LIM TANHU v. HON. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

LIM TANHU v. HON. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

G.R. No. L-40098; August 29, 1975

Ponente: J. Barredo

FACTS:

Tan alleged that she is the widow of Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan, who was a partner in the commercial partnership, Glory Commercial Company with Antonio Lim Tanhu and Alfonso Ng Sua". 

Defendant Antonio Lim Tanhu, Alfonso Leonardo Ng Sua, Lim Teck Chuan, and Eng Chong Leonardo, through fraud and machination, took actual and active management of the partnership and although Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan was the manager of Glory Commercial Company, defendants managed to use the funds of the partnership to purchase lands and buildings in the cities of Cebu, Lapulapu, Mandaue, and the municipalities of Talisay and Minglanilla.

She alleged in her complaint that after the death of Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan, the defendants, without liquidation, continued the business of Glory Commercial Company, by purportedly organizing a corporation known as the Glory Commercial Company, Incorporated and sometime in the month of November, 1967, defendants, particularly Antonio Lim Tanhu, by means of fraud deceit, and misrepresentations did then and there, induce and convince her to execute a quitclaim of all her rights and interests, in the assets of the partnership of Glory Commercial Company.

Thereafter, in the year 1968-69, the defendants who had earlier promised to liquidate the aforesaid properties and assets in favor, among others of plaintiff and until the middle of the year 1970 when the plaintiff formally demanded from the defendants the accounting of real and personal properties of the Glory Commercial Company, defendants refused and stated that they would not give the share of the plaintiff.

ISSUE:

Whether Tan has a right over the liquidated properties of the partnership

HELD:

No, Tan has no right over the liquidated properties of the partnership

The Supreme Court held that there is no alternative but to hold that plaintiff Tan Put's allegation that she is the widow of Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan has not been satisfactorily established and that, on the contrary, the evidence on record convincingly shows that her relation with said deceased was that of a common-law wife.

Moreover, the Supreme Court said that the lower courts committed an error by awarding 1/3 of the partnership properties to Tan because there has been no liquidation proceedings yet. And if there has not yet been any liquidation of the partnership, the only right plaintiff could have would be to what might result after much liquidation to belong to the deceased partner (her alleged husband) and before this is finished, it is impossible to determine, what rights or interest, if any the deceased had. 

In other words, no specific amounts or properties may be adjudicated to the heir or legal representative of the deceased partner without the liquidation being first terminated.