Illanueva Gency Rusts Artnerships
Illanueva Gency Rusts Artnerships
Illanueva Gency Rusts Artnerships
CHAPTER 6
The default rule under Article 1781 of New Civil Code is that when the
"Articles of universal partnership [are] entered into without specification of
its nature, [it will] only constitute a universal partnership of profits."
now
On the other hand, Article 1783 of New Civil Code defines a particular
partnership to be one that "has for its object determinate things, their use or
fruits, or a specific undertaking, or the exercise of a profession or vocation."
There is no doubt then that every professional partnership and joint venture
arrangement would constitute a particular partnership.
The next question would then be: What is the practical and legal
importance of distinguishing between universal and particular partnerships?
Two points must be considered in answering the question:
Firstly, statutorily, the only critical usefulness of the distinction is that
persons who are disqualified from donating to one another (like spouses under
Article 187 of the Family Code), cannot enter into a universal partnership of
any sort. Is it therefore fair to conclude that spouses can validly enter into a
particular partnership between each other, when actually their property
relations are governed already by a legal property regime?
THE ANSWER IS FOUND In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Suter*
the Court held that the prohibition under now Article 1782 of the New Civil
Code does not apply when the partners entered into a limited partnership, the
man being the general partner and two women being the limited partners, and
a year later the man married one of the limited partners, and the spouse
bought out the interest of the limited partner.
Secondly, the rights and obligations that may arise from subsequent
ventures pursued by the partners would be determined on whether they are
bound under a universal or particular type of partnership. The resolution of the
issue is best exemplified in the decision in Lyons v. Rosentock.7
2. As to Duration
Both partnerships with fixed term and for a particular undertaking are
automatically dissolved upon the expiration of the stipulated term or the
achievement of the particular undertaking stipulated in the contract of
partnership; whereas, in a partnership at will, the partnership has an
indefinite term and it would be dissolved only when an act or cause of
dissolution happens or arises. Nonetheless, under Article 1785 of New Civil
Code, when a partnership for a fix term or particular undertaking is
continued after it has terminated without any express agreement,
partnership then become one at will and "the rights and duties of the
partners remain the same as they were at such termination, so far as is
consistent with a partnership at will." The article also provides that "A
continuation of the business by the partners or such of them as habitually
acted therein during the term, without any settlement or liquidation of the
partnership affairs, is prima facie evidence of a continuation of the
partnership."