Short answer. Yes, upon cause shown. Winding up normally belongs to the partners who did not wrongfully cause the dissolution, but the Civil Code lets any partner, his legal representative, or his assignee obtain a winding up by the court. You are not always stuck with the other partners running the process.
What the law says
any partner, his legal representative or his assignee, upon cause shown, may obtain winding up by the court
Civil Code, Article 1836 — Who Winds Up. Read the full provision →
Who winds up by default
When a partnership dissolves, its affairs still have to be settled — debts paid, assets collected, and the remainder distributed. The article sets the ordinary rule for who runs that process: unless otherwise agreed, the partners who have not wrongfully dissolved the partnership or the legal representative of the last surviving partner, not insolvent, has the right to wind up the partnership affairs. So the task normally falls to the partners with clean hands. A partner who wrongfully brought about the dissolution does not get to control the winding up, and where all are gone, the representative of the last surviving partner steps in, provided that person is not insolvent.
The court can take over on cause shown
The default is not the only option. The same provision adds that any partner, his legal representative or his assignee, upon cause shown, may obtain winding up by the court. This is the safety valve you are asking about. If leaving the process to the other partners would be unfair or unreliable — because you distrust how they will handle assets, fear they will favour themselves, or simply cannot agree on anything — you may go to court and ask it to supervise the winding up instead. The phrase "upon cause shown" is the condition: you must give the court a real reason, not merely a preference.
What counts as cause
Cause is about protecting the fair settlement of the partnership, not about winning a grudge. Courts are more receptive where there is genuine risk to the assets or to an honest accounting — signs of misappropriation, concealment of records, a partner acting in bad faith, deadlock that stalls the settlement, or a real conflict of interest in whoever would otherwise wind up. The remedy is available not only to partners but to a partner's legal representative or assignee, recognising that those who stand in a partner's shoes also have a stake in a clean close. The stronger and more concrete your reason, the more likely the court will intervene.
Why court supervision can be worth it
A court-supervised winding up brings a neutral hand to valuing assets, paying creditors in the right order, and dividing what is left according to each partner's true interest. That protection has a price in time and expense, so it is not the automatic choice — where the partners can settle honestly among themselves, doing so is faster. But if you have solid grounds to fear the process will be mishandled, the option to bring it before a court exists precisely for that situation. Gather the partnership agreement, the books, and evidence of whatever conduct worries you, and take them to a lawyer before you apply.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Primelink Properties & Devt. Corp., et al. vs. Ma. Clarita T. Lazatin-Magat, et al, G.R. No. 167379, June 27, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →