnerships not wholly owned by Filipinos to continue operating until their term expired. - In 1958, before the original five year term expired but after the new law was passed, the partners amended the partnership agreement to extend the term another five years. However, registration of the extension was refused because it violated the new law. - The court upheld the refusal, finding that the right to form and extend partnerships was a privilege subject to laws,

    Original Description:

    digest-property

    Original Title

    case digest ANG PUE vs. SECRETARY.docx

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Ang Pue & Company was a partnership between two Chinese citizens formed in 1953 for five years to operate a general merchandise business in the Philippines. - In 1954, the Philippine government passed a law requiring retail businesses to be wholly owned by Filipinos. This law allowed partnerships not wholly owned by Filipinos to continue operating until their term expired. - In 1958, before the original five year term expired but after the new law was passed, the partners amended the partnership agreement to extend the term another five years. However, registration of the extension was refused because it violated the new law. - The court upheld the refusal, finding that the right to form and extend partnerships was a privilege subject to laws,

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    299 views1 page

    Case Digest ANG PUE vs. SECRETARY

    Uploaded by

    Hannahboi G Descky
    - Ang Pue & Company was a partnership between two Chinese citizens formed in 1953 for five years to operate a general merchandise business in the Philippines. - In 1954, the Philippine government passed a law requiring retail businesses to be wholly owned by Filipinos. This law allowed partnerships not wholly owned by Filipinos to continue operating until their term expired. - In 1958, before the original five year term expired but after the new law was passed, the partners amended the partnership agreement to extend the term another five years. However, registration of the extension was refused because it violated the new law. - The court upheld the refusal, finding that the right to form and extend partnerships was a privilege subject to laws,

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ANG PUE vs.

    SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FACTS: On May 1, 1953, Ang Pue and Tan Siong, both Chinese citizens, organized the partnership Ang Pue & Company for a term of five years from May 1, 1953, extendible by their mutual consent. The purpose of the partnership was "to maintain the business of general merchandising, buying and selling at wholesale and retail, particularly of lumber, hardware and other construction materials for commerce, either native or foreign." On June 19, 1954 Republic Act No. 1180 was enacted to regulate the retail business. It provided, among other things, that, after its enactment, a partnership not wholly formed by Filipinos could continue to engage in the retail business until the expiration of its term. On April 15, 1958 prior to the expiration of the five-year term of the partnership Ang Pue & Company, but after the enactment of the Republic Act 1180, the partners already mentioned amended the original articles of part ownership so as to extend the term of life of the partnership to another five years. When the amended articles were presented for registration in the Office of the Securities & Exchange Commission on April 16, 1958, registration was refused upon the ground that the extension was in violation of the aforesaid Act. ISSUE: Whether or not the refusal for the extension of the life of the partnership was valid RULING: The question before us is too clear to require an extended discussion. To organize a corporation or a partnership that could claim a juridical personality of its own and transact business as such, is not a matter of absolute right but a privilege which may be enjoyed only under such terms as the State may deem necessary to impose. That the State, through Congress, and in the manner provided by law, had the right to enact Republic Act No. 1180 and to provide therein that only Filipinos and concerns wholly owned by Filipinos may engage in the retail business can not be seriously disputed. That this provision was clearly intended to apply to partnership already existing at the time of the enactment of the law is clearly showing by its provision giving them the right to continue engaging in their retail business until the expiration of their term or life. To argue that because the original articles of partnership provided that the partners could extend the term of the partnership, the provisions of Republic Act 1180 cannot be adversely affect appellants herein, is to erroneously assume that the aforesaid provision constitute a property right of which the partners can not be deprived without due process or without their consent. The agreement contain therein must be deemed subject to the law existing at the time when the partners came to agree regarding the extension. In the present case, as already stated, when the partners amended the articles of partnership, the provisions of Republic Act 1180 were already in force, and there can be not the slightest doubt that the right claimed by appellants to extend the original term of their partnership to another five years would be in violation of the clear intent and purpose of the law aforesaid. part.

    You might also like