G.R. No.

L-4935             May 28, 1954 further alleges that registration of the land in dispute was obtained by plaintiff or its
J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by it Managing PARTNER, GREGORIA ARANETA, predecessors in interest thru "fraud or error and without knowledge (of) or interest either
INC., plaintiff-appellee, personal or thru publication to defendant and/or predecessors in interest." The answer therefore
vs. prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs and plaintiff required to reconvey the land to
QUIRINO BOLAÑOS, defendant-appellant. defendant or pay its value.
Araneta and Araneta for appellee.
Jose A. Buendia for appellant. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment for plaintiff, declaring defendant to be without any
REYES, J.: right to the land in question and ordering him to restore possession thereof to plaintiff and to pay the
latter a monthly rent of P132.62 from January, 1940, until he vacates the land, and also to pay the
This is an action originally brought in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, to recover possesion of registered land situated in barrio Tatalon,
Quezon City.
costs.

TOPIC: Representatives as Parties Appealing directly to this court because of the value of the property involved, defendant makes the
following assignment or errors:
EDITOR’S NOTE: The facts DO NOT matter. Focus on the two paragraphs within RATIO
I. The trial court erred in not dismissing the case on the ground that the case was not
SUMMARY: A complaint was filed by JM Tuason & Co represented by its managing partner Gregoria brought by the real property (Party, I think) in interest.
II. The trial court erred in admitting the third amended complaint.
Araneta, Inc. The action brought by JM through Gregoria Araneta was to recover possession of III. The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to strike.
registered land from the defendant Quirino Bolaños. IV. The trial court erred in including in its decision land not involved in the litigation.
V. The trial court erred in holding that the land in dispute is covered by transfer certificates of Title Nos. 37686 and 37677.
Vl. The trial court erred in not finding that the defendant is the true and lawful owner of the land.
Bolaños moved to dismiss on the ground that, among other things, the complaint was not filed by the VII. The trial court erred in finding that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of P132.62 monthly from
real party in interest since it was filed by Gregoria Araneta instead of JM Tuason, which was the real- January, 1940, until he vacates the premises.
party-in-interest. VIII. The trial court erred in not ordering the plaintiff to reconvey the land in litigation to the defendant.

Issue: Whether the case ought to have been dismissed by the Trial court for not being filed by the ISSUE: WON the case should have been dismissed for being filed in representation (NO)
real-party-in-interest
RULING: Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff.
Held: No. The SC found that there was nothing irregular about the filing of the case by Gregoria
Araneta, Inc. on behalf of JM Tuason. What the Rules of Court require is that an action be brought in RATIO: As to the first assigned error, there is nothing to the contention that the present action is
the name of, but not necessarily by, the real party in interest. The practice is for an attorney-at-law to not brought by the real party in interest, that is, by J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc. What the Rules of
bring the action, that is to file the complaint, in the name of the plaintiff. That practice appears to have Court require is that an action be brought in the name of, but not necessarily by, the real party
been followed in this case, since the complaint is signed by the law firm of Araneta and Araneta, in interest. (Section 2, Rule 2.) In fact the practice is for an attorney-at-law to bring the action,
"counsel for plaintiff" and commences with the statement "comes now plaintiff, through its that is to file the complaint, in the name of the plaintiff. That practice appears to have been followed
undersigned counsel." 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."
The SC also held that there was nothing wrong about a corporation being represented by another It is true that the complaint also states that the plaintiff is "represented herein by its Managing
corporation. There is nothing against one corporation being represented by another person, natural or Partner Gregorio Araneta, Inc.", another corporation, but there is nothing against one
juridical, in a suit in court. corporation being represented by another person, natural or juridical, in a suit in court.

