G.R. No. 112675 January 25, 1999AFISCO INSURANCE CORPORATION, et al. petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.PANGANIBAN, J.:Pursuant to "reinsurance treaties," a number of local insurance firms formed themselves into a "pool" in order to facilitate the handling of business contracted with a nonresident foreign insurance company. May the "clearing house" or "insurance pool" so formed be deemed a partnership or an association that is taxable as a corporation under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC)? Should the pool's remittances to the member companies and to the said foreign firm be taxable as dividends? Under the facts of this case, has the goverment's right to assess and collect said tax prescribed?The CaseThese are the main questions raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari before us, assailing the October 11, 1993 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals 2 in CA-GR SP 25902, which dismissed petitioners' appeal of the October 19, 1992 Decision 3 of the Court of Tax Appeals 4 (CTA) which had previously sustained petitioners' liability for deficiency income tax, interest and withholding tax. The Court of Appeals ruled:WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, with costs against petitioner 5The petition also challenges the November 15, 1993 Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution 6 denying reconsideration.The FactsThe antecedent facts, 7 as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:The petitioners are 41 non-life insurance corporations, organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. Upon issuance by them of Erection, Machinery Breakdown, Boiler Explosion and Contractors' All Risk insurance policies, the petitioners on August 1, 1965 entered into a Quota Share Reinsurance Treaty and a Surplus Reinsurance Treaty with the Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesselschaft (hereafter called Munich), a non-resident foreign insurance corporation. The reinsurance treaties required petitioners to form a [p]ool. Accordingly, a pool composed of the petitioners was formed on the same day.On April 14, 1976, the pool of machinery insurers submitted a financial statement and filed an "Information Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax" for the year ending in 1975, on the basis of which it was assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue deficiency corporate taxes in the amount of P1,843,273.60, and withholding taxes in the amount of P1,768,799.39 and P89,438.68 on dividends paid to Munich and to the petitioners, respectively. These assessments were protested by the petitioners through its auditors Sycip, Gorres, Velayo and Co.On January 27, 1986, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied the protest and ordered the petitioners, assessed as "Pool of Machinery Insurers," to pay deficiency income tax, interest, and with [h]olding tax, itemized as follows:Net income per information return P3,737,370.00===========Income tax due thereon P1,298,080.00Add: 14% Int. fr. 4/15/76to 4/15/79 545,193.60TOTAL AMOUNT DUE & P1,843,273.60COLLECTIBLEDividend paid to MunichReinsurance Company P3,728,412.0035% withholding tax atsource due thereon P1,304,944.20Add: 25% surcharge 326,236.0514% interest from1/25/76 to 1/25/79 137,019.14Compromise penalty-non-filing of return 300.00late payment 300.00TOTAL AMOUNT DUE & P1,768,799.39COLLECTIBLE ===========Dividend paid to Pool Members P655,636.00===========10% withholding tax atsource due thereon P65,563.60Add: 25% surcharge 16,390.9014% interest from1/25/76 to 1/25/79 6,884.18Compromise penalty-non-filing of return 300.00late payment 300.00TOTAL AMOUNT DUE & P89,438.68COLLECTIBLE =========== 8The CA ruled in the main that the pool of machinery insurers was a partnership taxable as a corporation, and that the latter's collection of premiums on behalf of its members, the ceding companies, was taxable income. It added that prescription did not bar the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) from collecting the taxes due, because "the taxpayer cannot be located at the address given in the information return filed." Hence, this Petition for Review before us. 9The IssuesBefore this Court, petitioners raise the following issues:1. Whether or not the Clearing House, acting as a mere agent and performing strictly administrative functions, and which did not insure or assume any risk in its own name, was a partnership or association subject to tax as a corporation;2. Whether or not the remittances to petitioners and MUNICHRE of their respective shares of reinsurance premiums, pertaining to their individual and separate contracts of reinsurance, were "dividends" subject to tax; and3. Whether or not the respondent Commissioner's right to assess the Clearing House had already prescribed. 10The Court's RulingThe petition is devoid of merit. We sustain the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the pool is taxable as a corporation, and that the government's right to assess and collect the taxes had not prescribed.First Issue:Pool Taxable as a CorporationPetitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the pool of clearing house was an informal partnership, which was taxable as a corporation under the NIRC. They point out that the reinsurance policies were written by them "individually and separately," and that their liability was limited to the extent of their allocated share in the original risk thus reinsured. 11 Hence, the pool did not act or earn income as a reinsurer. 12 Its role was limited to its principal function of "allocating and distributing the risk(s) arising from the original insurance among the signatories to the treaty or the members of the pool based on their ability to absorb the risk(s) ceded[;] as well as the performance of incidental functions, such as records, maintenance, collection and custody of funds, etc." 13Petitioners belie the existence of a partnership in this case, because (1) they, the reinsurers, did not share the same risk or solidary liability, 14 (2) there was no common fund; 15 (3) the executive board of the pool did not exercise control and management of its funds, unlike the board of directors of a corporation; 16 and (4) the pool or clearing house "was not and could not possibly have engaged in the business of reinsurance from which it could have derived income for itself." 17The Court is not persuaded. The opinion or ruling of the Commission of Internal Revenue, the agency tasked with the enforcement of tax law, is accorded much weight and even finality, when there is no showing. that it is patently wrong, 18 particularly in this case where the findings and conclusions of the internal revenue commissioner were subsequently affirmed by the CTA, a specialized body created for the exclusive purpose of reviewing tax cases, and the Court of Appeals. 19 Indeed,[I]t has been the long standing policy and practice of this Court to respect the conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Court of Tax Appeals which, by the nature of its functions, is dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of tax problems and has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of its authority. 20This Court rules that the Court of Appeals, in affirming the CTA which had previously sustained the internal revenue commissioner, committed no reversible error. Section 24 of the NIRC, as worded in the year ending 1975, provides:Sec. 24. Rate of tax on corporations. (a) Tax on domestic corporations. A tax is hereby imposed upon the taxable net income received during each taxable year from all sources by every corporation organized in, or existing under the laws of the Philippines, no matter how created or organized, but not including duly registered general co-partnership (compaias colectivas), general professional partnerships, private educational institutions, and building and loan associations . . . .Ineludibly, the Philippine legislature included in the concept of corporations those entities that resembled them such as unregistered partnerships and associations. Parenthetically, the NIRC's inclusion of such entities in the tax on corporations was made even clearer by the tax Reform Act of 1997, 21 which amended the Tax Code. Pertinent provisions of the new law read as follows:Sec. 27. Rates of Income Tax on Domestic Corporations. (A) In General. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, an income tax of thirty-five percent (35%) is hereby imposed upon the taxable income derived during each taxable year from all sources within and without the Philippines by every corporation, as defined in Section 22 (B) of this Code, and taxable under this Title as a corporation . . . .Sec. 22. Definition. When used in this Title:xxx xxx xxx(B) The term "corporation" shall include partnerships, no matter how created or organized, joint-stock companies, joint accounts (cuentas en participacion), associations, or insurance companies, but does not include general professional partnerships [or] a joint venture or consortium formed for the purpose of undertaking construction projects or engaging in petroleum, coal, geothermal and other energy operations pursuant to an operating or consortium agreement under a service contract without the Government. "General professional partnerships" are partnerships formed by persons for the sole purpose of exercising their common profession, no part of the income of which is derived from engaging in any trade or business.xxx xxx xxxThus, the Court in Evangelista v. Collector of Internal Revenue 22 held that Section 24 covered these unregistered partnerships and even associations or joint accounts, which had no legal personalities apart from their individual members. 23 The Court of Appeals astutely applied Evangelista. 24. . . Accordingly, a pool of individual real property owners dealing in real estate business was considered a corporation for purposes of the tax in sec. 24 of the Tax Code in Evangelista v. Collector of Internal Revenue, supra. The Supreme Court said:The term "partnership" includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on. *** (8 Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 562 Note 63)Art. 1767 of the Civil Code recognizes the creation of a contract of partnership when "two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or Industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves." 25 Its requisites are: "(1) mutual contribution to a common stock, and (2) a joint interest in the profits." 26 In other words, a partnership is formed when persons contract "to devote to a common purpose either money, property, or labor with the intention of dividing the profits betweenthemselves." 