G.R. No. L-6304, Sison v. McQuaid, 94 Phil. 201, 50 !!. Ga". #No.

1$ 96
Republic of the Philippines
S%PR&M& '%R(
Manila
EN BANC
December 29, 195
!"R" No" #$%&'
S&RG) *. S)SN, plaintiff$appellant,
(s"
+&L&N ,. M'Q%-)., )efen)ant$appellee"
Manansala and Manansala for appellant.
J.C. Orendain for appllee.
R&/&S, J.:
*n March 2+, 1951, plaintiff brou,ht an action in the Court of -irst .nstance of Manila a,ainst )efen)ant,
alle,in, that )urin, the /ear 19+ the latter borro0e) from him (arious sums of mone/, a,,re,atin,
P2,21&, to enable her to pa/ her obli,ation to the Bureau of -orestr/ an) to a)) to her capital in her
lumber business, receipt of the amounts a)(ance) bein, ac1no0le),e) in a )ocument, E2hibit A,
e2ecute) b/ her on No(ember 1&, 19+ an) attache) to the complaint3 that as )efen)ant 0as not able to
pa/ the loan in 19+, as she ha) promise), she propose) to ta1e in plaintiff as a partner in her lumber
business, plaintiff to contribute to the partnership the sai) sum of P2,21& )ue him from )efen)ant in
a))ition to his personal ser(ices3 that plaintiff a,ree) to )efen)ant4s proposal an), as a result, there 0as
forme) bet0een them, un)er the pro(isions of the Ci(il Co)e, a partnership in 0hich the/ 0ere to share
ali1e in the income or profits of the business, each to ,et one$half thereof3 that in accor)ance 0ith sai)
contract, plaintiff, to,ether 0ith )efen)ant, ren)ere) ser(ices to the partnership 0ithout compensation
from 5une 15, 19+ to December, 19'13 that before the last 6orl) 6ar, the partnership sol) to the 7nite)
8tates Arm/ 2&,&&& boar) feet of lumber for P1,+&&, for the collection of 0hich sum )efen)ant, as
mana,er of the partnership, file) the correspon)in, claim 0ith the sai) arm/ after the 0ar3 that the claim
0as 9finall/9 appro(e) an) the full amount pai) : the complaint )oes not sa/ 0hen : but )efen)ant has
persistentl/ refuse) to )eli(er one$half of it, or P%,9&&, to plaintiff not0ithstan)in, repeate) )eman)s,
in(estin, the 0hole sum of P1,+&& for her o0n benefit" Plaintiff, therefore, pra/s for ;u),ment )eclarin,
the e2istence of the alle,e) partnership an) re<uirin, the )efen)ant to pa/ him the sai) sum of P%,9&&, in
a))ition to )ama,es an) costs"
Notifie) of the action, )efen)ant file) a motion to )ismiss on the ,roun)s that plaintiff4s action ha) alrea)/
prescribe), that plaintiff4s claim 0as not pro(able un)er the 8tatute of -rau)s, an) that the complaint
state) no cause of action" 8ustainin, the first ,roun), the court )ismisse) the case, 0hereupon, plaintiff
appeale) to the Court of Appeals3 but that court has certifie) the case here on the ,roun) that the appeal
in(ol(e) onl/ <uestions of la0"
.t is not clear from the alle,ations of the complaint ;ust 0hen plaintiff4s cause of action accrue)"
Conse<uentl/, it cannot be )etermine) 0ith certaint/ 0hether that action has alrea)/ prescribe) or not"
8uch bein, the case, the )efense of prescription can not be sustaine) on a mere motion to )ismiss base)
on 0hat appears on the face of the complaint"
But thou,h the reason ,i(en for the or)er of )ismissal be untenable, 0e fin) that the sai) or)er shoul) be
uphel) on the ,roun) that the complaint states no cause of action, 0hich is also one of the ,roun)s on
0hich )efen)ant4s motion to )ismiss 0as base)" Plaintiff see1s to reco(er from )efen)ant one$half of the
purchase price of lumber sol) b/ the partnership to the 7nite) 8tates Arm/" But his complaint )oes not
sho0 0h/ he shoul) be entitle) to the sum he claims" .t )oes not alle,e that there has been a li<ui)ation
of the partnership business an) the sai) sum has been foun) to be )ue him as his share of the profits"
=he procee)s from the sale of a certain amount of lumber cannot be consi)ere) profits until costs an)
e2penses ha(e been )e)ucte)" Moreo(er, the profits of the business cannot be )etermine) b/ ta1in, into
account the result of one particular transaction instea) of all the transactions ha)" >ence, the nee) for a
,eneral li<ui)ation before a member of a partnership ma/ claim a specific sum as his share of the profits"
.n (ie0 of the fore,oin,, the or)er of )ismissal is affirme), but on the ,roun) that the complaint states no
cause of action an) 0ithout pre;u)ice to the filin, of an action for accountin, or li<ui)ation shoul) that be
0hat plaintiff reall/ 0ants" 6ithout costs in this instance"
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.