Bolaños also contended that Gregoria Araneta, Inc. cannot legally represent JM Tuason since it was The contention that Gregorio Araneta, Inc. cannot act as managing partner for plaintiff on the
illegal for corporations to enter into partnerships. The SC rejected this assertion: "though a theory that it is illegal for two corporations to enter into a partnership is without merit, for the
corporation has no power to enter into a partnership, it may nevertheless enter into a joint venture true rule is that "though a corporation has no power to enter into a partnership, it may
with another where the nature of that venture is in line with the business authorized by its charter." 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.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that the venture in which plaintiff is represented by Gregorio R., 1043, citing 2 Fletcher Cyc. of Corp., 1082.) There is nothing in the record to indicate that the
Araneta, Inc. as "its managing partner" is not in line with the corporate business of either of them. 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.
FACTS: Plaintiff's complaint was amended three times with respect to the extent and description
of the land sought to be recovered. The original complaint described the land as a portion of a lot AMENDMENT ISSUES (IRRELEVANT)
registered in plaintiff's name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37686 of the land record of Rizal
Province and as containing an area of 13 hectares more or less. But the complaint was amended Errors II, III, and IV, referring to the admission of the third amended complaint, may be answered by
by reducing the area to 6 hectares, more or less, after the defendant had indicated the plaintiff's mere reference to section 4 of Rule 17, Rules of Court, which sanctions such amendment. It reads:
surveyors the portion of land claimed and occupied by him. The second amendment became
necessary and was allowed following the testimony of plaintiff's surveyors that a portion of Sec. 4. Amendment to conform to evidence. — When issues not raised by the pleadings
the area was embraced in another certificate of title, which was plaintiff's Transfer Certificate of are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects,
Title No. 37677. And still later, in the course of trial, after defendant's surveyor and witness, Quirino as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be
Feria, had testified that the area occupied and claimed by defendant was about 13 hectares, as necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be
shown in his Exhibit 1, plaintiff again, with the leave of court, amended its complaint to make its made upon motion of any party at my time, even of the trial of these issues. If evidence is
allegations conform to the evidence. objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings,
the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall be so freely when the
Defendant, in his answer, sets up prescription and title in himself thru "open, continuous, presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party
exclusive and public and notorious possession (of land in dispute) under claim of ownership, adverse fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence would prejudice him in
to the entire world by defendant and his predecessor in interest" from "time in-memorial". The answer
 maintaining his action or defense upon the merits. The court may grant a continuance to FORUM SHOPPING ISSUE (IRRELEVANT)
enable the objecting party to meet such evidence.
Error No. VIII is but a consequence of the other errors alleged and needs for further consideration.
Under this provision amendment is not even necessary for the purpose of rendering judgment on
issues proved though not alleged. Thus, commenting on the provision, Chief Justice Moran says in During the pendency of this case in this Court appellant, thru other counsel, has filed a motion to
this Rules of Court: 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
Under this section, American courts have, under the New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of the complaint filed in said action. But an examination of that complaint reveals that appellant's
ruled that where the facts shown entitled plaintiff to relief other than that asked for, no allegation is not correct, for the pretended identity of parties and cause of action in the two suits does
amendment to the complaint is necessary, especially where defendant has himself raised not appear. That other case is one for recovery of ownership, while the present one is for recovery of
the point on which recovery is based, and that the appellate court treat the pleadings as possession. And while appellant claims that he is also involved in that order action because it is a
amended to conform to the evidence, although the pleadings were not actually amended. (I class suit, the complaint does not show that such is really the case. On the contrary, it appears that
Moran, Rules of Court, 1952 ed., 389-390.) 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.
Our conclusion therefore is that specification of error II, III, and IV are without merit.

LAND ISSUES (IRRELEVANT)

Let us now pass on the errors V and VI. Admitting, though his attorney, at the early stage of the trial,
that the land in dispute "is that described or represented in Exhibit A and in Exhibit B enclosed in red
pencil with the name Quirino Bolaños," defendant later changed his lawyer and also his theory and
tried to prove that the land in dispute was not covered by plaintiff's certificate of title. The evidence,
however, is against defendant, for it clearly establishes that plaintiff is the registered owner of lot No.
4-B-3-C, situate in barrio Tatalon, Quezon City, with an area of 5,297,429.3 square meters, more or
less, covered by transfer certificate of title No. 37686 of the land records of Rizal province, and of lot
No. 4-B-4, situated in the same barrio, having an area of 74,789 square meters, more or less,
covered by transfer certificate of title No. 37677 of the land records of the same province, both lots
having been originally registered on July 8, 1914 under original certificate of title No. 735. The identity
of the lots was established by the testimony of Antonio Manahan and Magno Faustino, witnesses for
plaintiff, and the identity of the portion thereof claimed by defendant was established by the testimony
of his own witness, Quirico Feria. The combined testimony of these three witnesses clearly shows
that the portion claimed by defendant is made up of a part of lot 4-B-3-C and major on portion of lot 4-
B-4, and is well within the area covered by the two transfer certificates of title already mentioned. This
fact also appears admitted in defendant's answer to the third amended complaint.

As the land in dispute is covered by plaintiff's Torrens certificate of title and was registered in 1914,
the decree of registration can no longer be impugned on the ground of fraud, error or lack of notice to
defendant, as more than one year has already elapsed from the issuance and entry of the decree.
Neither court the decree be collaterally attacked by any person claiming title to, or interest in, the land
prior to the registration proceedings. (Soroñgon vs. Makalintal,1 45 Off. Gaz., 3819.) Nor could title to
that land in derogation of that of plaintiff, the registered owner, be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession. (Section 46, Act No. 496.) Adverse, notorious and continuous possession under claim of
ownership for the period fixed by law is ineffective against a Torrens title. (Valiente vs. Judge of CFI
of Tarlac,2 etc., 45 Off. Gaz., Supp. 9, p. 43.) And it is likewise settled that the right to secure
possession under a decree of registration does not prescribed. (Francisco vs. Cruz, 43 Off. Gaz.,
5105, 5109-5110.) A recent decision of this Court on this point is that rendered in the case of Jose
Alcantara et al., vs. Mariano et al., 92 Phil., 796. This disposes of the alleged errors V and VI.

EVIDENCE ISSUE (IRRELEVANT)

As to error VII, it is claimed that `there was no evidence to sustain the finding that defendant should
be sentenced to pay plaintiff P132.62 monthly from January, 1940, until he vacates the premises.' But
it appears from the record that that reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the
premises, as stipulated at the hearing was P10 a month for each hectare and that the area occupied
by defendant was 13.2619 hectares. The total rent to be paid for the area occupied should therefore
be P132.62 a month. It is appears from the testimony of J. A. Araneta and witness Emigdio Tanjuatco
that as early as 1939 an action of ejectment had already been filed against defendant. And it cannot
be supposed that defendant has been paying rents, for he has been asserting all along that the
premises in question 'have always been since time immemorial in open, continuous, exclusive and
public and notorious possession and under claim of ownership adverse to the entire world by
defendant and his predecessors in interest.' This assignment of error is thus clearly without merit.