27 Meanwhile, an association implies associates who enter into a "joint enterprise . . . for the transaction of business." 28In the case before us, the ceding companies entered into a Pool Agreement 29 or an association 30 that would handle all the insurance businesses covered under their quota-share reinsurance treaty 31 and surplus reinsurance treaty 32 with Munich. The following unmistakably indicates a partnership or an association covered by Section 24 of the NIRC:(1) The pool has a common fund, consisting of money and other valuables that are deposited in the name and credit of the pool. 33 This common fund pays for the administration and operation expenses of the pool. 24(2) The pool functions through an executive board, which resembles the board of directors of a corporation, composed of one representative for each of the ceding companies. 35(3) True, the pool itself is not a reinsurer and does not issue any insurance policy; however, its work is indispensable, beneficial and economically useful to the business of the ceding companies and Munich, because without it they would not have received their premiums. The ceding companies share "in the business ceded to the pool" and in the "expenses" according to a "Rules of Distribution" annexed to the Pool Agreement. 36 Profit motive or business is, therefore, the primordial reason for the pool's formation. As aptly found by the CTA:. . . The fact that the pool does not retain any profit or income does not obliterate an antecedent fact, that of the pool being used in the transaction of business for profit. It is apparent, and petitioners admit, that their association or coaction was indispensable [to] the transaction of the business, . . . If together they have conducted business, profit must have been the object as, indeed, profit was earned. Though the profit was apportioned among the members, this is only a matter of consequence, as it implies that profit actually resulted. 37The petitioners' reliance on Pascuals v. Commissioner 38 is misplaced, because the facts obtaining therein are not on all fours with the present case. In Pascual, there was no unregistered partnership, but merely a co-ownership which took up only two isolated transactions. 39 The Court of Appeals did not err in applying Evangelista, which involved a partnership that engaged in a series of transactions spanning more than ten years, as in the case before us.Second Issue:Pool's Remittances are TaxablePetitioners further contend that the remittances of the pool to the ceding companies and Munich are not dividends subject to tax. They insist that such remittances contravene Sections 24 (b) (I) and 263 of the 1977 NIRC and "would be tantamount to an illegal double taxation as it would result in taxing the same taxpayer" 40 Moreover, petitioners argue that since Munich was not a signatory to the Pool Agreement, the remittances it received from the pool cannot be deemed dividends. 41 They add that even if such remittances were treated as dividends, they would have been exempt under the previously mentioned sections of the 1977 NIRC, 42 as well as Article 7 of paragraph 1 43 and Article 5 of paragraph 5 44 of the RP-West German Tax Treaty. 45Petitioners are clutching at straws. Double taxation means taxing the same property twice when it should be taxed only once. That is, ". . . taxing the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing" 46 In the instant case, the pool is a taxable entity distinct from the individual corporate entities of the ceding companies. The tax on its income is obviously different from the tax on the dividends received by the said companies. Clearly, there is no double taxation here.The tax exemptions claimed by petitioners cannot be granted, since their entitlement thereto remains unproven and unsubstantiated. It is axiomatic in the law of taxation that taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Hence, "exemptions therefrom are highly disfavored in law and he who claims tax exemption must be able to justify his claim or right." 47 Petitioners have failed to discharge this burden of proof. The sections of the 1977 NIRC which they cite are inapplicable, because these were not yet in effect when the income was earned and when the subject information return for the year ending 1975 was filed.Referring, to the 1975 version of the counterpart sections of the NIRC, the Court still cannot justify the exemptions claimed. Section 255 provides that no tax shall ". . . be paid upon reinsurance by any company that has already paid the tax . . ." This cannot be applied to the present case because, as previously discussed, the pool is a taxable entity distinct from the ceding companies; therefore, the latter cannot individually claim the income tax paid by the former as their own.On the other hand, Section 24 (b) (1) 48 pertains to tax on foreign corporations; hence, it cannot be claimed by the ceding companies which are domestic corporations. Nor can Munich, a foreign corporation, be granted exemption based solely on this provision of the Tax Code, because the same subsection specifically taxes dividends, the type of remittances forwarded to it by the pool. Although not a signatory to the Pool Agreement, Munich is patently an associate of the ceding companies in the entity formed, pursuant to their reinsurance treaties which required the creation of said pool.Under its pool arrangement with the ceding companies; Munich shared in their income and loss. This is manifest from a reading of Article 3 49 and 10 50 of the Quota-Share Reinsurance treaty and Articles 3 51 and 10 52 of the Surplus Reinsurance Treaty. The foregoing interpretation of Section 24 (b) (1) is in line with the doctrine that a tax exemption must be construed strictissimi juris, and the statutory exemption claimed must be expressed in a language too plain to be mistaken. 53Finally the petitioners' claim that Munich is tax-exempt based on the RP- West German Tax Treaty is likewise unpersuasive, because the internal revenue commissioner assessed the pool for corporate taxes on the basis of the information return it had submitted for the year ending 1975, a taxable year when said treaty was not yet in effect. 54 Although petitioners omitted in their pleadings the date of effectivity of the treaty, the Court takes judicial notice that it took effect only later, on December 14, 1984. 55Third Issue:PrescriptionPetitioners also argue that the government's right to assess and collect the subject tax had prescribed. They claim that the subject information return was filed by the pool on April 14, 1976. On the basis of this return, the BIR telephoned petitioners on November 11, 1981, to give them notice of its letter of assessment dated March 27, 1981. Thus, the petitioners contend that the five-year statute of limitations then provided in the NIRC had already lapsed, and that the internal revenue commissioner was already barred by prescription from making an assessment. 56We cannot sustain the petitioners. The CA and the CTA categorically found that the prescriptive period was tolled under then Section 333 of the NIRC, 57 because "the taxpayer cannot be located at the address given in the information return filed and for which reason there was delay in sending the assessment." 58 Indeed, whether the government's right to collect and assess the tax has prescribed involves facts which have been ruled upon by the lower courts. It is axiomatic that in the absence of a clear showing of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion, as in this case, this Court must not overturn the factual findings of the CA and the CTA.Furthermore, petitioners admitted in their Motion for Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals that the pool changed its address, for they stated that the pool's information return filed in 1980 indicated therein its "present address." The Court finds that this falls short of the requirement of Section 333 of the NIRC for the suspension of the prescriptive period. The law clearly states that the said period will be suspended only "if the taxpayer informs the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of any change in the address."WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 11, 1993 and November 15, 1993 are hereby AFFIRMED. Cost against petitioners.1wphi1.ntSO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 134559 December 9, 1999ANTONIA TORRES assisted by her husband, ANGELO TORRES; and EMETERIA BARING, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and MANUEL TORRES, respondents.Courts may not extricate parties from the necessary consequences of their acts. That the terms of a contract turn out to be financially disadvantageous to them will not relieve them of their obligations therein. The lack of an inventory of real property will not ipso facto release the contracting partners from their respective obligations to each other arising from acts executed in accordance with their agreement.The CaseThe Petition for Review on Certiorari before us assails the March 5, 1998 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals 2 (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 42378 and its June 25, 1998 Resolution denying reconsideration. The assailed Decision affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City in Civil Case No. R-21208, which disposed as follows:WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing considerations, the Court, finding for the defendant and against the plaintiffs, orders the dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint. The counterclaims of the defendant are likewise ordered dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs. 3The FactsSisters Antonia Torres and Emeteria Baring, herein petitioners, entered into a "joint venture agreement" with Respondent Manuel Torres for the development of a parcel of land into a subdivision. Pursuant to the contract, they executed a Deed of Sale covering the said parcel of land in favor of respondent, who then had it registered in his name. By mortgaging the property, respondent obtained from Equitable Bank a loan of P40,000 which, under the Joint Venture Agreement, was to be used for the development of the subdivision. 4 All three of them also agreed to share the proceeds from the sale of the subdivided lots.The project did not push through, and the land was subsequently foreclosed by the bank.According to petitioners, the project failed because of "respondent's lack of funds or means and skills." They add that respondent used the loan not for the development of the subdivision, but in furtherance of his own company, Universal Umbrella Company.On the other hand, respondent alleged that he used the loan to implement the Agreement. With the said amount, he was able to effect the survey and the subdivision of the lots. He secured the Lapu Lapu City Council's approval of the subdivision project which he advertised in a local newspaper. He also caused the construction of roads, curbs and gutters. Likewise, he entered into a contract with an engineering firm for the building of sixty low-cost housing units and actually even set up a model house on one of the subdivision lots. He did all of these for a total expense of P85,000.Respondent claimed that the subdivision project failed, however, because petitioners and their relatives had separately caused the annotations of adverse claims on the title to the land, which eventually scared away prospective buyers. Despite his requests, petitioners refused to cause the clearing of the claims, thereby forcing him to give up on the project. 5Subsequently, petitioners filed a criminal case for estafa against respondent and his wife, who were however acquitted. Thereafter, they filed the present civil case which, upon respondent's motion, was later dismissed by the trial court in an Order dated September 6, 1982. On appeal, however, the appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings. Thereafter, the RTC issued its assailed Decision, which, as earlier stated, was affirmed by the CA.Hence, this Petition. 6Ruling of the Court of AppealsIn affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that petitioners and respondent had formed a partnership for the development of the subdivision. Thus, they must bear the loss suffered by the partnership in the same proportion as their share in the profits stipulated in the contract. Disagreeing with the trial court's pronouncement that losses as well as profits in a joint venture should be distributed equally, 7 the CA invoked Article 1797 of the Civil Code which provides:Art. 1797 The losses and profits shall be distributed in conformity with the agreement. If only the share of each partner in the profits has been agreed upon, the share of each in the losses shall be in the same proportion.The CA elucidated further:In the absence of stipulation, the share of each partner in the profits and losses shall be in proportion to what he may have contributed, but the industrial partner shall not be liable for the losses. As for the profits, the industrial partner shall receive such share as may be just and equitable under the circumstances. If besides his services he has contributed capital, he shall also receive a share in the profits in proportion to his capital.The IssuePetitioners impute to the Court of Appeals the following error:. . . [The] Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the transaction. . . between the petitioners and respondent was that of a joint venture/partnership, ignoring outright the provision of Article 1769, and other related provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines. 8The Court's Ruling: The Petition is bereft of merit.Main Issue: Existence of a PartnershipPetitioners deny having formed a partnership with respondent. They contend that the Joint Venture Agreement and the earlier Deed of Sale, both of which were the bases of the appellate court's finding of a partnership, were void.In the same breath, however, they assert that under those very same contracts, respondent is liable for his failure to implement the project. Because the agreement entitled them to receive 60 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the subdivision lots, they pray that respondent pay them damages equivalent to 60 percent of the value of the property. 9The pertinent portions of the Joint Venture Agreement read as follows:KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:This AGREEMENT, is made and entered into at Cebu City, Philippines, this 5th day of March, 1969, by and between MR. MANUEL R. TORRES, . . . the FIRST PARTY, likewise, MRS. ANTONIA B. TORRES, and MISS EMETERIA BARING, . . . the SECOND PARTY:WITNESSETH:That, whereas, the SECOND PARTY, voluntarily offered the FIRST PARTY, this property located at Lapu-Lapu City, Island of Mactan, under Lot No. 1368 covering TCT No. T-0184 with a total area of 17,009 square meters, to be sub-divided by the FIRST PARTY;Whereas, the FIRST PARTY had given the SECOND PARTY, the sum of: TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency upon the execution of this contract for the property entrusted by the SECOND PARTY, for sub-division projects and development purposes;NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above covenants and promises herein contained the respective parties hereto do hereby stipulate and agree as follows:ONE: That the SECOND PARTY signed an absolute Deed of Sale . . . dated March 5, 1969, in the amount of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTEEN & FIFTY CTVS. (P25,513.50) Philippine Currency, for 1,700 square meters at ONE [PESO] & FIFTY CTVS. (P1.50) Philippine Currency, in favor of the FIRST PARTY, but the SECOND PARTY did not actually receive the payment.SECOND: That the SECOND PARTY, had received from the FIRST PARTY, the necessary amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) pesos, Philippine currency, for their personal obligations and this particular amount will serve as an advance payment from the FIRST PARTY for the property mentioned to be sub-divided and to be deducted from the sales.THIRD: That the FIRST PARTY, will not collect from the SECOND PARTY, the interest and the principal amount involving the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, until the sub-division project is terminated and ready for sale to any interested parties, and the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) pesos, Philippine currency, will be deducted accordingly.FOURTH: That all general expense[s] and all cost[s] involved in the sub-division project should be paid by the FIRST PARTY, exclusively and all the expenses will not be deducted from the sales after the development of the sub-division project.FIFTH: That the sales of the sub-divided lots will be divided into SIXTY PERCENTUM 60% for the SECOND PARTY and FORTY PERCENTUM 40% for the FIRST PARTY, and additional profits or whatever income deriving from the sales will be divided equally according to the . . . percentage [agreed upon] by both parties.SIXTH: That the intended sub-division project of the property involved will start the work and all improvements upon the adjacent lots will be negotiated in both parties['] favor and all sales shall [be] decided by both parties.SEVENTH: That the SECOND PARTIES, should be given an option to get back the property mentioned provided the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, borrowed by the SECOND PARTY, will be paid in full to the FIRST PARTY, including all necessary improvements spent by the FIRST PARTY, and-the FIRST PARTY will be given a grace period to turnover the property mentioned above.That this AGREEMENT shall be binding and obligatory to the parties who executed same freely and voluntarily for the uses and purposes therein stated. 10A reading of the terms embodied in the Agreement indubitably shows the existence of a partnership pursuant to Article 1767 of the Civil Code, which provides:Art. 1767. By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.Under the above-quoted Agreement, petitioners would contribute property to the partnership in the form of land which was to be developed into a subdivision; while respondent would give, in addition to his industry, the amount needed for general expenses and other costs. Furthermore, the income from the said project would be divided according to the stipulated percentage. Clearly, the contract manifested the intention of the parties to form a partnership. 11It should be stressed that the parties implemented the contract. Thus, petitioners transferred the title to the land to facilitate its use in the name of the respondent. On the other hand, respondent caused the subject land to be mortgaged, the proceeds of which were used for the survey and the subdivision of the land. As noted earlier, he developed the roads, the curbs and the gutters of the subdivision and entered into a contract to construct low-cost housing units on the property.Respondent's actions clearly belie petitioners' contention that he made no contribution to the partnership. Under Article 1767 of the Civil Code, a partner may contribute not only money or property, but also industry.Petitioners Bound byTerms of ContractUnder Article 1315 of the Civil Code, contracts bind the parties not only to what has been expressly stipulated, but also to all necessary consequences thereof, as follows:Art. 1315. Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law.It is undisputed that petitioners are educated and are thus presumed to have understood the terms of the contract they voluntarily signed. If it was not in consonance with their expectations, they should have objected to it and insisted on the provisions they wanted.Courts are not authorized to extricate parties from the necessary consequences of their acts, and the fact that the contractual stipulations may turn out to be financially disadvantageous will not relieve parties thereto of their obligations. They cannot now disavow the relationship formed from such agreement due to their supposed misunderstanding of its terms.Alleged Nullity of thePartnership AgreementPetitioners argue that the Joint Venture Agreement is void under Article 1773 of the Civil Code, which provides:Art. 1773. A contract of partnership is void, whenever immovable property is contributed thereto, if an inventory of said property is not made, signed by the parties, and attached to the public instrument.They contend that since the parties did not make, sign or attach to the public instrument an inventory of the real property contributed, the partnership is void.We clarify. First, Article 1773 was intended primarily to protect third persons. Thus, the eminent Arturo M. Tolentino states that under the aforecited provision which is a complement of Article 1771, 12 "The execution of a public instrument would be useless if there is no inventory of the property contributed, because without its designation and description, they cannot be subject to inscription in the Registry of Property, and their contribution cannot prejudice third persons. This will result in fraud to those who contract with the partnership in the belief [in] the efficacy of the guaranty in which the immovables may consist. Thus, the contract is declared void by the law when no such inventory is made." The case at bar does not involve third parties who may be prejudiced.Second, petitioners themselves invoke the allegedly void contract as basis for their claim that respondent should pay them 60 percent of the value of the property. 