TUASON VS BOLAÑOS CASE DIGEST
J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by it Managing PARTNER, GREGORIA ARANETA, INC., plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
QUIRINO BOLAÑOS, defendant-appellant.
CORPORATION LAW; POWER TO ENTER INTO A JOINT VENTURE
FACTS:
- This is an action brought to recover possession of registered land.
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 containing an area of 13 hectares more or less. But the complaint was amended by reducing the area of 6 hectares, more or less, after the defendant had indicated the plaintiff's surveyors the portion of land claimed and occupied by him.
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". The answer further alleges that registration of the land in dispute was obtained by plaintiff or its predecessors in interest thru "fraud or error and without knowledge 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.
After trial, the lower court rendered judgment for plaintiff, declaring defendant to be without any right to the land in question and ordering him to restore possession thereof to plaintiff and to pay the latter a monthly rent until he vacates the land.
Whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the case on the ground that the case was not brought by the real property in interest.
HELD:
- NO. There is nothing to the contention that the present action is not brought by the real party in interest, that is, by J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc.
- 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. can not 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." There is nothing in the record to indicate that the 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.
- Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.