Page 1 of 9

ISSUES
1. Whether there was a valid assignment or rights to the joint venture
JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT vs. PROSENCIO D. JASO and 2. Whether the joint venture is a contract of partnership
3. Whether Jaso acquired the title of being a partner based on the Deed of
EDENG JASO Assignment
G.R. No. 178782 September 21, 2011
RULING
FACTS 1. Yes. As a public document, the Deed of Assignment Biondo executed in favor
Petitioner Josefina Realubit entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with of Eden not only enjoys a presumption of regularity but is also considered prima
Francis Eric Amaury Biondo, a French national, for the operation of an ice facie evidence of the facts therein stated. A party assailing the authenticity and due
manufacturing business. With Josefina as the industrial partner and Biondo as the execution of a notarized document is, consequently, required to present evidence
capitalist partner, the parties agreed that they would each receive 40% of the net that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. In view of the Spouses
profit, with the remaining 20% to be used for the payment of the ice making Realubits failure to discharge this onus, we find that both the RTC and the CA
machine which was purchased for the business. For and in consideration of the sum correctly upheld the authenticity and validity of said Deed of Assignment upon the
of P500,000.00, however, Biondo subsequently executed a Deed of combined strength of the above-discussed disputable presumptions and the
Assignment transferring all his rights and interests in the business in favor of testimonies elicited from Eden and Notary Public Rolando Diaz.
respondent Eden Jaso, the wife of respondent Prosencio Jaso. With Biondo’s
eventual departure from the country, the Spouses Jaso caused their lawyer to send 2. Yes. Generally understood to mean an organization formed for some
Josefina a letter apprising her of their acquisition of said Frenchmans share in the temporary purpose, a joint venture is likened to a particular partnership or one
business and formally demanding an accounting and inventory thereof as well as which has for its object determinate things, their use or fruits, or a specific
the remittance of their portion of its profits. undertaking, or the exercise of a profession or vocation. The rule is settled that joint
ventures are governed by the law on partnerships which are, in turn, based on
Faulting Josefina with unjustified failure to heed their demand, the Spouses mutual agency or delectus personae.
Jaso commenced the instant suit for specific performance, accounting, examination,
audit and inventory of assets and properties, dissolution of the joint venture, 3. No. It is evident that the transfer by a partner of his partnership interest does
appointment of a receiver and damages. The said complaint alleged that the not make the assignee of such interest a partner of the firm, nor entitle the assignee
Spouses Realubit had no gainful occupation or business prior to their joint venture to interfere in the management of the partnership business or to receive anything
with Biondo and that aside from appropriating for themselves the income of the except the assignees profits. The assignment does not purport to transfer an
business, they have fraudulently concealed the funds and assets thereof thru their interest in the partnership, but only a future contingent right to a portion of the
relatives, associates or dummies. The Spouses Realubit claimed that they have been ultimate residue as the assignor may become entitled to receive by virtue of his
engaged in the tube ice trading business under a single proprietorship even before proportionate interest in the capital. Since a partner’s interest in the partnership
their dealings with Biondo. includes his share in the profits, we find that the CA committed no reversible error
in ruling that the Spouses Jaso are entitled to Biondos share in the profits, despite
The RTC rendered its Decision discounting the existence of sufficient Juanitas lack of consent to the assignment of said Frenchmans interest in the joint
evidence from which the income, assets and the supposed dissolution of the joint venture. Although Eden did not, moreover, become a partner as a consequence of
venture can be adequately reckoned. Upon the finding, however, that the Spouses the assignment and/or acquire the right to require an accounting of the partnership
Jaso had been nevertheless subrogated to Biondos rights in the business in view of business, the CA correctly granted her prayer for dissolution of the joint venture
their valid acquisition of the latters share as capitalist partner. On appeal before the conformably with the right granted to the purchaser of a partner’s interest under
CA, the foregoing decision was set aside Article 1831 of the Civil Code.
upon the following findings that the Spouses Jaso validly acquired Biondos share in
the business which had been transferred to and continued its operations and not
dissolved as claimed by the Spouses Realubit.

