AGENCY TRUST AND PARTNERSHIP | LICHAUCO VS. LICHAUCO, 33 PHIL. 350, JANUARY 31, 1916
LICHAUCO VS. LICHAUCO,
33 PHIL. 350, JANUARY 31, 1916
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
It would be
absurd and unreasonable to hold that the partnership could never be dissolved
and liquidated without the consent of two-thirds of its partners
notwithstanding that it had lost all its capital, or had become bankrupt, or
that the enterprise for which it had been organized had been concluded or
utterly abandoned.
FACTS
In October,
1901, a notarial instrument was executed in Manila, by the terms of which a
partnership was duly organized for the purpose of carrying on a rice-cleaning
business at Dagupan, and for the purchase and sale of "palay" and
rice. The articles of association, which were not recorded in the mercantile
registry, contain, among others, the following provisions:
xxxx
"3.The association cannot be
dissolved except by the consent and agreement of two-thirds of its partners and
in the event of the death of any of the latter, the heirs of the deceased, if
they be minors or otherwise incapacitated, shall be represented in the association
by their legal representatives or if two-thirds of the surviving partners agree
thereto, the participation of the deceased partner may be liquidated.
xxx
The business thus organized was
carried on until May, 1904, when it was found to be unprofitable and
discontinued by the defendant manager (gestor) ; and, thereafter, the machinery of the rice
mill was dismantled by his orders, and offered for sale.
ISSUE
Whether the partnership
can only be dissolved by the consent and agreement of
two-thirds of the partners as stipulated in the articles of association.
RULING
No.
The court
ruled that a provision of articles of partnership, which prohibits the
dissolution of the partnership except by the consent and agreement of
two-thirds of the partners, denies the right of a less number of the partners.
to effect a dissolution of the partnership through judicial intervention or
otherwise; but it in no wise limits or restricts the rights of the individual
partners in the event that the dissolution of the partnership is effected, not
by any act of theirs, but by the express mandate of law. It would be absurd and
unreasonable to hold that the partnership could never be dissolved and
liquidated without the consent of two-thirds of its partners notwithstanding
that it had lost all its capital, or had become bankrupt, or that the
enterprise for which it had been organized had been concluded or utterly
abandoned. Upon the dissolution of the association in 1904 it became the
duty of the defendant to liquidate its affairs and account to his associates
for their respective shares in the capital invested—this not merely from the
very nature of his relation to the enterprise and of his duties to those
associated with him as partners, but also by the express mandate of the law.