JM Tuason v Bolanos – Bianca that the venture in which plaintiff is represented by Gregorio Araneta, Inc.

as
G.R. No. L-4935 "its managing partner" is not in line with the corporate business of either of
May 28, 1954 them.
J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by it Managing PARTNER,
GREGORIA ARANETA, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. QUIRINO BOLAÑOS,
defendant-appellant.
Facts:
Plaintiff's filed a complaint against the defendant for recovery land. Defendant,
in his answer, sets up prescription and title in himself thru "open, continuous,
exclusive and public and notorious possession (of land in dispute) under claim
of ownership, adverse to the entire world by defendant and his predecessor in
interest" from "time in-memorial".
Defendant also contends that plaintiff or its predecessors in interest thru
"fraud or error and without knowledge (of) or interest either personal or thru
publication to defendant and/or predecessors in interest." The answer
therefore prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs and plaintiff
required to reconvey the land to defendant or pay its value.
TC - rendered judgment for plaintiff
One of the defendant’s contentions is that the trial court erred in not
dismissing the case on the ground that the case was not brought by the real
party in interest.
ISSUE:
WON the case should be dismissed for it was not brought by the real
party in interest?
HELD:
NO.
What the Rules of Court require is that an action be brought
in the name of, but not necessarily by, the real party in interest. (Section 2, Rule 2.) In fact the
practice is for an attorney-at-law to bring the action, that is to file the
complaint, in the name of the plaintiff. That practice appears to have been
followed in this case, since the complaint is signed by the law firm of Araneta
and Araneta, "counsel for plaintiff" and commences with the statement "comes
now plaintiff, through its undersigned counsel."
It is true that the complaint also states that the plaintiff is "represented herein by its Managing
Partner Gregorio Araneta, Inc.", another corporation, but there is nothing
against one corporation being represented by another person, natural or
juridical, in a suit in court. The contention that Gregorio Araneta, Inc.
cannot act as managing partner for plaintiff on the theory that it is illegal
for two corporations to enter into a partnership is without merit, for the
true rule is that "though a corporation has no power to enter into a
partnership, it may nevertheless enter into a joint venture with another
where the nature of that venture is in line with the business authorized
by its charter."
(Wyoming-Indiana Oil Gas Co.
vs
. Weston, 80 A. L. R., 1043,
citing 2 Fletcher Cyc. of Corp., 1082.) There is nothing in the record to indicate
 [No. L-4935. May 28, 1954] prescription since adverse, notorious and continuous possession
J. M. TUASON & Co., INC., represented by its Managing PARTNER, under claim of ownership is ineffective against Torrens title and
GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., plaintiff and appellee, vs. QUIRINO the right to secure possession under a decree of registration does
BOLAÑOS, defendant and appellant. not prescribe.

1. 1.PARTIES; REAL PARTY IN INTEREST; ATTORNEY MAY 1. 5.ACTIONS; IDENTITY OF CAUSE OF ACTION.—Where one
BRING ACTION IN PLAINTIFF'S NAME.—Section 2, Rule 2. of action is for the recovery of ownership and the other is for recovery
the Rules of Court requires that an action be brought in the name of possession, there is no identity of cause of action.
of, but not necessarily by, the real property interest. In fact the
practice is for an attorney-at-law to bring the action, that is, to file 1. 6.ID. ; CLASS SUIT.—Where the action seeks relief for each
the complaint, in the name of the plaintiff. individual plaintiff and not relief for and on behalf of others, the
action is not a class suit.
1. 2.ID.; CORPORATION AS PARTY MAY BE REPRESENTED BY
ANOTHER PERSON, NATURAL OR JUDICIAL.—There is
nothing against one corporation being represented by another
person, natural or juridical, in a suit in court, for the true rule is
that "although a corporation has no power to enter into a
partnership, it may nevertheless enter into a joint venture with
another where the nature of that venture is in line with the
business authorized by its charter." (Wyoming-Indiana Oil Gas
Co. vs. Weston, 80 A. L. R., 1043, citing 2, Fletcher Cyc. E. 1082.)

1. 3.COMPLAINTS; AMENDMENT TO CONFORM TO EVIDENCE

NOT NECESSARY TO RENDER JUDGMENT ON FACTS
PROVED THOUGH NOT ALLEGED.— Where the facts shown
entitled plaintiff to relief other than that asked for, no amendment
to the complaint is necessary, especially where defendant has
himself raised the point on which recovery is based, and the
appellate court may treat the pleading as amended to conform to
the evidence, although the pleadings were not actually amended.
(Citing Moran, Rules of Court, 1952 ed., 389-390.)

