Sardane vs. CA Acojedo GRN- L 47045 Regalads, J Facts: 1. 2. 3. 4. Sardane executed promissory notes in the amount of P 5, 217.

25 because of failure to pay Acojedo brought an action for collection of sum of money. MTC granted the petition RTC reversed upholding reason that there existed partnership between the 2, which could them vary the meaning of the promissory notes. 5. RTC concluded the PN involved were merely receipts for the contributions to said partnership and upheld the claim that there was ambiguity in the PN hence parol evidence was allowable to contradict the terms of the represented loan contract. Issue: Whether or not partnership existed Ruling: No! Even if evidence other that PN may be admitted to alter the meaning conveyed thereby, still the evidence is insufficient to prove that a partnership existed between the private parties. On the fact that Sardane had received 50% of the net profits does not conclusively establish that he was a partner of Acojeda. Article 1769 (4) NCC explicitly provides that the receipts of the person of a share of the profits of a business is a prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment of his wages as an employee. November 22, 1980