 Page 2 of 9

G.R. No. 178782. September 21, 2011.* disputable presumptions and the testimonies elicited from Eden and
JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT, petitioner, vs. PROSENCIO D. Notary Public Rolando Diaz.
JASO and EDEN G. JASO, respondents. Joint Ventures; Partnership; Agency; Words and Phrases;
Evidence; Public Documents; Notarial Law; It is a settled rule Generally understood to mean an organization formed for some
that documents acknowledged before notaries public are public temporary purpose, a joint venture is likened to a particular
documents which are admissible in evidence without necessity of partnership or one which “has for its object determinate things, their
preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution.—The use or fruits, or a specific undertaking, or the exercise of a profession
Spouses Realubit argue that, in upholding its validity, both the RTC or vocation”; The rule is settled that joint ventures are governed by the
and the CA inordinately gave premium to the notarization of the 27 law on partnerships which are, in turn, based on mutual agency or
June 1997 Deed of Assignment executed by Biondo in favor of the delectus personae.—Generally understood to mean an organization
Spouses Jaso. Calling attention to the latter’s failure to present before formed for some temporary purpose, a joint venture is likened to a
the RTC said assignor or, at the very least, the witnesses to said particular partnership or one which “has for its object determinate
document, the Spouses Realubit maintain that the testimony of things, their use or fruits, or a specific undertaking, or the exercise of
Rolando Diaz, the Notary Public before whom the same was a profession or vocation.” The rule is settled that joint ventures are
acknowledged, did not suffice to establish its authenticity and/or governed by the law on partnerships which are, in turn, based on
validity. They insist that notarization did not automatically and mutual agency or delectus personae. Insofar as a partner’s conveyance
conclusively confer validity on said deed, since it is still entirely of the entirety of his interest in the partnership is concerned, Article
possible that Biondo did not execute said deed or, for that matter, 1813 of the Civil Code provides as follows: Art. 1813. A conveyance by
appear before said notary public. The dearth of merit in the Spouses a partner of his whole interest in the partnership does not itself
Realubit’s position is, however, immediately evident from the settled dissolve the partnership, or, as against the other partners in the
rule that documents acknowledged before notaries public are public absence of agreement, entitle the assignee, during the continuance of
documents which are admissible in evidence without necessity of the partnership, to interfere in the management or administration of
preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution. the partnership business or affairs, or to require any information or
Same; Same; Same; A public document not only enjoys a account of partnership transactions, or to inspect the partnership
presumption of regularity but is also considered prima facie evidence books; but it merely entitles the assignee to receive in accordance with
of the facts therein stated—a party assailing the authenticity and due his contracts the profits to which the assigning partners would
execution of a notarized document is, consequently, required to present otherwise be entitled. However, in case of fraud in the management
evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely of the partnership, the assignee may avail himself of the usual
preponderant.—It cannot be gainsaid that, as a public document, remedies. In the case of a dissolution of the partnership, the assignee
the Deed of Assignment Biondo executed in favor of Eden not only is entitled to receive his assignor’s interest and may require an
enjoys a presumption of regularity but is also considered prima account from the date only of the last account agreed to by all the
facie evidence of the facts therein stated. A party assailing the partners.
authenticity and due execution of a notarized document is, Same; Same; Same; The transfer by a partner of his partnership
consequently, required to present evidence that is clear, convincing interest does not make the assignee of such interest a partner of the
and more than merely preponderant. In view of the Spouses firm, nor entitle the assignee to interfere in the management of the
Realubit’s failure to discharge this onus, we find that both the RTC partnership business or to receive anything except the assignee’s
and the CA correctly upheld the authenticity and validity of said Deed profits.—From the foregoing provision, it is evident that “(t)he
of Assignment upon the combined strength of the above-discussed transfer by a partner of his partnership interest does not make the
 Page 3 of 9

assignee of such interest a partner of the firm, nor entitle the assignee findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of
to interfere in the management of the partnership business or to evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. Unfortunately
receive anything except the assignee’s profits. The assignment does for the Spouses Realubit’s cause, not one of the foregoing exceptions
not purport to transfer an interest in the partnership, but only a applies to the case.
future contingent right to a portion of the ultimate residue as the PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of
assignor may become entitled to receive by virtue of his proportionate Appeals.
interest in the capital.” Since a partner’s interest in the partnership The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
includes his share in the profits, we find that the CA committed no Dante G. Huerta for petitioner.
reversible error in ruling that the Spouses Jaso are entitled to
Jaso, Dorillo & Associates for respondents.
Biondo’s share in the profits, despite Juanita’s lack of consent to the
assignment of said Frenchman’s interest in the joint venture.
Although Eden did not, moreover, become a partner as a consequence
of the assignment and/or acquire the right to require an accounting of
the partnership business, the CA correctly granted her prayer for
dissolution of the joint venture conformably with the right granted to
the purchaser of a partner’s interest under Article 1831 of the Civil
Code.
Appeals; Evidence; As a rule, findings of fact of the Court of
Appeals are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will
not be reviewed or disturbed on appeal; Exceptions.—Based on the
evidence on record, moreover, both the RTC and the CA ruled out the
dissolution of the joint venture and concluded that the ice
manufacturing business at the aforesaid address was the same one
established by Juanita and Biondo. As a rule, findings of fact of the
CA are binding and conclusive upon this Court, and will not be
reviewed or disturbed on appeal unless the case falls under any of the
following recognized exceptions: (1) when the conclusion is a finding
grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) when
the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3)
where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the
issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of
the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners’ main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and, (10) when the
 Page 4 of 9

Republic of the Philippines sum of ₱500,000.00, however, Biondo subsequently executed a Deed of
SUPREME COURT Assignment dated 27 June 1997, transferring all his rights and interests in
Manila the business in favor of respondent Eden Jaso (Eden), the wife of
respondent Prosencio Jaso.6 With Biondo’s eventual departure from the
SECOND DIVISION country, the Spouses Jaso caused their lawyer to send Josefina a letter
dated 19 February 1998, apprising her of their acquisition of said
G.R. No. 178782 September 21, 2011 Frenchman’s share in the business and formally demanding an accounting
and inventory thereof as well as the remittance of their portion of its profits.7
JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT, Petitioner,
vs. Faulting Josefina with unjustified failure to heed their demand, the Spouses
PROSENCIO D. JASO and EDEN G. JASO, Respondents. Jaso commenced the instant suit with the filing of their 3 August 1998
Complaint against Josefina, her husband, Ike Realubit (Ike), and their
alleged dummies, for specific performance, accounting, examination, audit
DECISION
and inventory of assets and properties, dissolution of the joint venture,
appointment of a receiver and damages. Docketed as Civil Case No. 98-
PEREZ, J.: 0331 before respondent Branch 257 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Parañaque City, said complaint alleged, among other matters, that the
The validity as well as the consequences of an assignment of rights in a Spouses Realubit had no gainful occupation or business prior to their joint
joint venture are at issue in this petition for review filed pursuant to Rule 45 venture with Biondo; that with the income of the business which earned not
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,1 assailing the 30 April 2007 less than ₱3,000.00 per day, they were, however, able to acquire the two-
Decision2 rendered by the Court of Appeals’ (CA) then Twelfth Division in storey building as well as the land on which the joint venture’s ice plant
CA-G.R. CV No. 73861,3 the dispositive portion of which states: stands, another building which they used as their office and/or residence
and six (6) delivery vans; and, that aside from appropriating for themselves
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is SET ASIDE and we order the income of the business, the Spouses Realubit have fraudulently
the dissolution of the joint venture between defendant-appellant Josefina concealed the funds and assets thereof thru their relatives, associates or
Realubit and Francis Eric Amaury Biondo and the subsequent conduct of dummies.8
accounting, liquidation of assets and division of shares of the joint venture
business. Served with summons, the Spouses Realubit filed their Answer dated 21
October 1998, specifically denying the material allegations of the foregoing
Let a copy hereof and the records of the case be remanded to the trial complaint. Claiming that they have been engaged in the tube ice trading
court for appropriate proceedings.4 business under a single proprietorship even before their dealings with
Biondo, the Spouses Realubit, in turn, averred that their said business
The Facts partner had left the country in May 1997 and could not have executed the
Deed of Assignment which bears a signature markedly different from that
On 17 March 1994, petitioner Josefina Realubit (Josefina) entered into a which he affixed on their Joint Venture Agreement; that they refused the
Joint Venture Agreement with Francis Eric Amaury Biondo (Biondo), a Spouses Jaso’s demand in view of the dubious circumstances surrounding
French national, for the operation of an ice manufacturing business. With their acquisition of Biondo’s share in the business which was established at
Josefina as the industrial partner and Biondo as the capitalist partner, the Don Antonio Heights, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City; that said
parties agreed that they would each receive 40% of the net profit, with the business had already stopped operations on 13 January 1996 when its
remaining 20% to be used for the payment of the ice making machine plant shut down after its power supply was disconnected by MERALCO for
which was purchased for the business.5 For and in consideration of the non-payment of utility bills; and, that it was their own tube ice trading
business which had been moved to 66-C Cenacle Drive, Sanville
 Page 5 of 9

Subdivision, Project 6, Quezon City that the Spouses Jaso mistook for the The Issues
ice manufacturing business established in partnership with Biondo.9
The Spouses Realubit urge the reversal of the assailed decision upon the
The issues thus joined and the mandatory pre-trial conference negative of the following issues, to wit:
subsequently terminated, the RTC went on to try the case on its merits and,
thereafter, to render its Decision dated 17 September 2001, discounting the A. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A VALID ASSIGNMENT OF
existence of sufficient evidence from which the income, assets and the RIGHTS TO THE JOINT VENTURE.
supposed dissolution of the joint venture can be adequately reckoned.
Upon the finding, however, that the Spouses Jaso had been nevertheless B. WHETHER THE COURT MAY ORDER PETITIONER
subrogated to Biondo’s rights in the business in view of their valid [JOSEFINA REALUBIT] AS PARTNER IN THE JOINT VENTURE
acquisition of the latter’s share as capitalist partner,10 the RTC disposed of TO RENDER [A]N ACCOUNTING TO ONE WHO IS NOT A
the case in the following wise: PARTNER IN SAID JOINT VENTURE.

WHEREFORE, defendants are ordered to submit to plaintiffs a complete C. WHETHER PRIVATE RESPONDENTS [SPOUSES JASO]
accounting and inventory of the assets and liabilities of the joint venture HAVE ANY RIGHT IN THE JOINT VENTURE AND IN THE
from its inception to the present, to allow plaintiffs access to the books and SEPARATE ICE BUSINESS OF PETITIONER[S].14
accounting records of the joint venture, to deliver to plaintiffs their share in
the profits, if any, and to pay the plaintiffs the amount of ₱20,000. for moral
The Court’s Ruling
damages. The claims for exemplary damages and attorney’s fees are
denied for lack of basis.11
We find the petition bereft of merit.
On appeal before the CA, the foregoing decision was set aside in the
herein assailed Decision dated 30 April 2007, upon the following findings The Spouses Realubit argue that, in upholding its validity, both the RTC
and conclusions: (a) the Spouses Jaso validly acquired Biondo’s share in and the CA inordinately gave premium to the notarization of the 27 June
the business which had been transferred to and continued its operations at 1997 Deed of Assignment executed by Biondo in favor of the Spouses
66-C Cenacle Drive, Sanville Subdivision, Project 6, Quezon City and not Jaso. Calling attention to the latter’s failure to present before the RTC said
dissolved as claimed by the Spouses Realubit; (b) absent showing of assignor or, at the very least, the witnesses to said document, the Spouses
Josefina’s knowledge and consent to the transfer of Biondo’s share, Eden Realubit maintain that the testimony of Rolando Diaz, the Notary Public
cannot be considered as a partner in the business, pursuant to Article 1813 before whom the same was acknowledged, did not suffice to establish its
of the Civil Code of the Philippines; (c) while entitled to Biondo’s share in authenticity and/or validity. They insist that notarization did not
the profits of the business, Eden cannot, however, interfere with the automatically and conclusively confer validity on said deed, since it is still
management of the partnership, require information or account of its entirely possible that Biondo did not execute said deed or, for that matter,
transactions and inspect its books; (d) the partnership should first be appear before said notary public.15 The dearth of merit in the Spouses
dissolved before Eden can seek an accounting of its transactions and Realubit’s position is, however, immediately evident from the settled rule
demand Biondo’s share in the business; and, (e) the evidence adduced that documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents
before the RTC do not support the award of moral damages in favor of the which are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as
Spouses Jaso.12 to their authenticity and due execution.16

