EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4935. May 28, 1954.]

J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by its Managing

PARTNER, GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. , plaintiff-appellee, vs.
QUIRINO BOLAÑOS, defendant-appellant.

Araneta & Araneta for appellee.

Jose A. Buendia for appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. PARTIES; REAL PARTY IN INTEREST; ATTORNEY MAY BRING ACTION

IN THE PLAINTIFF'S NAME. — Section 2 of the Rules of Court requires that an
action be brought in the name 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 the complaint, in the name of the plaintiff.
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.)
3. COMPLAINTS; AMENDMENTS TO CONFIRM 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 confirm to the
evidence, although the pleadings were not actually amended. (Citing Maran,
Rules of Court, 1952 ed., 389-390.)
4. LAND REGISTRATION; REOPENING OF DECREE AFTER ONE YEAR,
NOT ALLOWED. — A decree of registration can no longer be impugned 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
prescription since adverse, notorious and continuous possession under claim
of ownership is ineffective against Torrens title ands the right to secure
possession under a decree of registration does not prescribe.
5. ACTIONS; IDENTITY OF CAUSE OF ACTION. — Where one action is for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the recovery of ownership and the other is for recovery of possession, there
is no identity of cause of action.
6. ID.; CLASS SUIT. — Where the action seeks relief for each individual
plaintiff and not relief for and on behalf of others, the action is not a class
suit.

DECISION

REYES, J : p

This is an action originally brought in the Court of First Instance of

Rizal, Quezon City Branch, to recover possession of registered land situated
in barrio Tatalon, Quezon City.
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 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 by reducing the area to 6 hectares, more or less,
after defendant had indicated the plaintiff's 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 the area was embraced in another certificate of title, which was
plaintiff's Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37677. And still later, in the course
of trial, after defendant's surveyor and witness, Quirino Feria, had testified
that the area occupied and claimed by defendant was about 13 hectares, as
shown in his Exhibit 1, plaintiff again, with the leave of court, amended its
complaint to make its allegations conform to the evidence.
Defendant, in his answer, sets up prescription and title in himself thru
"open, continuous, exclusive and public and notorious possession (of the
land in dispute) under claim of ownership, adverse to the entire world by
defendant and his predecessors in interest" from "time immemorial". 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 (of) or notice 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 of
P132.62 from January, 1940, until he vacates the land, and also to pay the
costs.
Appealing directly to this court because of the value of the property
involved, defendant makes the following assignment of errors:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 "I. The trial court erred in not dismissing the case on the ground that
the case was not brought by the real party in interest.
"II. The trial court erred in admitting the third amended complaint.
"III. The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to strike.
"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.
"VI. The trial court erred in not finding that the defendant is the true
and lawful owner of the land.
"VII. The trial court erred in finding that the defendant is liable to pay
the plaintiff the amount of P132.62 monthly from January, 1940, until he
vacates the premises.
"VIII. The trial court erred in not ordering the plaintiff to reconvey the
land in litigation to the defendant."
As to the first assigned error, 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 & 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 & 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." (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 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.
Errors II, III, and IV, referring to the admission of the third amended
complaint, may be answered by mere reference to section 4 of Rule 17,
Rules of Court, which sanctions such amendment. It reads:
SEC. 4. Amendment to conform to evidence. — When issues not
raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the
parties, they shall be treated in all respects, as if they had been raised
in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be
necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these
issues may be made upon motion of any party at my time, even after
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 judgment; but failure so to amend does not affect the result of the trial
of these issues. If evidence is 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
presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and
the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such
evidence would prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense
upon the merits. The court may grant a continuance to enable the
objecting party to meet such evidence."
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 his Rules of Court:
"Under this section, American courts have, under the New Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, ruled that 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 that the appellate court treat the pleadings as
amended to conform to the evidence, although the pleadings were not
actually amended." (I Moran, Rules of Court, 1952 ed., 389-390.)
Our conclusion therefore is that specification of error II, III, and IV are without
merit.
Let us now pass on the errors V and VI. Admitting, through 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 could the decree be collaterally attacked by any person
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 prescribe.
(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.
Marinao et al., 92 Phil., 796. This disposes of the alleged errors V and VI.
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 the 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 also
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.
Error No. VIII is but a consequence of the other errors alleged and
needs for further consideration.
During the pendency of this case in this Court appellant, thru other
counsel, has filed 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
other 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 appellant.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo,
Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Footnotes

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

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com