G.R. No. 126334 November 23, 2001
EMILIO EMNACE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ESTATE OF VICENTE TABANAO, SHERWIN TABANAO, VICENTE WILLIAM TABANAO, JANETTE TABANAO DEPOSOY, VICENTA MAY TABANAO VARELA, ROSELA TABANAO and VINCENT TABANAO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Emilio Emnace was a partner with Vicente Tabanao and Jacinto Divinagracia in Ma. Nelma Fishing Industry. The partnership was dissolved in 1986, with an agreement to partition assets including fishing boats, vehicles, land, and bank deposits. Following Tabanao’s death in 1994, his heirs (respondents) alleged that Emnace failed to render an accounting of the partnership finances or to deliver Tabanao’s one-third share, valued at approximately P10,000,000.00, despite formal demand. The heirs filed a complaint for accounting, payment of shares, division of assets, and damages.
Emnace moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of improper venue, lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action, lack of capacity of the estate to sue, and failure to pay the proper docket fees. The trial court denied the motion, ruling the action was in personam and venue was proper, the docket fee could be determined after accounting, and the heirs could sue in their own right. Emnace filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss based on the grounds of: (1) failure to pay proper docket fees; (2) improper venue concerning land outside the court’s territory; (3) lack of capacity of the heirs to sue; and (4) prescription of the cause of action.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. On docket fees, the Court held that where the exact amount of a claim is unascertainable without an accounting, as in this action for a share in partnership assets, the trial court may allow payment based on a reasonable estimate and later require adjustment; non-payment at filing does not immediately warrant dismissal. On venue, the primary action is in personam to enforce a partner’s personal obligation to render accounting and deliver a share; it is not a real action concerning title to land, so venue is properly at the defendant’s residence or where he may be found.
On capacity to sue, the heirs, as successors-in-interest to Tabanao, acquired his rights to the partnership share from the moment of his death under Article 777 of the Civil Code. They can sue in their own names to enforce those rights without awaiting a formal appointment of an estate administrator. On prescription, an action for accounting of a dissolved partnership prescribes in ten years from the time the right to demand it accrues, which is upon dissolution. The action, filed within ten years of the 1986 dissolution, was not prescribed. The case was remanded for determination of the correct docket fee and trial on the merits.