Professional Documents
Culture Documents
18 Tuason Vs Solanos
18 Tuason Vs Solanos
Block F2021
SHORT SUMMARY
A parcel of land is in contention wherein a suit is brought by Gregorio Araneta, Inc., in the name of plaintiff J.M.
Tuazon & Co., Inc., as the plaintiffs managing partner. The defendant contends that the suit should be brought
by the real party in interest and that it is illegal for two corporations to enter into a partnership, hence, such is
without merit. The Supreme Court held that the Rules of Court only requires that an action be brought in the
name of, but not necessarily by, the real party in interest. Moreover, it held 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. Case decided in favor of plaintiff.
CHARACTERS
J.M. Tuazon & Co., Inc. a corporation which is the plaintiff in the case at bar
Gregorio Araneta, Inc. a corporation which represented the plaintiff in the case at bar since it is the
managing partner of in Tuazon & Co., Inc.
Bolaos - Defendant
RELEVANT FACTS
A parcel of land registered in the plaintiffs name, J.M. Tuazon & Co., Inc., is in dispute. During the pendency
of the case, there were three amendments made by the plaintiff from the details in the original complaint
due to new facts appearing from the testimony of the surveyor.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs claim on the land has already prescribed as he has had "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". He also
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."
Relief sought:
Plaintiff: to recover possession of registered land situated in barrio Tatalon, Quezon City.
Defendant: that the complaint be dismissed with costs and plaintiff required to reconvey the land to
defendant or pay its value.
Trial Court Decision:
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.
Direct Appeal to Supreme Court:
1. That Gregorio Araneta, Inc. has no standing to sue in the name of the plaintiff.
2. That the amendments should not have been accepted, hence the court awarded the wrong parcel of land.
3. That the land should have been conveyed to the defendant.
University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2021
ISSUE
W/N Gregorio Araneta, Inc., a managing partner of Tuazon & Co., Inc., may bring an action in the name of
the plaintiff.
(2nd issue not under partnership topic) W/N the amendments should be allowed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N Gregorio Araneta, Inc., a YES. Gregorio Araneta, Inc., a managing partner of Tuazon & Co., Inc., may
managing partner of Tuazon bring an action in the name of the plaintiff.
& Co., Inc., may bring an
action in the name of the The Rules of Court require is that an action be brought in the name of, but
plaintiff. not necessarily by, the real party in interest. The practice is for an attorney-
at-law to bring the action, that is to file the complaint, in the name of the
plaintiff. 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."
The Supreme Court held 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.)
(2nd issue not under YES. The amendments should be allowed.
partnership topic) W/N the
amendments should be SEC. 4. Amendment to conform to evidence. When issues not raised by the
allowed. 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 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.
RULING
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.