In REALUBIT v. JASO. et. al. (G.R. No. 178782, September 21, 2011), the Supreme Court discussed the liability of a joint venture, to wit:


Generally understood to mean an organization formed for some temporary purpose, a joint venture is likened to a particular partnership or one which "has for its object determinate things, their use or fruits, or a specific undertaking, or the exercise of a profession or vocation."The rule is settled that joint ventures are governed by the law on partnerships which are, in turn, based on mutual agency or delectus personae. Insofar as a partner’s conveyance of the entirety of his interest in the partnership is concerned, Article 1813 of the Civil Code provides as follows:


Art. 1813. A conveyance by a partner of his whole interest in the partnership does not itself dissolve the partnership, or, as against the other partners in the absence of agreement, entitle the assignee, during the continuance of the partnership, to interfere in the management or administration of the partnership business or affairs, or to require any information or account of partnership transactions, or to inspect the partnership books; but it merely entitles the assignee to receive in accordance with his contracts the profits to which the assigning partners would otherwise be entitled. However, in case of fraud in the management of the partnership, the assignee may avail himself of the usual remedies.


In the case of a dissolution of the partnership, the assignee is entitled to receive his assignor’s interest and may require an account from the date only of the last account agreed to by all the partners