13 They cannot in one breath deny the contract and in another recognize it, depending on what momentarily suits their purpose. Parties cannot adopt inconsistent positions in regard to a contract and courts will not tolerate, much less approve, such practice.In short, the alleged nullity of the partnership will not prevent courts from considering the Joint Venture Agreement an ordinary contract from which the parties' rights and obligations to each other may be inferred and enforced.Partnership Agreement Not the Resultof an Earlier Illegal ContractPetitioners also contend that the Joint Venture Agreement is void under Article 1422 14 of the Civil Code, because it is the direct result of an earlier illegal contract, which was for the sale of the land without valid consideration.This argument is puerile. The Joint Venture Agreement clearly states that the consideration for the sale was the expectation of profits from the subdivision project. Its first stipulation states that petitioners did not actually receive payment for the parcel of land sold to respondent. Consideration, more properly denominated as cause, can take different forms, such as the prestation or promise of a thing or service by another. 15In this case, the cause of the contract of sale consisted not in the stated peso value of the land, but in the expectation of profits from the subdivision project, for which the land was intended to be used. As explained by the trial court, "the land was in effect given to the partnership as [petitioner's] participation therein. . . . There was therefore a consideration for the sale, the [petitioners] acting in the expectation that, should the venture come into fruition, they [would] get sixty percent of the net profits."Liability of the Parties Claiming that rerpondent was solely responsible for the failure of the subdivision project, petitioners maintain that he should be made to pay damages equivalent to 60 percent of the value of the property, which was their share in the profits under the Joint Venture Agreement.We are not persuaded. True, the Court of Appeals held that petitioners' acts were not the cause of the failure of the project. 16 But it also ruled that neither was respondent responsible therefor. 17 In imputing the blame solely to him, petitioners failed to give any reason why we should disregard the factual findings of the appellate court relieving him of fault. Verily, factual issues cannot be resolved in a petition for review under Rule 45, as in this case. Petitioners have not alleged, not to say shown, that their Petition constitutes one of the exceptions to this doctrine. 18 Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the CA's ruling that petitioners are not entitled to damages.WHEREFORE, the Perition is hereby DENIED and the challenged Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.SO ORDERED

G.R. No. 172690 March 3, 2010HEIRS OF JOSE LIM, represented by ELENITO LIM, Petitioners, vs.JULIET VILLA LIM, Respondent.D E C I S I O NNACHURA, J.:Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision2 dated June 29, 2005, which reversed and set aside the decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, dated April 12, 2004.The facts of the case are as follows:Petitioners are the heirs of the late Jose Lim (Jose), namely: Jose's widow Cresencia Palad (Cresencia); and their children Elenito, Evelia, Imelda, Edelyna and Edison, all surnamed Lim (petitioners), represented by Elenito Lim (Elenito). They filed a Complaint4 for Partition, Accounting and Damages against respondent Juliet Villa Lim (respondent), widow of the late Elfledo Lim (Elfledo), who was the eldest son of Jose and Cresencia.Petitioners alleged that Jose was the liaison officer of Interwood Sawmill in Cagsiay, Mauban, Quezon. Sometime in 1980, Jose, together with his friends Jimmy Yu (Jimmy) and Norberto Uy (Norberto), formed a partnership to engage in the trucking business. Initially, with a contribution of P50,000.00 each, they purchased a truck to be used in the hauling and transport of lumber of the sawmill. Jose managed the operations of this trucking business until his death on August 15, 1981. Thereafter, Jose's heirs, including Elfledo, and partners agreed to continue the business under the management of Elfledo. The shares in the partnership profits and income that formed part of the estate of Jose were held in trust by Elfledo, with petitioners' authority for Elfledo to use, purchase or acquire properties using said funds.Petitioners also alleged that, at that time, Elfledo was a fresh commerce graduate serving as his fathers driver in the trucking business. He was never a partner or an investor in the business and merely supervised the purchase of additional trucks using the income from the trucking business of the partners. By the time the partnership ceased, it had nine trucks, which were all registered in Elfledo's name. Petitioners asseverated that it was also through Elfledos management of the partnership that he was able to purchase numerous real properties by using the profits derived therefrom, all of which were registered in his name and that of respondent. In addition to the nine trucks, Elfledo also acquired five other motor vehicles.On May 18, 1995, Elfledo died, leaving respondent as his sole surviving heir. Petitioners claimed that respondent took over the administration of the aforementioned properties, which belonged to the estate of Jose, without their consent and approval. Claiming that they are co-owners of the properties, petitioners required respondent to submit an accounting of all income, profits and rentals received from the estate of Elfledo, and to surrender the administration thereof. Respondent refused; thus, the filing of this case.Respondent traversed petitioners' allegations and claimed that Elfledo was himself a partner of Norberto and Jimmy. Respondent also claimed that per testimony of Cresencia, sometime in 1980, Jose gave Elfledo P50,000.00 as the latter's capital in an informal partnership with Jimmy and Norberto. When Elfledo and respondent got married in 1981, the partnership only had one truck; but through the efforts of Elfledo, the business flourished. Other than this trucking business, Elfledo, together with respondent, engaged in other business ventures. Thus, they were able to buy real properties and to put up their own car assembly and repair business. When Norberto was ambushed and killed on July 16, 1993, the trucking business started to falter. When Elfledo died on May 18, 1995 due to a heart attack, respondent talked to Jimmy and to the heirs of Norberto, as she could no longer run the business. Jimmy suggested that three out of the nine trucks be given to him as his share, while the other three trucks be given to the heirs of Norberto. However, Norberto's wife, Paquita Uy, was not interested in the vehicles. Thus, she sold the same to respondent, who paid for them in installments. Respondent also alleged that when Jose died in 1981, he left no known assets, and the partnership with Jimmy and Norberto ceased upon his demise. Respondent also stressed that Jose left no properties that Elfledo could have held in trust. Respondent maintained that all the properties involved in this case were purchased and acquired through her and her husbands joint efforts and hard work, and without any participation or contribution from petitioners or from Jose. Respondent submitted that these are conjugal partnership properties; and thus, she had the right to refuse to render an accounting for the income or profits of their own business.Trial on the merits ensued. On April 12, 2004, the RTC rendered its decision in favor of petitioners, thus:WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:1) Ordering the partition of the above-mentioned properties equally between the plaintiffs and heirs of Jose Lim and the defendant Juliet Villa-Lim; and2) Ordering the defendant to submit an accounting of all incomes, profits and rentals received by her from said properties.SO ORDERED.Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the CA. On June 29, 2005, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC's decision, dismissing petitioners' complaint for lack of merit. Undaunted, petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration,5 which the CA, however, denied in its Resolution6 dated May 8, 2006.Hence, this Petition, raising the sole question, viz.:IN THE APPRECIATION BY THE COURT OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES, CAN THE TESTIMONY OF ONE OF THE PETITIONERS BE GIVEN GREATER WEIGHT THAN THAT BY A FORMER PARTNER ON THE ISSUE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE OTHER PARTNERS IN THE PARTNERSHIP?7In essence, petitioners argue that according to the testimony of Jimmy, the sole surviving partner, Elfledo was not a partner; and that he and Norberto entered into a partnership with Jose. Thus, the CA erred in not giving that testimony greater weight than that of Cresencia, who was merely the spouse of Jose and not a party to the partnership.8 Respondent counters that the issue raised by petitioners is not proper in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as it would entail the review, evaluation, calibration, and re-weighing of the factual findings of the CA. Moreover, respondent invokes the rationale of the CA decision that, in light of the admissions of Cresencia and Edison and the testimony of respondent, the testimony of Jimmy was effectively refuted; accordingly, the CA's reversal of the RTC's findings was fully justified.9We resolve first the procedural matter regarding the propriety of the instant Petition.Verily, the evaluation and calibration of the evidence necessarily involves consideration of factual issues an exercise that is not appropriate for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. This rule provides that the parties may raise only questions of law, because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Generally, we are not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the tribunals below.10 When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, 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 Court of Appeals, 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 findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.11We note, however, that the findings of fact of the RTC are contrary to those of the CA. Thus, our review of such findings is warranted.On the merits of the case, we find that the instant Petition is bereft of merit.A partnership exists when two or more persons agree to place their money, effects, labor, and skill in lawful commerce or business, with the understanding that there shall be a proportionate sharing of the profits and losses among them. A contract of partnership is defined by the Civil Code as one where two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.12Undoubtedly, the best evidence would have been the contract of partnership or the articles of partnership. Unfortunately, there is none in this case, because the alleged partnership was never formally organized. Nonetheless, we are asked to determine who between Jose and Elfledo was the "partner" in the trucking business. A careful review of the records persuades us to affirm the CA decision. The evidence presented by petitioners falls short of the quantum of proof required to establish that: (1) Jose was the partner and not Elfledo; and (2) all the properties acquired by Elfledo and respondent form part of the estate of Jose, having been derived from the alleged partnership.Petitioners heavily rely on Jimmy's testimony. But that testimony is just one piece of evidence against respondent. It must be considered and weighed along with petitioners' other evidence vis--vis respondent's contrary evidence. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. "Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." "Preponderance of evidence" is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.13 Rule 133, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides the guidelines in determining preponderance of evidence, thus: SECTION I. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. In civil cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.At this juncture, our ruling in Heirs of Tan Eng Kee v. Court of Appeals14 is enlightening. Therein, we cited Article 1769 of the Civil Code, which provides: Art. 1769. In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply:(1) Except as provided by Article 1825, persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons;(2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property;(3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived; (4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is a prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment:(a) As a debt by installments or otherwise;(b) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord;(c) As an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner;(d) As interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the business;(e) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by installments or otherwise. Applying the legal provision to the facts of this case, the following circumstances tend to prove that Elfledo was himself the partner of Jimmy and Norberto: 1) Cresencia testified that Jose gave Elfledo P50,000.00, as share in the partnership, on a date that coincided with the payment of the initial capital in the partnership;15 (2) Elfledo ran the affairs of the partnership, wielding absolute control, power and authority, without any intervention or opposition whatsoever from any of petitioners herein;16 (3) all of the properties, particularly the nine trucks of the partnership, were registered in the name of Elfledo; (4) Jimmy testified that Elfledo did not receive wages or salaries from the partnership, indicating that what he actually received were shares of the profits of the business;17 and (5) none of the petitioners, as heirs of Jose, the alleged partner, demanded periodic accounting from Elfledo during his lifetime. As repeatedly stressed in Heirs of Tan Eng Kee,18 a demand for periodic accounting is evidence of a partnership. Furthermore, petitioners failed to adduce any evidence to show that the real and personal properties acquired and registered in the names of Elfledo and respondent formed part of the estate of Jose, having been derived from Jose's alleged partnership with Jimmy and Norberto. They failed to refute respondent's claim that Elfledo and respondent engaged in other businesses. Edison even admitted that Elfledo also sold Interwood lumber as a sideline.19 Petitioners could not offer any credible evidence other than their bare assertions. Thus, we apply the basic rule of evidence that between documentary and oral evidence, the former carries more weight.20 Finally, we agree with the judicious findings of the CA, to wit: The above testimonies prove that Elfledo was not just a hired help but one of the partners in the trucking business, active and visible in the running of its affairs from day one until this ceased operations upon his demise. The extent of his control, administration and management of the partnership and its business, the fact that its properties were placed in his name, and that he was not paid salary or other compensation by the partners, are indicative of the fact that Elfledo was a partner and a controlling one at that. It is apparent that the other partners only contributed in the initial capital but had no say thereafter on how the business was ran. Evidently it was through Elfredos efforts and hard work that the partnership was able to acquire more trucks and otherwise prosper. Even the appellant participated in the affairs of the partnership by acting as the bookkeeper sans salary.1avvphi1It is notable too that Jose Lim died when the partnership was barely a year old, and the partnership and its business not only continued but also flourished. If it were true that it was Jose Lim and not Elfledo who was the partner, then upon his death the partnership should havebeen dissolved and its assets liquidated. On the contrary, these were not done but instead its operation continued under the helm of Elfledo and without any participation from the heirs of Jose Lim.Whatever properties appellant and her husband had acquired, this was through their own concerted efforts and hard work. Elfledo did not limit himself to the business of their partnership but engaged in other lines of businesses as well.In sum, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings and the ruling of the CA as they are amply supported by the law and by the evidence on record.WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. The assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated June 29, 2005 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 126881 October 3, 2000HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and BENGUET LUMBER COMPANY, represented by its President TAN ENG LAY, respondents.DE LEON, JR., J.:In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners pray for the reversal of the Decision1 dated March 13, 1996 of the former Fifth Division2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47937, the dispositive portion of which states: THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the appealed decision is hereby set aside, and the complaint dismissed.The facts are:Following the death of Tan Eng Kee on September 13, 1984, Matilde Abubo, the common-law spouse of the decedent, joined by their children Teresita, Nena, Clarita, Carlos, Corazon and Elpidio, collectively known as herein petitioners HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, filed suit against the decedent's brother TAN ENG LAY on February 19, 1990. The complaint,3 docketed as Civil Case No. 1983-R in the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City was for accounting, liquidation and winding up of the alleged partnership formed after World War II between Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay. On March 18, 1991, the petitioners filed an amended complaint4 impleading private respondent herein BENGUET LUMBER COMPANY, as represented by Tan Eng Lay. The amended complaint was admitted by the trial court in its Order dated May 3, 1991.5 The amended complaint principally alleged that after the second World War, Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay, pooling their resources and industry together, entered into a partnership engaged in the business of selling lumber and hardware and construction supplies. They named their enterprise "Benguet Lumber" which they jointly managed until Tan Eng Kee's death. Petitioners herein averred that the business prospered due to the hard work and thrift of the alleged partners. However, they claimed that in 1981, Tan Eng Lay and his children caused the conversion of the partnership "Benguet Lumber" into a corporation called "Benguet Lumber Company." The incorporation was purportedly a ruse to deprive Tan Eng Kee and his heirs of their rightful participation in the profits of the business. Petitioners prayed for accounting of the partnership assets, and the dissolution, winding up and liquidation thereof, and the equal division of the net assets of Benguet Lumber.After trial, Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 7 rendered judgment6 on April 12, 1995, to wit:WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:a) Declaring that Benguet Lumber is a joint venture which is akin to a particular partnership;b) Declaring that the deceased Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay are joint adventurers and/or partners in a business venture and/or particular partnership called Benguet Lumber and as such should share in the profits and/or losses of the business venture or particular partnership;c) Declaring that the assets of Benguet Lumber are the same assets turned over to Benguet Lumber Co. Inc. and as such the heirs or legal representatives of the deceased Tan Eng Kee have a legal right to share in said assets;d) Declaring that all the rights and obligations of Tan Eng Kee as joint adventurer and/or as partner in a particular partnership have descended to the plaintiffs who are his legal heirs.e) Ordering the defendant Tan Eng Lay and/or the President and/or General Manager of Benguet Lumber Company Inc. to render an accounting of all the assets of Benguet Lumber Company, Inc. so the plaintiffs know their proper share in the business;f) Ordering the appointment of a receiver to preserve and/or administer the assets of Benguet Lumber Company, Inc. until such time that said corporation is finally liquidated are directed to submit the name of any person they want to be appointed as receiver failing in which this Court will appoint the Branch Clerk of Court or another one who is qualified to act as such.g) Denying the award of damages to the plaintiffs for lack of proof except the expenses in filing the instant case.h) Dismissing the counter-claim of the defendant for lack of merit.SO ORDERED.Private respondent sought relief before the Court of Appeals which, on March 13, 1996, rendered the assailed decision reversing the judgment of the trial court. