Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 430 views

    G.R. No. 143340

    Uploaded by

    Elle
    Respondent alleged he had a verbal partnership agreement with Jacinto to run a business registered under Jacinto's name as sole proprietor. After Jacinto's death, his wife and daughter (the petitioners) took over the business without respondent's consent. Petitioners denied any liability to respondent for partnership shares or profits. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondent, finding a partnership existed. Petitioners argue the courts should not have considered testimony from respondent and his witness to prove the partnership, as it violates the "Dead Man's Statute" which prohibits testimony against a deceased person.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 143340

    Uploaded by

    Elle
    430 views1 page
    Respondent alleged he had a verbal partnership agreement with Jacinto to run a business registered under Jacinto's name as sole proprietor. After Jacinto's death, his wife and daughter (the petitioners) took over the business without respondent's consent. Petitioners denied any liability to respondent for partnership shares or profits. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondent, finding a partnership existed. Petitioners argue the courts should not have considered testimony from respondent and his witness to prove the partnership, as it violates the "Dead Man's Statute" which prohibits testimony against a deceased person.

    Original Description:

    facts (partnership)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent alleged he had a verbal partnership agreement with Jacinto to run a business registered under Jacinto's name as sole proprietor. After Jacinto's death, his wife and daughter (the petitioners) took over the business without respondent's consent. Petitioners denied any liability to respondent for partnership shares or profits. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondent, finding a partnership existed. Petitioners argue the courts should not have considered testimony from respondent and his witness to prove the partnership, as it violates the "Dead Man's Statute" which prohibits testimony against a deceased person.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 143340

    Uploaded by

    Elle
    Respondent alleged he had a verbal partnership agreement with Jacinto to run a business registered under Jacinto's name as sole proprietor. After Jacinto's death, his wife and daughter (the petitioners) took over the business without respondent's consent. Petitioners denied any liability to respondent for partnership shares or profits. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondent, finding a partnership existed. Petitioners argue the courts should not have considered testimony from respondent and his witness to prove the partnership, as it violates the "Dead Man's Statute" which prohibits testimony against a deceased person.

    Copyright:

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

    LILIBETH SUNGA-CHAN and CECILIA SUNGA, petitioners, vs.

    LAMBERTO T. CHUA, respondent.


    G.R. No. 143340 August 15, 2001
    FACTS:
    Respondent alleged that, he verbally entered into a business partnership with Jacinto. Respondent and Jacinto allegedly
    agreed to register the business name of their partnership, under the name of Jacinto as a sole proprietorship. The
    partnership allegedly had Jacinto as manager, assisted by Josephine Sy, a sister of the wife respondent, Erlinda Sy.
    Upon Jacinto's death, his surviving wife, petitioner Cecilia and particularly his daughter, petitioner Lilibeth, took over the
    operations, control, custody, disposition and management of Shellite without respondent's consent. Despite respondent's
    repeated demands upon petitioners for accounting, inventory, appraisal, winding up and restitution of his net shares in the
    partnership, petitioners failed to comply.
    Petitioners filed their Answer with Compulsory Counter-claims, contending that they are not liable for partnership shares,
    unreceived income/profits, interests, damages and attorney's fees, that respondent does not have a cause of action against
    them, and that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action, the SEC being the agency that has original
    and exclusive jurisdiction over the case. As counterclaim, petitioner sought attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.
    The trial court rendered its Decision ruling for respondent. Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal with the trial court, the CA
    dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition.
    Petitioners question the correctness of the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that a partnership existed
    between respondent and Jacinto from 1977 until Jacinto's death. In the absence of any written document to show such
    partnership between respondent and Jacinto, petitioners argues that these courts were proscribes from hearing the
    testimonies of respondent and his witness, Josephine, to prove the alleged partnership three years after Jacinto's death. To
    support this argument, petitioners invoke the "Dead Man's Statute' or "Survivorship Rule" under Section 23, Rule 130 of the
    Rules of Court.
    Petitioners thus implore this Court to rule that the testimonies of respondent and his alter ego, Josephine, should not have
    been admitted to prove certain claims against a deceased person (Jacinto), now represented by petitioners.

    You might also like