The Spouses Realubit’s motion for reconsideration of the foregoing It cannot be gainsaid that, as a public document, the Deed of Assignment
decision was denied for lack of merit in the CA’s 28 June 2007 Biondo executed in favor of Eden not only enjoys a presumption of
Resolution,13 hence, this petition. regularity17 but is also considered prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated.18 A party assailing the authenticity and due execution of a notarized
 Page 6 of 9

document is, consequently, required to present evidence that is clear, From the foregoing provision, it is evident that "(t)he transfer by a partner of
convincing and more than merely preponderant.19 In view of the Spouses his partnership interest does not make the assignee of such interest a
Realubit’s failure to discharge this onus, we find that both the RTC and the partner of the firm, nor entitle the assignee to interfere in the management
CA correctly upheld the authenticity and validity of said Deed of of the partnership business or to receive anything except the assignee’s
Assignment upon the combined strength of the above-discussed disputable profits. The assignment does not purport to transfer an interest in the
presumptions and the testimonies elicited from Eden20 and Notary Public partnership, but only a future contingent right to a portion of the ultimate
Rolando Diaz.21 As for the Spouses’ Realubit’s bare assertion that Biondo’s residue as the assignor may become entitled to receive by virtue of his
signature on the same document appears to be forged, suffice it to say proportionate interest in the capital."30 Since a partner’s interest in the
that, like fraud,22 forgery is never presumed and must likewise be proved by partnership includes his share in the profits,31 we find that the CA
clear and convincing evidence by the party alleging the same.23 Aside from committed no reversible error in ruling that the Spouses Jaso are entitled to
not being borne out by a comparison of Biondo’s signatures on the Joint Biondo’s share in the profits, despite Juanita’s lack of consent to the
Venture Agreement24 and the Deed of Assignment,25 said forgery is, assignment of said Frenchman’s interest in the joint venture. Although
moreover debunked by Biondo’s duly authenticated certification dated 17 Eden did not, moreover, become a partner as a consequence of the
November 1998, confirming the transfer of his interest in the business in assignment and/or acquire the right to require an accounting of the
favor of Eden.26 partnership business, the CA correctly granted her prayer for dissolution of
the joint venture conformably with the right granted to the purchaser of a
Generally understood to mean an organization formed for some temporary partner’s interest under Article 1831 of the Civil Code.32 1âwphi1

purpose, a joint venture is likened to a particular partnership or one which

"has for its object determinate things, their use or fruits, or a specific Considering that they involve questions of fact, neither are we inclined to
undertaking, or the exercise of a profession or vocation."27 The rule is hospitably entertain the Spouses Realubit’s insistence on the supposed
settled that joint ventures are governed by the law on partnerships28 which fact that Josefina’s joint venture with Biondo had already been dissolved
are, in turn, based on mutual agency or delectus personae.29 Insofar as a and that the ice manufacturing business at 66-C Cenacle Drive, Sanville
partner’s conveyance of the entirety of his interest in the partnership is Subdivision, Project 6, Quezon City was merely a continuation of the same
concerned, Article 1813 of the Civil Code provides as follows: business they previously operated under a single proprietorship. It is well-
entrenched doctrine that questions of fact are not proper subjects of appeal
Art. 1813. A conveyance by a partner of his whole interest in the by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as this mode of appeal is
partnership does not itself dissolve the partnership, or, as against the other confined to questions of law.33 Upon the principle that this Court is not a
partners in the absence of agreement, entitle the assignee, during the trier of facts, we are not duty bound to examine the evidence introduced by
continuance of the partnership, to interfere in the management or the parties below to determine if the trial and the appellate courts correctly
administration of the partnership business or affairs, or to require any assessed and evaluated the evidence on record.34 Absent showing that the
information or account of partnership transactions, or to inspect the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on
partnership books; but it merely entitles the assignee to receive in record or the assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts, the
accordance with his contracts the profits to which the assigning partners Court will limit itself to reviewing only errors of law.35
would otherwise be entitled. However, in case of fraud in the management
of the partnership, the assignee may avail himself of the usual remedies. Based on the evidence on record, moreover, both the RTC36 and the
CA37 ruled out the dissolution of the joint venture and concluded that the ice
In the case of a dissolution of the partnership, the assignee is entitled to manufacturing business at the aforesaid address was the same one
receive his assignor’s interest and may require an account from the date established by Juanita and Biondo. As a rule, findings of fact of the CA are
only of the last account agreed to by all the partners. binding and conclusive upon this Court,38 and will not be reviewed or
disturbed on appeal39 unless the case falls under any of the following
recognized exceptions: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded
entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference
 Page 7 of 9

