Civil Law,  Legally Yours

Litonjua v. Litonjua

Litonjua v. Litonjua

G.R. No. 166299-300; December 13, 2005


Aurelio Litonjua and Eduardo Litonjua executed a private document entering into a partnership with Yang for the formation of a Cineplex business. To this, Aurelio Litonjua would act as an industrial partner and contribute his shares in the Litonjua family businesses (theatres, shipping land development).

After the relationship between the two brothers became sour, Aurelio filed with the court for specific performance of accounting for his share in the business and the payment to him of such. Eduardo contended that Aurelio had no cause of action such that the agreement forming the partnership had not been a public instrument, and as such, is void for violating the provisions of Art. 1771, Art. 1772, Art. 1773 of the NCC.


  1. Is the partnership void?
  2. May Aurelio demand specific performance of his share in the partnership?


1. Yes. The Court held that the partnership is void precisely because of the legal provisions raised. Aurelio contributed real rights to immovable properties, which should be executed in a public instrument. Moreover, the contributions exceeded P3,000.00, which should also be in a public instrument and recorded with SEC.

Moreover, an inventory had to be made and hereby attached to the public instrument. Furthermore, the Court gave notice of the fact that Aurelio cannot contend that the contributions of real property were only made after the formation of the partnership as evidence proves otherwise.

2. No. The Court held that the partnership is void, and as such, Aurelio has no cause of action to which to enforce specific performance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: