Short answer. A universal partnership of profits. Article 1781 supplies the default: articles of universal partnership entered into without specifying their nature only constitute a universal partnership of profits. So if you agreed on a universal partnership but never said it was one of all present property, the law treats it as the lesser, profits-only form.
What the law says
Articles of universal partnership, entered into without specification of its nature, only constitute a universal partnership of profits.
Civil Code, Article 1781 — Default Is a Partnership of Profits. Read the full provision →
The default rule
Article 1781 exists for exactly the situation where partners agree to a universal partnership but do not spell out which of the two kinds they mean. It provides that articles of universal partnership, entered into without specification of its nature, only constitute a universal partnership of profits. In other words, silence is not left ambiguous; it is resolved one way. If the agreement does not clearly say the partners are pooling all their present property, the law reads it as the profits form, under which each partner keeps ownership of what he already had and the partnership shares only what the partners earn by their industry.
Why the law defaults to the smaller commitment
The default is not arbitrary; it protects the partners. A universal partnership of all present property is a serious step — it transfers each partner's existing wealth into a common fund to be divided. The law is reluctant to presume that people meant to give up ownership of everything they own unless they said so plainly. So where the intention is unclear, it assumes the lesser commitment: the partners share their future earnings and the use of their property, but keep title to what they brought. Reading an ambiguous agreement as the profits form errs on the side of leaving each partner his patrimony.
What turns on the difference
The practical stakes of the default are real. Under the profits form the law assumes, the property you owned before the partnership stays yours; only its usufruct and your future earnings are shared, so when the partnership ends you take your own property back. Had the partnership been one of all present property, that same property would have gone into the common fund and been subject to division among the partners. So a single unstated word can be the difference between keeping your house and having contributed it to a pot to be split.
If you want the other kind, say so
The lesson is short: if you actually intend a universal partnership of all present property, the agreement has to say so in terms. Do not rely on general language about a universal partnership, because Article 1781 will read that as the profits form and leave every partner the owner of what he brought. State plainly which kind you are forming, and if it is the all-present-property kind, list the property being contributed to the common fund. Where the words run out, the law fills the gap with the profits partnership — so put your real intention into the words, not into an assumption the default will override.