Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-4935 May 28, 1954

J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., r !r " #$ % &y '$ Ma#a('#( PARTNER, GREGORIA ARANETA, INC., plaintiffappellee, vs. )UIRINO *OLA+OS, defendant-appellant. Araneta and Araneta for appellee. Jose A. Buendia for appellant. RE,ES, J.This is an action originall brought in the Court of !irst "nstance of Ri#al, $ue#on Cit Branch, to recover possesion of registered land situated in barrio Tatalon, $ue#on Cit . Plaintiff%s co&plaint 'as a&ended three ti&es 'ith respect to the e(tent and description of the land sought to be recovered. The original co&plaint described the land as a portion of a lot registered in plaintiff%s na&e under Transfer Certificate of Title No. )*+,+ of the land record of Ri#al Province and as containing an area of -) hectares &ore or less. But the co&plaint 'as a&ended b reducing the area of + hectares, &ore or less, after the defendant had indicated the plaintiff%s surve ors the portion of land clai&ed and occupied b hi&. The second a&end&ent beca&e necessar and 'as allo'ed follo'ing the testi&on of plaintiff%s surve ors that a portion of the area 'as e&braced in another certificate of title, 'hich 'as plaintiff%s Transfer Certificate of Title No. )*+**. And still later, in the course of trial, after defendant%s surve or and 'itness, $uirino !eria, had testified that the area occupied and clai&ed b defendant 'as about -) hectares, as sho'n in his E(hibit -, plaintiff again, 'ith the leave of court, a&ended its co&plaint to &a.e its allegations confor& to the evidence. /efendant, in his ans'er, sets up prescription and title in hi&self thru 0open, continuous, e(clusive and public and notorious possession 1of land in dispute2 under clai& of o'nership, adverse to the entire 'orld b defendant and his predecessor in interest0 fro& 0ti&e in-&e&orial0. The ans'er further alleges that registration of the land in dispute 'as obtained b plaintiff or its predecessors in interest thru 0fraud or error and 'ithout .no'ledge 1of2 or interest either personal or thru publication to defendant and3or predecessors in interest.0 The ans'er therefore pra s that the co&plaint be dis&issed 'ith costs and plaintiff re4uired to reconve the land to defendant or pa its value. After trial, the lo'er court rendered 5udg&ent for plaintiff, declaring defendant to be 'ithout an right to the land in 4uestion and ordering hi& to restore possession thereof to plaintiff and to pa the latter a &onthl rent of P-)6.+6 fro& 7anuar , -89:, until he vacates the land, and also to pa the costs. Appealing directl to this court because of the value of the propert assign&ent or errors; involved, defendant &a.es the follo'ing

". The trial court erred in not dis&issing the case on the ground that the case 'as not brought b the real propert in interest. "". The trial court erred in ad&itting the third a&ended co&plaint. """. The trial court erred in den ing defendant%s &otion to stri.e. "<. The trial court erred in including in its decision land not involved in the litigation. <. The trial court erred in holding that the land in dispute is covered b )*+,+ and )*+**. transfer certificates of Title Nos.

<l. The trial court erred in not finding that the defendant is the true and la'ful o'ner of the land.

