[INTRODUCTION] ● The land in dispute is covered by plaintiff's Torrens certificate of title and was

01 TUASON V. BOLANOS registered in 1914

28 May 1954 | Reyes, J. | PMCA
Petitioner/s: J. M. TUASON & Co., INC., represented by its Managing PARTNER,
GREGORIO ARANETA, INC.
Respondent/s: QUIRINO BOLAÑ OS
Doctrine: 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."
Facts:
● Action for recovery of possession of land in Tatalon, Quezon City
● Tuason’s complaint was amended thrice:
○ Original complaint describe the land as a portion of a lot registered under
Tuason, Inc. with 13 ha.
○ Amended reducing the area to 6 ha after Bolaños indicated to Tuason’s
surveyors the portion of land claimed and occupied by him
○ Amended again following the testimony of Tuason’s surveyors that a portion of
the area was embraced in another TCT
○ Amended again to reflect the area of 13 ha after defendant’s surveyor and
witness testified that the land claimed by Bolaños was actually 13 ha.
● CFI: In favor of Tuason.
● Bolaños: case should have been dismissed because the case was not brought by
the real party in interest.
○ 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 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 Tuason, the registered
owner, be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
■ Adverse, notorious and continuous possession under claim of ownership
for the period fixed by law is ineffective against a Torrens title.
■ The right to secure possession under a decree of registration does not
prescribe.
● Bolaños should pay rent to Tuason because as early as 1939, an action for
ejectment had already been filed against him.
○ It cannot be supposed that he has been paying rent for he has been asserting
that the lot has 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 him and his predecessors.
Dispositive
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Ruling:
W/N the case should be dismissed – 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.
● The practice is for an attorney-at-law to bring the action (to file the complaint) in
the name of the plaintiff.
● Here, the complaint is signed by the law firm of Araneta & 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 JM Tuason Inc. 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."
● Here, there’s no proof that the venture in which Tuason is represented by
Gregorio Araneta, Inc. as "its managing partner" is not in line with the corporate
business of either of them.

ON THE MERITS:
● The land lawfully belongs to Tuason, Inc.