Short answer. If you agree to a universal partnership but never specify which kind, it is by default a universal partnership of profits, not one of all present property. Article 1781 of the Civil Code says articles entered into without specifying their nature only constitute a universal partnership of profits.
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
The Civil Code recognizes two forms of universal partnership: one of all present property and one of profits. Article 1781 answers what happens when the partners forget to say which they intend. It provides that Articles of universal partnership, entered into without specification of its nature, only constitute a universal partnership of profits. So silence is not left to chance or to a later fight. The law fills the gap for the partners and treats their agreement as the narrower of the two kinds, a partnership of profits, unless they have clearly chosen otherwise in their articles.
The two kinds it chooses between
The distinction matters because the two kinds sweep in very different property. In a universal partnership of all present property, the partners pool the property that actually belonged to each of them at the start, and it becomes the common property of the firm, along with the profits it earns. In a universal partnership of profits, by contrast, the partners keep ownership of their own property; what they throw into the common fund is the use and the fruits, that is, the profits earned during the partnership. The default chosen by Article 1781 is this second, lighter arrangement. A partner does not lose title to what he already owned simply because the papers were silent.
Why the law defaults to profits
The rule protects partners from accidentally giving away more than they meant to. Handing over all of one's present property to a common fund is a serious step, close to a donation, and the law will not presume it from vague words. By defaulting to a partnership of profits, Article 1781 assumes the partners intended the less drastic commitment. Anyone who truly wants to contribute all present property must say so plainly in the articles. What the article does not do is bar the stronger form; it only refuses to read that form into an agreement that never mentioned it.
The practical lesson
For anyone forming a partnership, the takeaway is simple: put the nature of the partnership in writing. If the partners want all present property pooled, the articles should state that in so many words. If they only mean to share profits, the default already protects them, but saying so plainly avoids argument later. Because the choice controls whether your existing house, land, or savings become partnership property, this is not a mere formality. A clear clause at the start can prevent a costly dispute when the partnership is dissolved and its assets are divided.