<"". The trial court erred in finding that the defendant is liable to pa the plaintiff the a&ount of P-)6.+6 &onthl fro& 7anuar , -89:, until he vacates the pre&ises. <""". The trial court erred in not ordering the plaintiff to reconve 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 b the real part in interest, that is, b 7. M. Tuason and Co., "nc. =hat the Rules of Court re4uire is that an action be brought in the name of, but not necessaril by, the real part in interest. 1>ection 6, Rule 6.2 "n fact the practice is for an attorne -at-la' to bring the action, that is to file the co&plaint, in the na&e of the plaintiff. That practice appears to have been follo'ed in this case, since the co&plaint is signed b the la' fir& of Araneta and Araneta, 0counsel for plaintiff0 and co&&ences 'ith the state&ent 0co&es no' plaintiff, through its undersigned counsel.0 "t is true that the co&plaint also states that the plaintiff is 0represented herein b its Managing Partner ?regorio Araneta, "nc.0, another corporation, but there is nothing against one corporation being represented b another person, natural or 5uridical, in a suit in court. The contention that ?regorio Araneta, "nc. can not act as &anaging partner for plaintiff on the theor that it is illegal for t'o corporations to enter into a partnership is 'ithout &erit, for the true rule is that 0though a corporation has no po'er to enter into a partnership, it &a nevertheless enter into a 5oint venture 'ith another 'here the nature of that venture is in line 'ith the business authori#ed b its charter.0 1= o&ing"ndiana @il ?as Co. vs. =eston, ,: A. A. R., -:9), citing 6 !letcher C c. of Corp., -:,6.2 There is nothing in the record to indicate that the venture in 'hich plaintiff is represented b ?regorio Araneta, "nc. as 0its &anaging partner0 is not in line 'ith the corporate business of either of the&. Errors "", """, and "<, referring to the ad&ission of the third a&ended co&plaint, &a be ans'ered b &ere reference to section 9 of Rule -*, Rules of Court, 'hich sanctions such a&end&ent. "t reads; >ec. 9. Amendment to conform to evidence. B =hen issues not raised b the pleadings are tried b e(press or i&plied consent of the parties, the shall be treated in all respects, as if the had been raised in the pleadings. >uch a&end&ent of the pleadings as &a be necessar to cause the& to confor& to the evidence and to raise these issues &a be &ade upon &otion of an part at & ti&e, even of the trial of these issues. "f evidence is ob5ected to at the trial on the ground that it is not 'ithin the issues &ade b the pleadings, the court &a allo' the pleadings to be a&ended and shall be so freel 'hen the presentation of the &erits of the action 'ill be subserved thereb and the ob5ecting part fails to satisf the court that the ad&ission of such evidence 'ould pre5udice hi& in &aintaining his action or defense upon the &erits. The court &a grant a continuance to enable the ob5ecting part to &eet such evidence. Cnder this provision a&end&ent is not even necessar for the purpose of rendering 5udg&ent on issues proved though not alleged. Thus, co&&enting on the provision, Chief 7ustice Moran sa s in this Rules of Court; Cnder this section, A&erican courts have, under the Ne' !ederal Rules of Civil Procedure, ruled that 'here the facts sho'n entitled plaintiff to relief other than that as.ed for, no a&end&ent to the co&plaint is necessar , especiall 'here defendant has hi&self raised the point on 'hich recover is based, and that the appellate court treat the pleadings as a&ended to confor& to the evidence, although the pleadings 'ere not actuall a&ended. 1" Moran, Rules of Court, -8D6 ed., ),8-)8:.2 @ur conclusion therefore is that specification of error "", """, and "< are 'ithout &erit.. Aet us no' pass on the errors < and <". Ad&itting, though his attorne , at the earl stage of the trial, that the land in dispute 0is that described or represented in E(hibit A and in E(hibit B enclosed in red pencil 'ith the na&e $uirino BolaEos,0 defendant later changed his la' er and also his theor and tried to prove that the land in dispute 'as not covered b plaintiff%s certificate of title. The evidence, ho'ever, is against defendant, for it clearl establishes that plaintiff is the registered o'ner of lot No. 9-B-)-C, situate in barrio Tatalon, $ue#on Cit , 'ith an area of D,68*,968.) s4uare &eters, &ore or less, covered b transfer certificate of title No. )*+,+ of the land records of Ri#al province, and of lot No. 9-B-9, situated in the sa&e barrio, having an area of *9,*,8 s4uare &eters, &ore or less, covered b transfer certificate of title No. )*+** of the land records of the sa&e province, both lots having been originall registered on 7ul ,, -8-9 under original certificate of title No. *)D. The identit of the lots 'as established b the testi&on of Antonio Manahan and Magno !austino, 'itnesses for plaintiff, and the identit of the portion thereof clai&ed b defendant 'as established b the testi&on of his o'n 'itness, $uirico !eria. The co&bined testi&on of these three 'itnesses clearl sho's that the portion clai&ed b defendant is &ade up of a part of lot 9-B-)-C and &a5or on portion of lot 9-B-9, and is 'ell 'ithin the area covered b the t'o transfer certificates of title alread &entioned. This fact also appears ad&itted in defendant%s ans'er to the third a&ended co&plaint. As the land in dispute is covered b plaintiff%s Torrens certificate of title and 'as registered in -8-9, the decree of registration can no longer be i&pugned on the ground of fraud, error or lac. of notice to defendant, as &ore than one ear has alread elapsed fro& the issuance and entr of the decree. Neither court the decree be collaterall attac.ed b an person clai&ing title to, or interest in, the land prior to the registration proceedings. 1>oroEgon vs.

