Deluao v. Casteel

Facts:

In 1940 Nicanor Casteel filed a fishpond application for a big tract of swampy land in the then Sitio of Malalag, Municipality of Padada, Davao. No action was taken thereon by the authorities concerned. During the Japanese occupation, he filed another fishpond application for the same area, but because of the conditions then prevailing, it was not acted upon either. On December 12, 1945 he filed a third fishpond application for the same area but it was again disapproved since it was discovered that the area applied for was still needed for firewood production. Meanwhile, several applications were submitted by other persons for portions of the area covered by Casteel's application, including Leoncio Aradillos, Victor Carpio, Alejandro Cacam, and Deluao.

Casteel realized the urgent necessity of expanding his occupation thereof by constructing dikes and cultivating marketable fishes, in order to prevent old and new squatters from usurping the land. But lacking financial resources at that time, he sought financial aid from his uncle Felipe Deluao to finance the needed improvements on the fishpond. Hence, a wide productive fishpond was built.

The Director of Fisheries nevertheless rejected Casteel's application and required him to remove all the improvements which he had introduced on the land, and ordered that the land be leased through public auction.

Inocencia Deluao (wife of Felipe Deluao), and Nicanor executed a contract of service. At the same time, Inocencia executed a special power of attorney in favor of Jesus Donesa, extending to the latter the authority "To represent me in the administration of the fishpond at Malalag, Municipality of Padada, Province of Davao, Philippines, which has been applied for fishpond permit by Nicanor Casteel, but rejected by the Bureau of Fisheries, and to supervise, demand, receive, and collect the value of the fish that is being periodically realized from it...."

Then, the Director of Fisheries rejected the application filed by Felipe Deluao and Victorio Carpio while Alejandro Cacam’s permit was cancelled and revoked. Casteel had been reinstated and given due course for the area and is required to pay the improvements to Alejandro Cacam.

Nicanor Casteel forbade Inocencia Deluao from further administering the fishpond, and ejected the latter's representative (encargado), Jesus Donesa, from the premises. Alleging violation of the contract of service entered into between Inocencia Deluao and Nicanor Casteel, Felipe and Inocencia filed an action in the CFI Davao for specific performance and damages against Nicanor Casteel and Juan Depra (who, they alleged, instigated Casteel to violate his contract).

Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of a preliminary injunction which was granted. Casteel then filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, alleging among others, that he was the owner, lawful applicant and occupant of the fishpond in question.

Issues:

Whether or not the reinstatement of Casteel dissolved the partnership with Deluao.

Held:

Apparently, the court a quo relied on — the so-called "contract of service" — and the appellees' contention that it created a contract of co-ownership and partnership between Inocencia Deluao and the appellant over the fishpond in question.

The appellee Inocencia Deluao and the appellant entered into the so-called "contract of service" on November 25, 1949, there were two pending applications over the fishpond. Clearly, although the fishpond was then in the possession of Casteel, neither he nor, Felipe Deluao was the holder of a fishpond permit over the area. But be that as it may, they were not however precluded from exploiting the fishpond pending resolution of Casteel's appeal or the approval of Deluao's application over the same area — whichever event happened first. No law, rule or regulation prohibited them from doing so. Thus, rather than let the fishpond remain idle they cultivated it.

The evidence preponderates in favor of the view that the initial intention of the parties was not to form a co-ownership but to establish a partnership — Inocencia Deluao as capitalist partner and Casteel as industrial partner — the ultimate undertaking of which was to divide into two equal parts such portion of the fishpond as might have been developed by the amount extended by the plaintiffs- appellees, with the further provision that Casteel should reimburse the expenses incurred by the appellees over one-half of the fishpond that would pertain to him.

Although denominated a "contract of service," was actually the memorandum of their partnership agreement. The arrangement under the so-called "contract of service" continued until the decisions both dated September 15, 1950 were issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in DANR Cases 353 and 353-B. This development, by itself, brought about the dissolution of the partnership. Moreover, subsequent events likewise reveal the intent of both parties to terminate the partnership because each refused to share the fishpond with the other. The approval of the appellant's fishpond application by the decisions in DANR Cases 353 and 353-B brought to the fore several provisions of law which made the continuation of the partnership unlawful and therefore caused its ipso facto dissolution.

Since the partnership had for its object the division into two equal parts of the fishpond between the appellees and the appellant after it shall have been awarded to the latter, and therefore it envisaged the unauthorized transfer of one-half thereof to parties other than the applicant Casteel, it was dissolved by the approval of his application and the award to him of the fishpond. The approval was an event which made it unlawful for the business of the partnership to be carried on or for the members to carry it on in partnership.