On the  12th of December, 1900, the plaintiff herein delivered P1,500 to the  defendants who, in a private document, acknowledged  that they had received the same with the agreement, as stated by them, "that we are to invest the amount in a store, the profits or losses of which we are to divide with the former, in equal shares."

The plaintiff filed a complaint on April 25, 1907, in order to compel the defendants to render him an accounting of the partnership as agreed to, or else to refund him the Pl,500 that he had given them for  the said purpose.  Ong Pong Co alone appeared to  answer  the complaint; he  admitted the fact of the agreement and  the delivery to him and to Ong Lay of the P1,500 for the purpose aforesaid, but he alleged that Ong Lay, who was then deceased, was the one who had managed the business, and  that nothing had resulted therefrom save the loss of the capital of P1,500, to which loss the plaintiff had agreed.

The judge of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila who tried the case ordered Ong Pong Co to return to the plaintiff one-half of the said capital of Pl,500 which, together with Ong  Lay, he  had  received from  the plaintiff, to wit, P750, plus P90 as one-half of the  profits, calculated at the rate of 12 per cent  per  annum for the six months that the store was  supposed to  have been open,  both sums in Philippine currency, making a total of P840, with legal interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, from the 12th of June, 1901, when the business terminated and on which date he ought to have returned the said amount to the plaintiff, until the full payment thereof with costs.

From this judgment Ong Pong Co appealed to this court, and assigned the following errors:

1. For not having taken into consideration the fact that the reason for the closing of  the store was the ejectment from the premises occupied by it.
   
   
2. For  not having considered the fact that there were losses.
   
   
3. For holding that there should  have  been  profits.
   
   
4. For having applied article 1138 of the Civil Code.
   
   
5. and 6. For holding that the capital ought to have yielded profits, and that the latter should be calculated at 12 per cent per annum; and

7. The findings of the judgment.

As to the first assignment of error, the fact that the store was  closed  by  virtue of  ejectment proceedings is  of  no importance for the effects  of the suit.  The whole action is based upon  the  fact that  the defendants received certain capital from the plaintiff for the  purpose of organizing a company;  they, according  to the agreement, were  to handle the said money and invest it in a store which was the object of  the association; they, in the absence  of a special agreement vesting in one sole person the management of the  business, were the actual administrators  thereof; as such administrators they were the agents of the company and incurred the  liabilities peculiar to every agent, among which is  that of rendering account to the principal of their transactions, and  paying him everything they may have received by virtue of  the mandatum.    (Arts, 1695 and 1720, Civil  Code.)   Neither of them  has rendered  such account nor proven the losses referred to  by Ong Pong Co; they are therefore obliged to refund the money that they received for the purpose of establishing the said  store - the object of the association.   This was the principal pronouncement of the judgment.

With  regard  to the second and third assignments of error, this court, like the court below,  finds no  evidence that the entire  capital or any part thereof was  lost.  It is no evidence of such loss to aver, without proof, that the effects of the store were  ejected.   Even though this were proven, it could not be inferred therefrom that the ejectment was due to the fact  that no rents were paid,  and that the rent was not paid on  account of the  loss of  the capital belonging to the enterprise.

With regard to the possible profits, the  findings  of the court below are based on the statements of the defendant Ong Pong Co, to the effect that "there were some profits, but not  large ones."  This court,  however, does  not find that the amount  thereof has  been proven, nor  deem  it possible  to estimate them to be a  certain sum, and for a given period of  time; hence, it can not admit the estimate, made in the judgment, of 12 per  cent per annum for the period of six months.

Inasmuch as in this case nothing appears other  than the failure to fulfill an obligation on the part of a partner who acted as agent in receiving money  for a given purpose, for which he has rendered no accounting, such agent is responsible only for the losses which, by a violation of  the  provisions of the law,  he incurred.  This being an obligation to pay  in cash, there are no  other losses than the legal interest, which interest is not due  except from the time of the judicial  demand,  or,  in the  present  case, from the filing of the complaint.  (Arts. 1108 and  1100, Civil Code.) We do not consider that  article 1688 is  applicable in this case, in so far as it provides "that the partnership is liable to every partner for the amounts he may  have disbursed on account of the same and  for the proper  interest," for the reason that no other money than that contributed as capital is involved.

As  in the partnership there were two  administrators or. agents liable for the above-named amount, article 1138 of the Civil Code has been  properly applied,  and article 1698 might also have been invoked; this latter  deals with debts of  a partnership where  the obligation  is  not a joint one, as  is likewise  provided by  article 1723  of said code with respect to the liability of two or more agents with respect to the return of the money that they receive from their principal.   Therefore, the other errors  assigned have not been committed.

In view of the foregoing,  the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, provided,  however, that the  defendant Ong Pong Co shall only  pay the plaintiff the sum of P750 with the legal interest thereon at  the rate  of 6 per cent per annum from the time of the filing of the complaint, and the  costs, without  special ruling as  to  the  costs of  this instance.   So ordered.

Torres, Johnson,  Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.