Ma.alintal,- 9D @ff. ?a#., ),-8.2 Nor could title to that land in derogation of that of plaintiff, the registered o'ner, be ac4uired b prescription or adverse possession. 1>ection 9+, Act No. 98+.2 Adverse, notorious and continuous possession under clai& of o'nership for the period fi(ed b la' is ineffective against a Torrens title. 1<aliente vs. 7udge of C!" of Tarlac,6 etc., 9D @ff. ?a#., >upp. 8, p. 9).2 And it is li.e'ise settled that the right to secure possession under a decree of registration does not prescribed. 1!rancisco vs. Cru#, 9) @ff. ?a#., D-:D, D-:8-D--:.2 A recent decision of this Court on this point is that rendered in the case of Jose Alcantara et al., vs. Mariano et al ., 86 Phil., *8+. This disposes of the alleged errors < and <". As to error <"", it is clai&ed that Fthere 'as no evidence to sustain the finding that defendant should be sentenced to pa plaintiff P-)6.+6 &onthl fro& 7anuar , -89:, until he vacates the pre&ises.% But it appears fro& the record that that reasonable co&pensation for the use and occupation of the pre&ises, as stipulated at the hearing 'as P-: a &onth for each hectare and that the area occupied b defendant 'as -).6+-8 hectares. The total rent to be paid for the area occupied should therefore be P-)6.+6 a &onth. "t is appears fro& the testi&on of 7. A. Araneta and 'itness E&igdio Tan5uatco that as earl as -8)8 an action of e5ect&ent had alread been filed against defendant. And it cannot be supposed that defendant has been pa ing rents, for he has been asserting all along that the pre&ises in 4uestion %have al'a s been since ti&e i&&e&orial in open, continuous, e(clusive and public and notorious possession and under clai& of o'nership adverse to the entire 'orld b defendant and his predecessors in interest.% This assign&ent of error is thus clearl 'ithout &erit. Error No. <""" is but a conse4uence of the other errors alleged and needs for further consideration. /uring the pendenc of this case in this Court appellant, thru other counsel, has filed a &otion to dis&iss alleging that there is pending before the Court of !irst "nstance of Ri#al another action bet'een the sa&e parties and for the sa&e cause and see.ing to sustain that allegation 'ith a cop of the co&plaint filed in said action. But an e(a&ination of that co&plaint reveals that appellant%s allegation is not correct, for the pretended identit of parties and cause of action in the t'o suits does not appear. That other case is one for recover of o'nership, 'hile the present one is for recover of possession. And 'hile appellant clai&s that he is also involved in that order action because it is a class suit, the co&plaint does not sho' that such is reall the case. @n the contrar , it appears that the action see.s relief for each individual plaintiff and not relief for and on behalf of others. The &otion for dis&issal is clearl 'ithout &erit. =herefore, the 5udg&ent appealed fro& is affir&ed, 'ith costs against the plaintiff. Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

.oo$#o$ "
-

,: Phil., 6D8.

6 ,: Phil., 9-D.

The Aa'phil Pro5ect - Arellano Aa' !oundation