Posts

Showing posts from February, 2022

What is partnership?

Image
Partnership is defined under Article 1767 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, to wit: ARTICLE 1767. By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund , with the intention of dividing  the profits among themselves . Two or more persons may also form a partnership for the exercise of a profession. (1665a) For a partnership to happen, the essential requisites must occur such as: a) there must be a valid contract; b) there must be a contribution of money, property, or industry to a common fund; c) it must be organized for gain or profit; and d) it should have a lawful object or purpose, and must be established for the common benefit or interest of the partners. The characteristics of a contract of partnership are: Consensual , or a contract that is perfected by mere consent because all of the partners had a meeting of minds to enter into a contract of partnership; Commutative , where the contribution of each

People v. Jumawan (G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014)

Image
733 Phil. 102 FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGAR JUMAWAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N REYES, J.: “Among the duties assumed by the husband are his duties to love, cherish and protect his wife, to give her a home, to provide her with the comforts and the necessities of life within his means, to treat her kindly and not cruelly or inhumanely. He is bound to honor her x x x; it is his duty not only to maintain and support her, but also to protect her from oppression and wrong.”[1] Husbands do not have property rights over their wives’ bodies. Sexual intercourse, albeit within the realm of marriage, if not consensual, is rape. This is the clear State policy expressly legislated in Section 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. The Case This is an automatic review[2] of the Decision[3] dated July 9, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) i