1. 4.LAND REGISTRATION; REOPENING OF DECREE AFTER

ONE YEAR, NOT ALLOWED.—A decree of registration can no
longer be impunged on the ground of fraud, error or lack of notice
to defendant, after one year has elapsed from the issuance and
entry of the decree. Neither could the decree be collaterally
attacked by any person claiming title to, or interest in, the land
prior to the registration proceedings, nor could title to that land in
derogation of that of plaintiff be acquired by adverse possession or
Republic of the Philippines After trial, the lower court rendered judgment for plaintiff, declaring defendant to be
SUPREME COURT without any right to the land in question and ordering him to restore possession
Manila thereof to plaintiff and to pay the latter a monthly rent of P132.62 from January,
EN BANC 1940, until he vacates the land, and also to pay the costs.
G.R. No. L-4935 May 28, 1954 Appealing directly to this court because of the value of the property involved,
J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by it Managing PARTNER, defendant makes the following assignment or errors:
GREGORIA ARANETA, INC., plaintiff-appellee, I. The trial court erred in not dismissing the case on the ground that the case was not
vs. brought by the real property in interest.
QUIRINO BOLAÑOS, defendant-appellant. II. The trial court erred in admitting the third amended complaint.
Araneta and Araneta for appellee. III. The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to strike.
Jose A. Buendia for appellant. IV. The trial court erred in including in its decision land not involved in the litigation.
REYES, J.: V. The trial court erred in holding that the land in dispute is covered by transfer
This is an action originally brought in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon certificates of Title Nos. 37686 and 37677.
City Branch, to recover possesion of registered land situated in barrio Tatalon, Vl. The trial court erred in not finding that the defendant is the true and lawful owner
Quezon City. of the land.
Plaintiff's complaint was amended three times with respect to the extent and VII. The trial court erred in finding that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the
description of the land sought to be recovered. The original complaint described the amount of P132.62 monthly from January, 1940, until he vacates the premises.
land as a portion of a lot registered in plaintiff's name under Transfer Certificate of VIII. The trial court erred in not ordering the plaintiff to reconvey the land in
Title No. 37686 of the land record of Rizal Province and as containing an area of 13 litigation to the defendant.
hectares more or less. But the complaint was amended by reducing the area of 6 As to the first assigned error, there is nothing to the contention that the present action
hectares, more or less, after the defendant had indicated the plaintiff's surveyors the is not brought by the real party in interest, that is, by J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc. What
portion of land claimed and occupied by him. The second amendment became the Rules of Court require is that an action be brought in the name of, but not
necessary and was allowed following the testimony of plaintiff's surveyors that a necessarily by, the real party in interest. (Section 2, Rule 2.) In fact the practice is for
portion of the area was embraced in another certificate of title, which was plaintiff's an attorney-at-law to bring the action, that is to file the complaint, in the name of the
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37677. And still later, in the course of trial, after plaintiff. That practice appears to have been followed in this case, since the complaint
defendant's surveyor and witness, Quirino Feria, had testified that the area occupied is signed by the law firm of Araneta and Araneta, "counsel for plaintiff" and
and claimed by defendant was about 13 hectares, as shown in his Exhibit 1, plaintiff commences with the statement "comes now plaintiff, through its undersigned
again, with the leave of court, amended its complaint to make its allegations conform counsel." It is true that the complaint also states that the plaintiff is "represented
to the evidence. herein by its Managing Partner Gregorio Araneta, Inc.", another corporation, but there
Defendant, in his answer, sets up prescription and title in himself thru "open, is nothing against one corporation being represented by another person, natural or
continuous, exclusive and public and notorious possession (of land in dispute) under juridical, in a suit in court. The contention that Gregorio Araneta, Inc. can not act as
claim of ownership, adverse to the entire world by defendant and his predecessor in managing partner for plaintiff on the theory that it is illegal for two corporations to
interest" from "time in-memorial". The answer further alleges that registration of the enter into a partnership is without merit, for the true rule is that "though a corporation
land in dispute was obtained by plaintiff or its predecessors in interest thru "fraud or has no power to enter into a partnership, it may nevertheless enter into a joint venture
error and without knowledge (of) or interest either personal or thru publication to with another where the nature of that venture is in line with the business authorized
defendant and/or predecessors in interest." The answer therefore prays that the by its charter." (Wyoming-Indiana Oil Gas Co. vs. Weston, 80 A. L. R., 1043, citing 2
complaint be dismissed with costs and plaintiff required to reconvey the land to Fletcher Cyc. of Corp., 1082.) There is nothing in the record to indicate that the
defendant or pay its value. venture in which plaintiff is represented by Gregorio Araneta, Inc. as "its managing
partner" is not in line with the corporate business of either of them.
Errors II, III, and IV, referring to the admission of the third amended complaint, may witnesses for plaintiff, and the identity of the portion thereof claimed by defendant
be answered by mere reference to section 4 of Rule 17, Rules of Court, which was established by the testimony of his own witness, Quirico Feria. The combined
sanctions such amendment. It reads: testimony of these three witnesses clearly shows that the portion claimed by
