50. Bearneza vs Dequilla, 43 Phil 237 Facts: In the year 1903, Balbino Dequilla and Perpetua Bearneza formed a partnership for the purpose of exploiting a fish pond ith Perpetua obligating herself to !ontribute to the payment of the expenses of the business, hi!h obligation she made good, and both agreeing to di"ide the profits beteen themsel"es, hi!h they had been doing until the death of the said Perpetua in the year 191#$
%he de!eased left a ill in one of the !lauses of hi!h she appointed Domingo Bearnez, the herein plaintiff, as her heir to su!!eed to all her rights and interests in the fish pond in question$ Domingo Bearnez then instituted an a!tion to re!o"er a part of the fish pond belonging to the de!edent, in!luding & of the profits re!ei"ed by the defendant from the years 1913'1919$ %he defendant alleges that (the formation of the supposed partnership beteen the plaintiff and the defendant for the exploitation of the aforesaid fish pond as not !arried into effe!t, on a!!ount of the plaintiff ha"ing refused to defray the expenses of re!onstru!tion and exploitation of said fish pond$( and further a"erred that the right of the plaintiff had already pres!ribed$ )udgment as then rendered de!laring the plaintiff oner of one'half of the fish pond but ithout may aarding him any damages$ *rom this +udgment the defendant appeals$ Issue: hether the plaintiff has any right to maintain an a!tion for re!o"ery of the said one'half of the fishpond$ Ruling: %he partnership formed as a parti!ular partnership, it ha"ing had for its sub+e!t'matter a spe!ified thing, the exploitation of the aforementioned fish pond$
-lthough, as the trial !ourt says in its de!ision, the defendant, in his letters to Perpetua or her husband, ma.es referen!e to the fish pond, !alling it (our,( or (your fish pond,( this referen!e !annot be held to in!lude the land on hi!h the said fish pond as built$ It has not been pro"en that Bearneza parti!ipated in the onership of the said land$ %herefore, the land on hi!h the fish pond as !onstru!ted did not !onstitute part of the sub+e!t' matter of the partnership$ %his partnership as dissol"ed by the death of Perpetua Bearneza$
/either !an it be maintained that the partnership !ontinued to exist after the death of Perpetua, inasmu!h as it does not appear that any stipulation to that effe!t has e"er been made by her and the defendant$ %he partnership ha"ing been dissol"ed by the death of Perpetua Bearneza, its subsequent legal status as that of a partnership in liquidation, and the only rights inherited by her testamentary heir, the herein plaintiff, ere those resulting from the said liquidation in fa"or of the de!eased partner, and nothing more ' Before this liquidation is made, hi!h up to the present has not been effe!ted, it is impossible to determine hat rights or interests, if any, the de!eased had, the partnership bond ha"ing been dissol"ed$ %here is no suffi!ient ground for holding that a !ommunity of property existed beteen the plaintiff and the defendant, it not being .non hether the de!eased still had any interest in the partnership property hi!h !ould ha"e been transmitted by ill to the plaintiff$ *urthermore, it !annot be said that the partnership !ontinued beteen the plaintiff and the defendant$ It is true that the latters a!t in requiring the heirs of Perpetua to !ontribute to the payment of the expenses of exploitation of the aforesaid fishing industry as an attempt to !ontinue the partnership, but it is also true that neither the said heirs !olle!ti"ely, nor the plaintiff indi"idually, too. any a!tion in response to that requirement, nor made any promise to that effe!t, and therefore no ne !ontra!t of partnership existed$ %he de!ision is hereby 2242D$