G.R. No. 19341 ; January 29, 1923
Jennie Florida, plaintiff-appellee, vs. A. W. Yearsley, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Jennie Florida filed a complaint alleging she was the owner of the lease and business known as “Lerma Park” since 1912, and that A. W. Yearsley acted as her agent in its management. She demanded an accounting and possession of the property, which Yearsley refused. Yearsley denied Florida’s ownership, claiming he was the sole owner. He asserted that any documents showing Florida’s interest were for convenience and that due to financial difficulties and lenders’ suspicions about Florida’s potential claim, he obtained a bill of sale (Exhibit 23) from her on November 8, 1918, for P25,000 to clear title. Florida claimed her signature on the bill of sale was forged, but admitted receiving P25,000 from Yearsley around that time, including P20,000 as she was leaving the Philippines. The business was operated in Yearsley’s name, he contracted all debts, and Florida did not previously assert ownership in court or demand an accounting before 1921.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether Jennie Florida was the sole and absolute owner of the Lerma Park business, entitling her to an accounting and possession, or whether A. W. Yearsley was the owner, having acquired her interest through the bill of sale (Exhibit 23).

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendant-appellant A. W. Yearsley. The Court found that while the ground lease was in Florida’s name, the business itself was conducted solely in Yearsley’s name for about six years. He managed all operations, contracted debts, and faced legal actions alone. Florida did not provide financial support during difficulties, never demanded an accounting before the suit, and admitted receiving P25,000 from Yearsley. The evidence, including her execution of a power of attorney upon leaving and her long silence after returning, strongly supported Yearsley’s contention that the payment was to acquire her interest. The Court concluded Yearsley was the owner, reversing the lower court’s decision for an accounting. The petition for rehearing was denied.