Sec. 4. Amendment to conform to evidence. — When issues not raised by the defendant is made up of a part of lot 4-B-3-C and major on portion of lot 4-B-4, and
pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated is well within the area covered by the two transfer certificates of title already
in all respects, as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the mentioned. This fact also appears admitted in defendant's answer to the third
pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise amended complaint.
these issues may be made upon motion of any party at my time, even of the trial of As the land in dispute is covered by plaintiff's Torrens certificate of title and was
these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within registered in 1914, the decree of registration can no longer be impugned on the
the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended ground of fraud, error or lack of notice to defendant, as more than one year has
and shall be so freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be already elapsed from the issuance and entry of the decree. Neither court the decree be
subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission collaterally attacked by any person claiming title to, or interest in, the land prior to the
of such evidence would prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense upon the registration proceedings. (Soroñgon vs. Makalintal,1 45 Off. Gaz., 3819.) Nor could
merits. The court may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such title to that land in derogation of that of plaintiff, the registered owner, be acquired by
evidence. prescription or adverse possession. (Section 46, Act No. 496.) Adverse, notorious and
Under this provision amendment is not even necessary for the purpose of rendering continuous possession under claim of ownership for the period fixed by law is
judgment on issues proved though not alleged. Thus, commenting on the provision, ineffective against a Torrens title. (Valiente vs. Judge of CFI of Tarlac,2 etc., 45 Off.
Chief Justice Moran says in this Rules of Court: Gaz., Supp. 9, p. 43.) And it is likewise settled that the right to secure possession
Under this section, American courts have, under the New Federal Rules of Civil under a decree of registration does not prescribed. (Francisco vs. Cruz, 43 Off. Gaz.,
Procedure, ruled that where the facts shown entitled plaintiff to relief other than that 5105, 5109-5110.) A recent decision of this Court on this point is that rendered in the
asked for, no amendment to the complaint is necessary, especially where defendant case of Jose Alcantara et al., vs. Mariano et al., 92 Phil., 796. This disposes of the
has himself raised the point on which recovery is based, and that the appellate court alleged errors V and VI.
treat the pleadings as amended to conform to the evidence, although the pleadings As to error VII, it is claimed that `there was no evidence to sustain the finding that
were not actually amended. (I Moran, Rules of Court, 1952 ed., 389-390.) defendant should be sentenced to pay plaintiff P132.62 monthly from January, 1940,
Our conclusion therefore is that specification of error II, III, and IV are without until he vacates the premises.' But it appears from the record that that reasonable
merit.. compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, as stipulated at the hearing
Let us now pass on the errors V and VI. Admitting, though his attorney, at the early was P10 a month for each hectare and that the area occupied by defendant was
stage of the trial, that the land in dispute "is that described or represented in Exhibit A 13.2619 hectares. The total rent to be paid for the area occupied should therefore be
and in Exhibit B enclosed in red pencil with the name Quirino Bolaños," defendant P132.62 a month. It is appears from the testimony of J. A. Araneta and witness
later changed his lawyer and also his theory and tried to prove that the land in dispute Emigdio Tanjuatco that as early as 1939 an action of ejectment had already been filed
was not covered by plaintiff's certificate of title. The evidence, however, is against against defendant. And it cannot be supposed that defendant has been paying rents,
defendant, for it clearly establishes that plaintiff is the registered owner of lot No. 4- for he has been asserting all along that the premises in question 'have always been
B-3-C, situate in barrio Tatalon, Quezon City, with an area of 5,297,429.3 square since time immemorial in open, continuous, exclusive and public and notorious
meters, more or less, covered by transfer certificate of title No. 37686 of the land possession and under claim of ownership adverse to the entire world by defendant and
records of Rizal province, and of lot No. 4-B-4, situated in the same barrio, having an his predecessors in interest.' This assignment of error is thus clearly without merit.
area of 74,789 square meters, more or less, covered by transfer certificate of title No. Error No. VIII is but a consequence of the other errors alleged and needs for further
37677 of the land records of the same province, both lots having been originally consideration.
registered on July 8, 1914 under original certificate of title No. 735. The identity of During the pendency of this case in this Court appellant, thru other counsel, has filed
the lots was established by the testimony of Antonio Manahan and Magno Faustino, a motion to dismiss alleging that there is pending before the Court of First Instance of
Rizal another action between the same parties and for the same cause and seeking to
sustain that allegation with a copy of the complaint filed in said action. But an
examination of that complaint reveals that appellant's allegation is not correct, for the
pretended identity of parties and cause of action in the two suits does not appear. That
other case is one for recovery of ownership, while the present one is for recovery of
possession. And while appellant claims that he is also involved in that order action
because it is a class suit, the complaint does not show that such is really the case. On
the contrary, it appears that the action seeks relief for each individual plaintiff and not
relief for and on behalf of others. The motion for dismissal is clearly without merit.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and
Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1
80 Phil., 259.
2 80 Phil., 415.