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration7 was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution8 dated October 11, 1996.Hence, the present petition.As a side-bar to the proceedings, petitioners filed Criminal Case No. 78856 against Tan Eng Lay and Wilborn Tan for the use of allegedly falsified documents in a judicial proceeding. Petitioners complained that Exhibits "4" to "4-U" offered by the defendants before the trial court, consisting of payrolls indicating that Tan Eng Kee was a mere employee of Benguet Lumber, were fake, based on the discrepancy in the signatures of Tan Eng Kee. They also filed Criminal Cases Nos. 78857-78870 against Gloria, Julia, Juliano, Willie, Wilfredo, Jean, Mary and Willy, all surnamed Tan, for alleged falsification of commercial documents by a private individual. On March 20, 1999, the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 1, wherein the charges were filed, rendered judgment9 dismissing the cases for insufficiency of evidence.In their assignment of errors, petitioners claim that:ITHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE LATE TAN ENG KEE AND HIS BROTHER TAN ENG LAY BECAUSE: (A) THERE WAS NO FIRM ACCOUNT; (B) THERE WAS NO FIRM LETTERHEADS SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE; (C) THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF PARTNERSHIP; (D) THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT AS TO PROFITS AND LOSSES; AND (E) THERE WAS NO TIME FIXED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP (PAGE 13, DECISION).IITHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RELYING SOLELY ON THE SELF-SERVING TESTIMONY OF RESPONDENT TAN ENG LAY THAT BENGUET LUMBER WAS A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP AND THAT TAN ENG KEE WAS ONLY AN EMPLOYEE THEREOF.IIITHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE FOLLOWING FACTS WHICH WERE DULY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF BOTH PARTIES DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTNERSHIP JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ARTICLES OF PARTNERSHIP DULY RECORDED BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION:a. THAT THE FAMILIES OF TAN ENG KEE AND TAN ENG LAY WERE ALL LIVING AT THE BENGUET LUMBER COMPOUND;b. THAT BOTH TAN ENG LAY AND TAN ENG KEE WERE COMMANDING THE EMPLOYEES OF BENGUET LUMBER;c. THAT BOTH TAN ENG KEE AND TAN ENG LAY WERE SUPERVISING THE EMPLOYEES THEREIN;d. THAT TAN ENG KEE AND TAN ENG LAY WERE THE ONES DETERMINING THE PRICES OF STOCKS TO BE SOLD TO THE PUBLIC; ANDe. THAT TAN ENG LAY AND TAN ENG KEE WERE THE ONES MAKING ORDERS TO THE SUPPLIERS (PAGE 18, DECISION).IVTHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PARTNERSHIP JUST BECAUSE THE CHILDREN OF THE LATE TAN ENG KEE: ELPIDIO TAN AND VERONICA CHOI, TOGETHER WITH THEIR WITNESS BEATRIZ TANDOC, ADMITTED THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WHEN THE ESTABLISHMENT KNOWN IN BAGUIO CITY AS BENGUET LUMBER WAS STARTED AS A PARTNERSHIP (PAGE 16-17, DECISION).VTHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE LATE TAN ENG KEE AND HIS BROTHER TAN ENG LAY BECAUSE THE PRESENT CAPITAL OR ASSETS OF BENGUET LUMBER IS DEFINITELY MORE THAN P3,000.00 AND AS SUCH THE EXECUTION OF A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT CREATING A PARTNERSHIP SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AND NO SUCH PUBLIC INSTRUMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLEES (PAGE 17, DECISION).As a premise, we reiterate the oft-repeated rule that findings of facts of the Court of Appeals will not be disturbed on appeal if such are supported by the evidence.10 Our jurisdiction, it must be emphasized, does not include review of factual issues. Thus:Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.11 [emphasis supplied]Admitted exceptions have been recognized, though, and when present, may compel us to analyze the evidentiary basis on which the lower court rendered judgment. Review of factual issues is therefore warranted:(1) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;(2) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;(3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;(4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;(5) when the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;(6) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts;(7) when the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion;(8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;(9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.12 In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals ruled, to wit:We note that the Court a quo over extended the issue because while the plaintiffs mentioned only the existence of a partnership, the Court in turn went beyond that by justifying the existence of a joint venture.When mention is made of a joint venture, it would presuppose parity of standing between the parties, equal proprietary interest and the exercise by the parties equally of the conduct of the business, thus:xxx xxx xxxWe have the admission that the father of the plaintiffs was not a partner of the Benguet Lumber before the war. The appellees however argued that (Rollo, p. 104; Brief, p. 6) this is because during the war, the entire stocks of the pre-war Benguet Lumber were confiscated if not burned by the Japanese. After the war, because of the absence of capital to start a lumber and hardware business, Lay and Kee pooled the proceeds of their individual businesses earned from buying and selling military supplies, so that the common fund would be enough to form a partnership, both in the lumber and hardware business. That Lay and Kee actually established the Benguet Lumber in Baguio City, was even testified to by witnesses. Because of the pooling of resources, the post-war Benguet Lumber was eventually established. That the father of the plaintiffs and Lay were partners, is obvious from the fact that: (1) they conducted the affairs of the business during Kee's lifetime, jointly, (2) they were the ones giving orders to the employees, (3) they were the ones preparing orders from the suppliers, (4) their families stayed together at the Benguet Lumber compound, and (5) all their children were employed in the business in different capacities.xxx xxx xxxIt is obvious that there was no partnership whatsoever. Except for a firm name, there was no firm account, no firm letterheads submitted as evidence, no certificate of partnership, no agreement as to profits and losses, and no time fixed for the duration of the partnership. There was even no attempt to submit an accounting corresponding to the period after the war until Kee's death in 1984. It had no business book, no written account nor any memorandum for that matter and no license mentioning the existence of a partnership [citation omitted].Also, the exhibits support the establishment of only a proprietorship. The certification dated March 4, 1971, Exhibit "2", mentioned co-defendant Lay as the only registered owner of the Benguet Lumber and Hardware. His application for registration, effective 1954, in fact mentioned that his business started in 1945 until 1985 (thereafter, the incorporation). The deceased, Kee, on the other hand, was merely an employee of the Benguet Lumber Company, on the basis of his SSS coverage effective 1958, Exhibit "3". In the Payrolls, Exhibits "4" to "4-U", inclusive, for the years 1982 to 1983, Kee was similarly listed only as an employee; precisely, he was on the payroll listing. In the Termination Notice, Exhibit "5", Lay was mentioned also as the proprietor.xxx xxx xxxWe would like to refer to Arts. 771 and 772, NCC, that a partner [sic] may be constituted in any form, but when an immovable is constituted, the execution of a public instrument becomes necessary. This is equally true if the capitalization exceeds P3,000.00, in which case a public instrument is also necessary, and which is to be recorded with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In this case at bar, we can easily assume that the business establishment, which from the language of the appellees, prospered (pars. 5 & 9, Complaint), definitely exceeded P3,000.00, in addition to the accumulation of real properties and to the fact that it is now a compound. The execution of a public instrument, on the other hand, was never established by the appellees.And then in 1981, the business was incorporated and the incorporators were only Lay and the members of his family. There is no proof either that the capital assets of the partnership, assuming them to be in existence, were maliciously assigned or transferred by Lay, supposedly to the corporation and since then have been treated as a part of the latter's capital assets, contrary to the allegations in pars. 6, 7 and 8 of the complaint. These are not evidences supporting the existence of a partnership:1) That Kee was living in a bunk house just across the lumber store, and then in a room in the bunk house in Trinidad, but within the compound of the lumber establishment, as testified to by Tandoc; 2) that both Lay and Kee were seated on a table and were "commanding people" as testified to by the son, Elpidio Tan; 3) that both were supervising the laborers, as testified to by Victoria Choi; and 4) that Dionisio Peralta was supposedly being told by Kee that the proceeds of the 80 pieces of the G.I. sheets were added to the business. Partnership presupposes the following elements [citation omitted]: 1) a contract, either oral or written. However, if it involves real property or where the capital is P3,000.00 or more, the execution of a contract is necessary; 2) the capacity of the parties to execute the contract; 3) money property or industry contribution; 4) community of funds and interest, mentioning equality of the partners or one having a proportionate share in the benefits; and 5) intention to divide the profits, being the true test of the partnership. The intention to join in the business venture for the purpose of obtaining profits thereafter to be divided, must be established. We cannot see these elements from the testimonial evidence of the appellees.As can be seen, the appellate court disputed and differed from the trial court which had adjudged that TAN ENG KEE and TAN ENG LAY had allegedly entered into a joint venture. In this connection, we have held that whether a partnership exists is a factual matter; consequently, since the appeal is brought to us under Rule 45, we cannot entertain inquiries relative to the correctness of the assessment of the evidence by the court a quo.13 Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals and the trial court had reached conflicting conclusions, perforce we must examine the record to determine if the reversal was justified.The primordial issue here is whether Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay were partners in Benguet Lumber. A contract of partnership is defined by law as one where:. . . two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.Two or more persons may also form a partnership for the exercise of a profession.14 Thus, in order to constitute a partnership, it must be established that (1) two or more persons bound themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, and (2) they intend to divide the profits among themselves.15 The agreement need not be formally reduced into writing, since statute allows the oral constitution of a partnership, save in two instances: (1) when immovable property or real rights are contributed,16 and (2) when the partnership has a capital of three thousand pesos or more.17 In both cases, a public instrument is required.18 An inventory to be signed by the parties and attached to the public instrument is also indispensable to the validity of the partnership whenever immovable property is contributed to the partnership.19 The trial court determined that Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay had entered into a joint venture, which it said is akin to a particular partnership.20 A particular partnership is distinguished from a joint adventure, to wit:(a) A joint adventure (an American concept similar to our joint accounts) is a sort of informal partnership, with no firm name and no legal personality. In a joint account, the participating merchants can transact business under their own name, and can be individually liable therefor.(b) Usually, but not necessarily a joint adventure is limited to a SINGLE TRANSACTION, although the business of pursuing to a successful termination may continue for a number of years; a partnership generally relates to a continuing business of various transactions of a certain kind.21 A joint venture "presupposes generally a parity of standing between the joint co-ventures or partners, in which each party has an equal proprietary interest in the capital or property contributed, and where each party exercises equal rights in the conduct of the business."22 Nonetheless, in Aurbach, et. al. v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation, et. al.,23 we expressed the view that a joint venture may be likened to a particular partnership, thus:The legal concept of a joint venture is of common law origin. It has no precise legal definition, but it has been generally understood to mean an organization formed for some temporary purpose. (Gates v. Megargel, 266 Fed. 811 [1920]) It is hardly distinguishable from the partnership, since their elements are similar community of interest in the business, sharing of profits and losses, and a mutual right of control. (Blackner v. McDermott, 176 F. 2d. 498, [1949]; Carboneau v. Peterson, 95 P.2d., 1043 [1939]; Buckley v. Chadwick, 45 Cal. 2d. 183, 288 P.2d. 12 289 P.2d. 242 [1955]). The main distinction cited by most opinions in common law jurisdiction is that the partnership contemplates a general business with some degree of continuity, while the joint venture is formed for the execution of a single transaction, and is thus of a temporary nature. (Tufts v. Mann. 116 Cal. App. 170, 2 P. 2d. 500 [1931]; Harmon v. Martin, 395 Ill. 595, 71 NE 2d. 74 [1947]; Gates v. Megargel 266 Fed. 811 [1920]). This observation is not entirely accurate in this jurisdiction, since under the Civil Code, a partnership may be particular or universal, and a particular partnership may have for its object a specific undertaking. (Art. 1783, Civil Code). It would seem therefore that under Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of partnership and should thus be governed by the law of partnerships. The Supreme Court has however recognized a distinction between these two business forms, and has held that although a corporation cannot enter into a partnership contract, it may however engage in a joint venture with others. (At p. 12, Tuazon v. Bolaos, 95 Phil. 906 [1954]) (Campos and Lopez-Campos Comments, Notes and Selected Cases, Corporation Code 1981).Undoubtedly, the best evidence would have been the contract of partnership itself, or the articles of partnership but there is none. The alleged partnership, though, was never formally organized. In addition, petitioners point out that the New Civil Code was not yet in effect when the partnership was allegedly formed sometime in 1945, although the contrary may well be argued that nothing prevented the parties from complying with the provisions of the New Civil Code when it took effect on August 30, 1950. But all that is in the past. The net effect, however, is that we are asked to determine whether a partnership existed based purely on circumstantial evidence. A review of the record persuades us that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the decision of the trial court. The evidence presented by petitioners falls short of the quantum of proof required to establish a partnership.Unfortunately for petitioners, Tan Eng Kee has passed away. Only he, aside from Tan Eng Lay, could have expounded on the precise nature of the business relationship between them. In the absence of evidence, we cannot accept as an established fact that Tan Eng Kee allegedly contributed his resources to a common fund for the purpose of establishing a partnership. The testimonies to that effect of petitioners' witnesses is directly controverted by Tan Eng Lay. It should be noted that it is not with the number of witnesses wherein preponderance lies;24 the quality of their testimonies is to be considered. None of petitioners' witnesses could suitably account for the beginnings of Benguet Lumber Company, except perhaps for Dionisio Peralta whose deceased wife was related to Matilde Abubo.25 He stated that when he met Tan Eng Kee after the liberation, the latter asked the former to accompany him to get 80 pieces of G.I. sheets supposedly owned by both brothers.26 Tan Eng Lay, however, denied knowledge of this meeting or of the conversation between Peralta and his brother.27 Tan Eng Lay consistently testified that he had his business and his brother had his, that it was only later on that his said brother, Tan Eng Kee, came to work for him. Be that as it may, co-ownership or co-possession (specifically here, of the G.I. sheets) is not an indicium of the existence of a partnership.28 Besides, it is indeed odd, if not unnatural, that despite the forty years the partnership was allegedly in existence, Tan Eng Kee never asked for an accounting. The essence of a partnership is that the partners share in the profits and losses.29 Each has the right to demand an accounting as long as the partnership exists.30 We have allowed a scenario wherein "[i]f excellent relations exist among the partners at the start of the business and all the partners are more interested in seeing the firm grow rather than get immediate returns, a deferment of sharing in the profits is perfectly plausible."31 But in the situation in the case at bar, the deferment, if any, had gone on too long to be plausible. A person is presumed to take ordinary care of his concerns.32 As we explained in another case:In the first place, plaintiff did not furnish the supposed P20,000.00 capital. In the second place, she did not furnish any help or intervention in the management of the theatre. In the third place, it does not appear that she has even demanded from defendant any accounting of the expenses and earnings of the business. Were she really a partner, her first concern should have been to find out how the business was progressing, whether the expenses were legitimate, whether the earnings were correct, etc. She was absolutely silent with respect to any of the acts that a partner should have done; all that she did was to receive her share of P3,000.00 a month, which cannot be interpreted in any manner than a payment for the use of the premises which she had leased from the owners. Clearly, plaintiff had always acted in accordance with the original letter of defendant of June 17, 1945 (Exh. "A"), which shows that both parties considered this offer as the real contract between them.33 [emphasis supplied]A demand for periodic accounting is evidence of a partnership.34 During his lifetime, Tan Eng Kee appeared never to have made any such demand for accounting from his brother, Tang Eng Lay.This brings us to the matter of Exhibits "4" to "4-U" for private respondents, consisting of payrolls purporting to show that Tan Eng Kee was an ordinary employee of Benguet Lumber, as it was then called. The authenticity of these documents was questioned by petitioners, to the extent that they filed criminal charges against Tan Eng Lay and his wife and children. As aforesaid, the criminal cases were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Exhibits "4" to "4-U" in fact shows that Tan Eng Kee received sums as wages of an employee. In connection therewith, Article 1769 of the Civil Code provides:In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply:(1) Except as provided by Article 1825, persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons;(2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property;(3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property which the returns are derived; (4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is a prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment:(a) As a debt by installment or otherwise;(b) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord;(c) As an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner;(d) As interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the business;(e) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by installments or otherwise.In the light of the aforequoted legal provision, we conclude that Tan Eng Kee was only an employee, not a partner. Even if the payrolls as evidence were discarded, petitioners would still be back to square one, so to speak, since they did not present and offer evidence that would show that Tan Eng Kee received amounts of money allegedly representing his share in the profits of the enterprise. Petitioners failed to show how much their father, Tan Eng Kee, received, if any, as his share in the profits of Benguet Lumber Company for any particular period. Hence, they failed to prove that Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay intended to divide the profits of the business between themselves, which is one of the essential features of a partnership.Nevertheless, petitioners would still want us to infer or believe the alleged existence of a partnership from this set of circumstances: that Tan Eng Lay and Tan Eng Kee were commanding the employees; that both were supervising the employees; that both were the ones who determined the price at which the stocks were to be sold; and that both placed orders to the suppliers of the Benguet Lumber Company. They also point out that the families of the brothers Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay lived at the Benguet Lumber Company compound, a privilege not extended to its ordinary employees.However, private respondent counters that: Petitioners seem to have missed the point in asserting that the above enumerated powers and privileges granted in favor of Tan Eng Kee, were indicative of his being a partner in Benguet Lumber for the following reasons:(i) even a mere supervisor in a company, factory or store gives orders and directions to his subordinates. So long, therefore, that an employee's position is higher in rank, it is not unusual that he orders around those lower in rank.