DELUAO v. CASTEEL
G.R. No. L-21906; December 24, 1968
Ponente: J. Castro
FACTS:
In 1940 Nicanor Casteel unsuccessfully registered a fishpond in a big tract of swampy land, 178.76 hectares, in the then sitio of Malalag, municipality of Padada, Davao for 3 consecutive times because the Bureau of Fisheries did not act upon his previous applications.
Despite the said rejection, Casteel did not lose interest. Because of the threat poised upon his position by the other applicants who entered upon and spread themselves within the area, Casteel realized the urgent necessity of expanding his occupation thereof by constructing dikes and cultivating marketable fishes. But lacking financial resources at that time, he sought financial aid from his uncle Felipe Deluao.
Moreover, upon learning that portions of the area applied for by him were already occupied by rival applicants, Casteel immediately filed a protest. Consequently, two administrative cases ensued involving the area in question.
However, despite the finding made in the investigation of the above administrative cases, the Director of Fisheries nevertheless rejected Casteel's application on October 25, 1949, required him to remove all the improvements which he had introduced on the land, and ordered that the land be leased through public auction
On November 25, 1949 Inocencia Deluao (wife of Felipe Deluao) as party of the first part, and Nicanor Casteel as party of the second part, executed a contract — denominated a "contract of service". On the same date the above contract was entered into, Inocencia Deluao executed a special power of attorney in favor of Jesus Donesa
On November 29, 1949 the Director of Fisheries rejected the application filed by Felipe Deluao on November 17, 1948. Unfazed by this rejection, Deluao reiterated his claim over the same area in the two administrative cases and asked for reinvestigation of the application of Nicanor Casteel over the subject fishpond.
The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources rendered a decision ordering Casteel to be reinstated in the area and that he shall pay for the improvement made thereupon.
Sometime in January 1951 Nicanor Casteel forbade Inocencia Deluao from further administering the fishpond, and ejected the latter's representative (encargado), Jesus Donesa, from the premises.
ISSUE:
Whether the reinstatement of Casteel over the subject land constitute a dissolution of the partnership between him and Deluao
HELD:
Yes, the reinstatement of Casteel dissolved his partnership with Deluao.
The Supreme Court ruled that the arrangement under the so-called "contract of service" continued until the decision both dated Sept. 15, 1950 were issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in DANR Cases 353 and 353-B.
This development, by itself, brought about the dissolution of the partnership. Since the partnership had for its object the division into two equal parts of the fishpond between the appellees and the appellant after it shall have been awarded to the latter, and therefore it envisaged the unauthorized transfer of one half thereof to parties other than the applicant Casteel, it was dissolved by the approval of his application and the award to him of the fishpond.
The approval was an event which made it unlawful for the members to carry it on in partnership. Moreover, subsequent events likewise reveal the intent of both parties to terminate the partnership because each refused to share the fishpond with the other.
In 1940 Nicanor Casteel unsuccessfully registered a fishpond in a big tract of swampy land, 178.76 hectares, in the then sitio of Malalag, municipality of Padada, Davao for 3 consecutive times because the Bureau of Fisheries did not act upon his previous applications.
Despite the said rejection, Casteel did not lose interest. Because of the threat poised upon his position by the other applicants who entered upon and spread themselves within the area, Casteel realized the urgent necessity of expanding his occupation thereof by constructing dikes and cultivating marketable fishes. But lacking financial resources at that time, he sought financial aid from his uncle Felipe Deluao.
Moreover, upon learning that portions of the area applied for by him were already occupied by rival applicants, Casteel immediately filed a protest. Consequently, two administrative cases ensued involving the area in question.
However, despite the finding made in the investigation of the above administrative cases, the Director of Fisheries nevertheless rejected Casteel's application on October 25, 1949, required him to remove all the improvements which he had introduced on the land, and ordered that the land be leased through public auction
On November 25, 1949 Inocencia Deluao (wife of Felipe Deluao) as party of the first part, and Nicanor Casteel as party of the second part, executed a contract — denominated a "contract of service". On the same date the above contract was entered into, Inocencia Deluao executed a special power of attorney in favor of Jesus Donesa
On November 29, 1949 the Director of Fisheries rejected the application filed by Felipe Deluao on November 17, 1948. Unfazed by this rejection, Deluao reiterated his claim over the same area in the two administrative cases and asked for reinvestigation of the application of Nicanor Casteel over the subject fishpond.
The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources rendered a decision ordering Casteel to be reinstated in the area and that he shall pay for the improvement made thereupon.
Sometime in January 1951 Nicanor Casteel forbade Inocencia Deluao from further administering the fishpond, and ejected the latter's representative (encargado), Jesus Donesa, from the premises.
ISSUE:
Whether the reinstatement of Casteel over the subject land constitute a dissolution of the partnership between him and Deluao
HELD:
Yes, the reinstatement of Casteel dissolved his partnership with Deluao.
The Supreme Court ruled that the arrangement under the so-called "contract of service" continued until the decision both dated Sept. 15, 1950 were issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in DANR Cases 353 and 353-B.
This development, by itself, brought about the dissolution of the partnership. Since the partnership had for its object the division into two equal parts of the fishpond between the appellees and the appellant after it shall have been awarded to the latter, and therefore it envisaged the unauthorized transfer of one half thereof to parties other than the applicant Casteel, it was dissolved by the approval of his application and the award to him of the fishpond.
The approval was an event which made it unlawful for the members to carry it on in partnership. Moreover, subsequent events likewise reveal the intent of both parties to terminate the partnership because each refused to share the fishpond with the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment