Short answer. Yes, prima facie. Article 1785 treats continuation of the business, by the partners or by those of them who habitually acted in it during the term, without any settlement or liquidation, as prima facie evidence that the partnership continued. It doesn't have to be all the partners, and it isn't conclusive proof, but it counts.
What the law says
A continuation of the business by the partners or such of them as habitually acted therein during the term, without any settlement or liquidation of the partnership affairs, is prima facie evidence of a continuation of the partnership.
Civil Code, Article 1785 — Partnership Continued After Its Term. Read the full provision →
What counts as 'continuation of the business'
Article 1785 addresses exactly this situation. It states that a continuation of the business by the partners or such of them as habitually acted therein during the term, without any settlement or liquidation of the partnership affairs, is prima facie evidence of a continuation of the partnership. So where the business keeps running after the fixed term ends, and nobody has gone through settlement or liquidation of the partnership's affairs, that pattern itself is treated as evidence the partnership has continued.
It doesn't require all the partners
The article is specific about who has to be doing the continuing: it covers the partners or such of them as habitually acted therein during the term. This means the full roster of partners does not need to keep working the business for this evidentiary effect to apply — it is enough that those partners who were the ones habitually active in running the business during the fixed term keep doing so afterward, even if other, less active partners are not involved in that continuation.
Why the absence of settlement matters
The absence of any settlement or liquidation is the other half of what the article looks for. If the partners had instead wound up the partnership's affairs — settling accounts, dividing assets, closing things out — that would point toward the partnership actually ending at the term's expiration. Continuing to operate without going through that process is what signals, evidentially, that the partnership relationship itself carried on rather than terminating.
Prima facie, not conclusive
It matters that the article calls this prima facie evidence rather than conclusive proof. Prima facie evidence is enough to establish continuation of the partnership unless it is rebutted by evidence showing otherwise; it is not an irrebuttable conclusion that forecloses argument on the point. So the continuing activity of the habitually active partners, without settlement, is sufficient on its own to support a finding of continuation, but it remains open to being contradicted by other evidence in a particular case.