G.R. No. 144214 - LUZVIMINDA J. VILLAREAL, DIOGENES VILLAREAL AND CARMELITO JOSE, VS. DONALDO EFREN C. RAMIREZ AND SPOUSES CESAR G. RAMIREZ JR. AND CARMELITA C. RAMIREZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Decision dated July 21, 1992 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 148, Makati City is hereby SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED and in lieu thereof a new decision is rendered ordering the [petitioners] jointly and severally to pay and reimburse to [respondents] the amount of P253,114.00. No pronouncement as to costs." [4] Reconsideration was denied in the impugned Resolution. The Facts On July 25, 1984, Luzviminda J. Villareal, Carmelito Jose and Jesus Jose formed a partnership with a capital of P750,000 for the operation of a restaurant and catering business under the name "Aquarius Food House and Catering Services." [5] Villareal was appointed general manager and Carmelito Jose, operations manager. Respondent Donaldo Efren C. Ramirez joined as a partner in the business on September 5, 1984. His capital contribution of P250,000 was paid by his parents, Respondents Cesar and Carmelita Ramirez. [6] After Jesus Jose withdrew from the partnership in January 1987, his capital contribution of P250,000 was refunded to him in cash by agreement of the partners. [7] In the same month, without prior knowledge of respondents, petitioners closed down the restaurant, allegedly because of increased rental. The restaurant furniture and equipment were deposited in the respondents' house for storage. [8] On March 1, 1987, respondent spouses wrote petitioners, saying that they were no longer interested in continuing their partnership or in reopening the restaurant, and that they were accepting the latter's offer to return their capital contribution. [9] On October 13, 1987, Carmelita Ramirez wrote another letter informing petitioners of the deterioration of the restaurant furniture and equipment stored in their house. She also reiterated the request for the return of their one-third share in the equity of the partnership. The repeated oral and written requests were, however, left unheeded. [10] Before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 59, respondents subsequently filed a Complaint [11] dated November 10, 1987, for the collection of a sum of money from petitioners. In their Answer, petitioners contended that respondents had expressed a desire to withdraw from the partnership and had called for its dissolution under Articles 1830 and 1831 of the Civil Code; that respondents had been paid, upon the turnover to them of furniture and equipment worth over P400,000; and that the latter had no right to demand a return of their equity because their share, together with the rest of the capital of the partnership, had been spent as a result of irreversible business losses. [12] In their Reply, respondents alleged that they did not know of any loan encumbrance on the restaurant. According to them, if such allegation were true, then the loans incurred by petitioners should be regarded as purely personal and, as such, not chargeable to the partnership. The former further averred that they had not received any regular rep