Short answer. Yes. Article 1831 lets a court decree dissolution on a partner's application when a partner wilfully or persistently commits a breach of the partnership agreement, or so conducts himself that it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with him. Willful, repeated breaches are exactly a ground the statute names.
What the law says
A partner wilfully or persistently commits a breach of the partnership agreement, or otherwise so conducts himself in matters relating to the partnership business that it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with him
Civil Code, Article 1831 — Judicial Dissolution. Read the full provision →
What the law says
On application by or for a partner the court shall decree a dissolution whenever
Civil Code, Article 1831 — Judicial Dissolution. Read the full provision →
What the law says
A partner has been guilty of such conduct as tends to affect prejudicially the carrying on of the business
Civil Code, Article 1831 — Judicial Dissolution. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Other circumstances render a dissolution equitable.
Civil Code, Article 1831 — Judicial Dissolution. Read the full provision →
Yes — willful or persistent breach is a ground
Article 1831 answers this in your favour. Among the grounds on which a court may end a partnership is where A partner wilfully or persistently commits a breach of the partnership agreement, or otherwise so conducts himself in matters relating to the partnership business that it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with him. That describes exactly the trapped feeling of a partner whose co-partner keeps violating the deal. The breach must be wilful or persistent — not a single innocent lapse — but a pattern of deliberate or repeated violations, or conduct that makes joint operation unworkable, is precisely what this ground was written to remedy.
The other grounds for judicial dissolution
Breach is only one of several grounds the article lists. A court may also decree dissolution where a partner is declared insane or shown to be of unsound mind, or otherwise becomes incapable of performing his part; where A partner has been guilty of such conduct as tends to affect prejudicially the carrying on of the business; where the business can only be carried on at a loss; and, as a catch-all, where Other circumstances render a dissolution equitable. So even conduct that is not a technical breach of the written agreement, but which poisons the venture or renders it a losing proposition, can justify asking a court to bring the partnership to an end.
It is the court that decides
This is judicial dissolution, meaning you do not simply declare the partnership over yourself — you apply to a court. The article opens: On application by or for a partner the court shall decree a dissolution whenever one of the listed grounds is present. The court examines whether the ground truly exists — whether the breaches were genuinely wilful or persistent, or the situation genuinely unworkable — before decreeing dissolution. This protects both sides: a partner cannot be forced out on a flimsy pretext, and a partner who is being wronged has a neutral forum to prove his ground and obtain relief.
A different route for a purchaser of an interest
The article also allows dissolution to be sought by someone who is not a partner at all: the purchaser of a partner's interest under the provisions on assigning or charging that interest. Such a buyer may apply after the agreed term or undertaking ends, or at any time if the partnership was one at will when the interest was assigned or charged. This route is narrower than a partner's own right and matters mainly where a partner's share has changed hands. For your situation — a partner breaching the agreement — the breach ground is the direct path.
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.
- In the Matter of Urgent Petition for the Release of Prisoners on Humanitarian Grounds, G.R. No. 252117, July 28, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Josefina P. Realubit vs. Prosencio D. Jaso and Eden G. Jaso, G.R. No. 178782, September 21, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Luzviminda J. Villareal, et al. vs. Donaldo Efren C. Ramirez, et al, G.R. No. 144214, July 14, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →