Sison v. McQuaid

EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-6304. December 29, 1953.]
SERGIO V. SISON , plaintiff-appellant, vs . HELEN J. MCQUAID ,

defendant-appellee.
Manansala & Manansala for appellant.

J. C. Orendain for appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT; PRESCRIPTION

OF ACTION, NOT SHOWN. — Where it is not clear from the allegations of the complaint
just when plaintiff's cause of action accrued, and consequently, it cannot be determined
with certainty whether that action has already prescribed or not, the defense of
prescription can not be sustained on a mere motion to dismiss based on what appears
on the face of the complaint.
2. ID.; ID.; NO CAUSE OF ACTION. — Plaintiff seeks to recover from defendant
one-half of the purchase price of lumber sold by the partnership to the United States
Army. But his complaint does not show why he should be entitled to the sum he claims.
It does not allege that there has been a liquidation of their partnership business and the
said sum has been found to be due him as his share of the profits. Held: The complaint
states no cause of action. The proceeds from the sale of a certain amount of lumber
cannot be considered profits until costs and expenses have been deducted. Moreover,
the profits of a business cannot be determined by taking into account the result of one
particular transaction instead of all the transactions had. Hence, the need for a general
liquidation before a member of a partnership may claim a specific sum as his share of
the profits.
DECISION
REYES , J : p
On March 28, 1951, plaintiff brought an action in the Court of First Instance of
Manila against defendant, alleging that during the year 1938 the latter borrowed from
him various sums of money, aggregating P2,210, to enable her to pay her obligation to
the Bureau of Forestry and to add to her capital in her lumber business, receipt of the
amounts advanced being acknowledged in a document, Exhibit A, executed by her on
November 10, 1938 and attached to the complaint; that as defendant was not able to
pay the loan in 1938, as she had promised, she proposed to take in plaintiff as a partner
in her lumber business, plaintiff to contribute to the partnership the said sum of P2,210
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
due him from defendant in addition to his personal services; that plaintiff agreed to
defendant's proposal and, as a result, there was formed between them, under the
provisions of the Civil Code, a partnership in which they were to share alike in the
income or pro ts of the business, each to get one-half thereof; that in accordance with
said contract, plaintiff, together with defendant, rendered services to the partnership
without compensation from June 15, 1938 to December, 1941; that before the last
World War, the partnership sold to the United States Army 230,000 board feet of
lumber for P13,800, for the collection of which sum defendant, as manager of the
partnership, led the corresponding claim with the said army after the war; that the
claim was " nally" approved and the full amount paid - the complaint does not say when
— but defendant has persistently refused to deliver one-half of it, or P6,900, to plaintiff
notwithstanding repeated demands, investing the whole sum of P13,800 for her own
bene t. Plaintiff, therefore, prays for judgment declaring the existence of the alleged
partnership and requiring defendant to pay him the said sum of P6,900, in addition to
damages and costs.
Noti ed of the action, defendant led a motion to dismiss on the grounds that
plaintiff's action had already prescribed, that plaintiff's claim was not provable under
the Statute of Frauds, and that the complaint stated no cause of action. Sustaining the
rst ground, the court dismissed the case, whereupon, plaintiff appealed to the Court of
Appeals; but that court has certi ed the case here on the ground that the appeal
involved only questions of law.
It is not clear from the allegations of the complaint just when plaintiff's cause of
action accrued. Consequently, it cannot be determined with certainty whether that
action has already prescribed or not. Such being the case, the defense of prescription
can not be sustained on a mere motion to dismiss based on what appears on the face
of the complaint.
But though the reason given for the order of dismissal be untenable, we nd that
the said order should be upheld on the ground that the complaint states no cause of
action, which is also one of the grounds on which defendant's motion to dismiss was
based. Plaintiff seeks to recover from defendant one-half of the purchase price of
lumber sold by the partnership to the United States Army. But his complaint does not
show why he should be entitled to the sum he claims. It does not allege that there has
been a liquidation of the partnership business and the said sum has been found to be
due him as his share of the pro ts. The proceeds from the sale of a certain amount of
lumber cannot be considered pro ts until costs and expenses have been deducted.
Moreover, the pro ts of a business cannot be determined by taking into account the
result of one particular transaction instead of all the transactions had. Hence, the need
for a general liquidation before a member of a partnership may claim a speci c sum as
his share of the profits.
In view of the foregoing, the order of dismissal is affirmed, but on the ground that
the complaint states no cause of action and without prejudice to the ling of an action
for accounting or liquidation should that be what plaintiff really wants. Without costs in
this instance.
Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador,
JJ., concur.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

Sison v. McQuaid

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sison v. McQuaid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6304. December 29, 1953.]

SERGIO V. SISON , plaintiff-appellant, vs . HELEN J. MCQUAID ,

Manansala & Manansala for appellant.

1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT; PRESCRIPTION

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like