You are on page 1of 1

G.R. No.

L-4935 May 28, 1954

J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by it Managing PARTNER, GREGORIA ARANETA,


INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. QUIRINO BOLAÑOS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

This case involves an action to recover possesion 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 of 6 hectares, more or less. In the course of trial, the plaintiff again amended its
complaint to make its allegations conform to the evidence. Defendant 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 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.

The defendant appealed directly to this court. He contended 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 and 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.

ISSUE: WON Gregorio Araneta, Inc. may represent J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. as the latter’s managing
partner in a suit in court. YES

RULING: 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. 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 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.