made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) where there is a ARTURO D. BRION
grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a Associate Justice
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) Acting Chairperson, Second Division
when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case
and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; CERTIFICATION
(7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the
findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the
in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned
respondents; and, (10) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record.40 Unfortunately for the Spouses Realubit’s cause, not one of the
RENATO C. CORONA
foregoing exceptions applies to the case.
Chief Justice
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed CA
Decision dated 30 April 2007 is, accordingly, AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice * Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. is designated
Additional Member as per Special Order No. 1084 dated 13
September 2011.
WE CONCUR:
** Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion is designated as Acting
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.*
Chairperson per Special Order No. 1083 dated 13 September
Associate Justice
2011.

ROBERTO A. ABAD*** *** Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad is designated Additional

ARTURO D. BRION**
Associate Justice Member per Raffle dated 19 September 2011.
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
1
Rollo, pp. 8-17, Realubit’s 9 August 2007 Petition.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice 2
Penned by Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and concurred in by
Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Aurora Santiago-Lagman
ATTESTATION
3
Record, CA-G.R. CV No. 178782, CA’s 30 April 2007 Decision,
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in pp. 124-134.
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division. 4
Id. at 133.
 Page 8 of 9
5
Exhibits "B" and "1," record, Civil Case No. 98-0331, 17 March 23
Aloria v. Clemente, 518 Phil. 764, 776 (2006).
1994 Joint Venture Agreement, p. 210.
24
Exhibit "1-A," record, Civil Case No. 98-0331, p. 210.
6
Exhibits "A" and "2," 27 June 1997 Deed of Assignment, id. at
207. 25
Exhibits "A-3" and "2-A," id. at 207.
7
Exhibit "C," 19 February 1998 Demand Letter, id. at 211. 26
Exhibit "D-1," id. at 215.

8
Spouses Jaso’s 3 August 1998 Complaint, id. at 2-7. 27
Art. 1783, Civil Code of the Philippines.

9
Spouses Realubit’s 21 October 1998 Answer, id. at 24-32. 28
Heirs of Tan Eng Kee v. Court of Appeals, 396 Phil. 68, 80-
81(2000).
10
RTC’s 17 September 2001 Decision, id at 427-431.
29
Tocao v. Court of Appeals, 396 Phil. 166, 184 (2000).
11
Id. at 431.
30
Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, 1959 ed., Vol. V, pp. 297-
12
CA rollo, CA-G.R. C.V. No. 73861, CA’s 30 April 2007 Decision, 298.
pp. 124-134.
31
Art. 1812, Civil Code of the Philippines.
13
Id. at 177-178.
32
Art. 1831. On application by or for a partner, the court shall
14
Rollo, pp. 11-13. decree a dissolution x x x

15
Id. at 131-133. xxx

16
Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile, 448 Phil. 302, 315 (2003). On the application of the purchaser of a partner’s interest
under Article 1813 or 1814:
17
Potenciano v. Reynoso, 449 Phil. 396, 408 (2003).
(1) After the termination of the specified term or particular
18
Spouses Caoili v. Court of Appeals, 373 Phil. 122, 139 (1999). undertaking;

19
Manongsong v. Estimo, 452 Phil. 862, 877-878 (2003). (2) At any time if the partnership was a partnership at will
when the interest was assigned or when the charging order
20
TSN, 22 September 1999, pp. 3-5. was issued.

21
TSN, 12 January 2000, pp. 4-8.
33
Goyena v. Ledesma-Gustilo, 443 Phil. 150, 158 (2003).

22
Maestrado v. Court of Appeals, 384 Phil. 418, 435 (2000).
34
Romualdez-Licaros v. Licaros, 449 Phil. 824, 837 (2003).
 Page 9 of 9
35
Tsai v. Court of Appeals, 418 Phil. 606, 617 (2001).

36
Record, Civil Case No. 98-0331, p. 430.

37
Record, CA-G.R. CV No. 73861, pp. 163-164.

38
Spouses Batingal v. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 780, 788 (2001)

39
Bank of the Phil. Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 465 (2003).

Spouses Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150284, 22

40

November 2010, 635 SCRA 508, 514-515.