G.R. No. 17024 ; March 24, 1922
DOMINGO BEARNEZA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BALBINO DEQUILLA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In 1903, Balbino Dequilla and Perpetua Bearneza formed a civil partnership to exploit a fish pond. Perpetua contributed to expenses and they shared profits until her death in 1912. By will, Perpetua appointed Domingo Bearneza as her heir to all her rights and interests in the fish pond. Domingo demanded from Balbino the delivery of Perpetua’s share and an accounting of profits from 1913-1919, but Balbino refused. Domingo filed an action for recovery of one-half of the fish pond and profits. The trial court declared Domingo owner of one-half of the fish pond but denied his claim for damages for lack of proof. Balbino appealed, while Domingo did not appeal the denial of damages.

ISSUE

Whether Domingo Bearneza, as testamentary heir of Perpetua, has a right to maintain an action for the recovery of one-half of the fish pond as an asset of the dissolved partnership.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. The partnership was a civil particular partnership under the Civil Code, dissolved by the death of Perpetua Bearneza. Upon dissolution, the partnership entered into liquidation. The only right transmitted to the heir, Domingo, was the right to whatever may result from the liquidation of the partnership in favor of the deceased partner. Until liquidation is effected, it cannot be determined what interest, if any, the deceased had in the partnership assets. Therefore, Domingo has not sufficiently shown a present right of action for recovery of a specific one-half share of the fish pond itself. The part of the judgment declaring him owner of one-half of the fish pond was reversed. The denial of his claim for damages was affirmed.