Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    Negado vs. Makabenta

    Uploaded by

    daybarba
    1. The court found that a partnership existed between the parties based on their conduct and dealings with each other, even without a definite intention to form a partnership. 2. Books, papers, accounts and similar writings are admissible as evidence to show the existence of a partnership, as long as the party against whom they are offered authorized or ratified them. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in finding no partnership existed and in excluding the plaintiffs' oral and documentary evidence, overturning the lower court's decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Negado vs. Makabenta

    Uploaded by

    daybarba
    77 views1 page
    1. The court found that a partnership existed between the parties based on their conduct and dealings with each other, even without a definite intention to form a partnership. 2. Books, papers, accounts and similar writings are admissible as evidence to show the existence of a partnership, as long as the party against whom they are offered authorized or ratified them. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in finding no partnership existed and in excluding the plaintiffs' oral and documentary evidence, overturning the lower court's decision.

    Original Description:

    Negado Vs. Makabenta

    Original Title

    NEGADO VS. MAKABENTA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The court found that a partnership existed between the parties based on their conduct and dealings with each other, even without a definite intention to form a partnership. 2. Books, papers, accounts and similar writings are admissible as evidence to show the existence of a partnership, as long as the party against whom they are offered authorized or ratified them. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in finding no partnership existed and in excluding the plaintiffs' oral and documentary evidence, overturning the lower court's decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    77 views1 page

    Negado vs. Makabenta

    Uploaded by

    daybarba
    1. The court found that a partnership existed between the parties based on their conduct and dealings with each other, even without a definite intention to form a partnership. 2. Books, papers, accounts and similar writings are admissible as evidence to show the existence of a partnership, as long as the party against whom they are offered authorized or ratified them. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in finding no partnership existed and in excluding the plaintiffs' oral and documentary evidence, overturning the lower court's decision.

    Copyright:

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

    NEGADO VS. MAKABENTA, 54 O.G. 4082 Decision: There exists a partnership.

    In determining whether or not a


    particular transaction constitutes partnership, the intention as disclosed by
    Castro, J. the entire transaction, and as gathered from the facts and from the language
    employed by the parties as well as their conduct. A partnership may be
    created without any definite intention to create it, the intention of the parties
    Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Leyte being inferred from their conduct and dealings with each other. For the
    purpose of showing the existence of a partnership, books, papers, accounts
    Keywords: Evidence / showing existence of partnership : books, papers,
    and similar writings are admissible as evidence provided that the party
    accounts and similar writings are admissible provided that the party against
    against whom they are offered is shown to have authorized or ratified them
    whom they are offered is shown to have authorized or ratified them
    Same Same:

    1. EVIDENCE; PARTNERSHIP; PROOF OF INTENTION OF PARTIES PARAMOUNT


    Parties:
    -- In determining whether or not a particular transaction constitutes a
    Petitioner: Filomeno Negado, Narciso Rocha, and Juan Guirindola partnership as between the parties, the intention as disclosed by the entire
    transaction, and as gathered from the facts and from the language employed
    Respondents: Gonzalo Makabenta by the parties, as well as their conduct, should be ascertained. A partnership
    may even be created without any definite intention to create it, the intention
    of the parties being Inferred from their conduct and dealings with each other.
    Filomeno Negado, Narciso Rocha, and Juan Guirindola vs Gonzalo
    2. PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTNERSHIP -- For the purpose of
    Makabenta 54 OG 40822 8 February 1958
    showing the existence of a partnership, books, papers, accounts and similar
    Facts: Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for the recovery of writings are admissible provided the party against whom they are offered is
    possession and management of Liberty Theater located in Leyte and for an shown to have authorized or ratified them, or in any way, to have been legally
    accounting of all money and property pertaining thereto. The plaintiffs allege responsible for them [See Kiel vs Estate of Sabert 46 Phil. 198; 68 C.J. S. 415;
    that the theater is owned and operated by a partnership known as Hemarogui Berret vs Harrel, 125 W. 2394, 178 Ark,]
    Company composed of the plaintiffs and defendant. Conversely, the
    defendant alleges that he is the sole and exclusive owner of the theater while
    the plaintiffs are merely creditor. The trial court held that no partnership
    exists and the oral and material evidence (books,accounts, and papers)
    presented by the plaintiffs are incompetent to establish existence of the
    partnership.

    Issue: Whether or not a partnership exists among Negado, Rocha, Guirindola


    and Makabenta 3

    You might also like