(ii) even a messenger or other trusted employee, over whom confidence is reposed by the owner, can order materials from suppliers for and in behalf of Benguet Lumber. Furthermore, even a partner does not necessarily have to perform this particular task. It is, thus, not an indication that Tan Eng Kee was a partner.(iii) although Tan Eng Kee, together with his family, lived in the lumber compound and this privilege was not accorded to other employees, the undisputed fact remains that Tan Eng Kee is the brother of Tan Eng Lay. Naturally, close personal relations existed between them. Whatever privileges Tan Eng Lay gave his brother, and which were not given the other employees, only proves the kindness and generosity of Tan Eng Lay towards a blood relative.(iv) and even if it is assumed that Tan Eng Kee was quarreling with Tan Eng Lay in connection with the pricing of stocks, this does not adequately prove the existence of a partnership relation between them. Even highly confidential employees and the owners of a company sometimes argue with respect to certain matters which, in no way indicates that they are partners as to each other.35 In the instant case, we find private respondent's arguments to be well-taken. Where circumstances taken singly may be inadequate to prove the intent to form a partnership, nevertheless, the collective effect of these circumstances may be such as to support a finding of the existence of the parties' intent.36 Yet, in the case at bench, even the aforesaid circumstances when taken together are not persuasive indicia of a partnership. They only tend to show that Tan Eng Kee was involved in the operations of Benguet Lumber, but in what capacity is unclear. We cannot discount the likelihood that as a member of the family, he occupied a niche above the rank-and-file employees. He would have enjoyed liberties otherwise unavailable were he not kin, such as his residence in the Benguet Lumber Company compound. He would have moral, if not actual, superiority over his fellow employees, thereby entitling him to exercise powers of supervision. It may even be that among his duties is to place orders with suppliers. Again, the circumstances proffered by petitioners do not provide a logical nexus to the conclusion desired; these are not inconsistent with the powers and duties of a manager, even in a business organized and run as informally as Benguet Lumber Company.There being no partnership, it follows that there is no dissolution, winding up or liquidation to speak of. Hence, the petition must fail.WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby denied, and the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs.SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 154486 December 1, 2010FEDERICO JARANTILLA, JR., Petitioner, vs.ANTONIETA JARANTILLA, BUENAVENTURA REMOTIGUE, substituted by CYNTHIA REMOTIGUE, DOROTEO JARANTILLA and TOMAS JARANTILLA, Respondents.D E C I S I O NLEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:This petition for review on certiorari1 seeks to modify the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals dated July 30, 2002 in CA-G.R. CV No. 40887, which set aside the Decision3 dated December 18, 1992 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 98 in Civil Case No. Q-50464.The pertinent facts are as follows:The spouses Andres Jarantilla and Felisa Jaleco were survived by eight children: Federico, Delfin, Benjamin, Conchita, Rosita, Pacita, Rafael and Antonieta.4 Petitioner Federico Jarantilla, Jr. is the grandchild of the late Jarantilla spouses by their son Federico Jarantilla, Sr. and his wife Leda Jamili.5 Petitioner also has two other brothers: Doroteo and Tomas Jarantilla.Petitioner was one of the defendants in the complaint before the RTC while Antonieta Jarantilla, his aunt, was the plaintiff therein. His co-respondents before he joined his aunt Antonieta in her complaint, were his late aunt Conchita Jarantillas husband Buenaventura Remotigue, who died during the pendency of the case, his cousin Cynthia Remotigue, the adopted daughter of Conchita Jarantilla and Buenaventura Remotigue, and his brothers Doroteo and Tomas Jarantilla.6In 1948, the Jarantilla heirs extrajudicially partitioned amongst themselves the real properties of their deceased parents.7 With the exception of the real property adjudicated to Pacita Jarantilla, the heirs also agreed to allot the produce of the said real properties for the years 1947-1949 for the studies of Rafael and Antonieta Jarantilla.8In the same year, the spouses Rosita Jarantilla and Vivencio Deocampo entered into an agreement with the spouses Buenaventura Remotigue and Conchita Jarantilla to provide mutual assistance to each other by way of financial support to any commercial and agricultural activity on a joint business arrangement. This business relationship proved to be successful as they were able to establish a manufacturing and trading business, acquire real properties, and construct buildings, among other things.9 This partnership ended in 1973 when the parties, in an "Agreement,"10 voluntarily agreed to completely dissolve their "joint business relationship/arrangement."11On April 29, 1957, the spouses Buenaventura and Conchita Remotigue executed a document wherein they acknowledged that while registered only in Buenaventura Remotigues name, they were not the only owners of the capital of the businesses Manila Athletic Supply (712 Raon Street, Manila), Remotigue Trading (Calle Real, Iloilo City) and Remotigue Trading (Cotabato City). In this same "Acknowledgement of Participating Capital," they stated the participating capital of their co-owners as of the year 1952, with Antonieta Jarantillas stated as eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00) and Federico Jarantilla, Jr.s as five thousand pesos (P5,000.00).12The present case stems from the amended complaint13 dated April 22, 1987 filed by Antonieta Jarantilla against Buenaventura Remotigue, Cynthia Remotigue, Federico Jarantilla, Jr., Doroteo Jarantilla and Tomas Jarantilla, for the accounting of the assets and income of the co-ownership, for its partition and the delivery of her share corresponding to eight percent (8%), and for damages. Antonieta claimed that in 1946, she had entered into an agreement with Conchita and Buenaventura Remotigue, Rafael Jarantilla, and Rosita and Vivencio Deocampo to engage in business. Antonieta alleged that the initial contribution of property and money came from the heirs inheritance, and her subsequent annual investment of seven thousand five hundred pesos (P7,500.00) as additional capital came from the proceeds of her farm. Antonieta also alleged that from 1946-1969, she had helped in the management of the business they co-owned without receiving any salary. Her salary was supposedly rolled back into the business as additional investments in her behalf. Antonieta further claimed co-ownership of certain properties14 (the subject real properties) in the name of the defendants since the only way the defendants could have purchased these properties were through the partnership as they had no other source of income. The respondents, including petitioner herein, in their Answer,15 denied having formed a partnership with Antonieta in 1946. They claimed that she was in no position to do so as she was still in school at that time. In fact, the proceeds of the lands they partitioned were devoted to her studies. They also averred that while she may have helped in the businesses that her older sister Conchita had formed with Buenaventura Remotigue, she was paid her due salary. They did not deny the existence and validity of the "Acknowledgement of Participating Capital" and in fact used this as evidence to support their claim that Antonietas 8% share was limited to the businesses enumerated therein. With regard to Antonietas claim in their other corporations and businesses, the respondents said these should also be limited to the number of her shares as specified in the respective articles of incorporation. The respondents denied using the partnerships income to purchase the subject real properties and said that the certificates of title should be binding on her.16During the course of the trial at the RTC, petitioner Federico Jarantilla, Jr., who was one of the original defendants, entered into a compromise agreement17 with Antonieta Jarantilla wherein he supported Antonietas claims and asserted that he too was entitled to six percent (6%) of the supposed partnership in the same manner as Antonieta was. He prayed for a favorable judgment in this wise:Defendant Federico Jarantilla, Jr., hereby joins in plaintiffs prayer for an accounting from the other defendants, and the partition of the properties of the co-ownership and the delivery to the plaintiff and to defendant Federico Jarantilla, Jr. of their rightful share of the assets and properties in the co-ownership.181avvphi1The RTC, in an Order19 dated March 25, 1992, approved the Joint Motion to Approve Compromise Agreement20 and on December 18, 1992, decided in favor of Antonieta, to wit:WHEREFORE, premises above-considered, the Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff Antonieta Jarantilla and against defendants Cynthia Remotigue, Doroteo Jarantilla and Tomas Jarantilla ordering the latter:1. to deliver to the plaintiff her 8% share or its equivalent amount on the real properties covered by TCT Nos. 35655, 338398, 338399 & 335395, all of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City; TCT Nos. (18303)23341, 142882 & 490007(4615), all of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal; and TCT No. T-6309 of the Registry of Deeds of Cotabato based on their present market value;2. to deliver to the plaintiff her 8% share or its equivalent amount on the Remotigue Agro-Industrial Corporation, Manila Athletic Supply, Inc., MAS Rubber Products, Inc. and Buendia Recapping Corporation based on the shares of stocks present book value;3. to account for the assets and income of the co-ownership and deliver to plaintiff her rightful share thereof equivalent to 8%;4. to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages;5. to pay, jointly and severally, the sum of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees; and6. to pay,