Tuason v. Bolaños
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. (represented by Gregorio Araneta, Inc.) filed an action to recover possession of registered land situated in barrio Tatalon, Quezon City. The complaint was amended three times to refine the description and extent of the land sought to be recovered, eventually settling on an area occupied and claimed by the defendant. Procedural History: The defendant, Quirino Bolaños, claimed ownership through prescription and title by "open, continuous, exclusive and public and notorious possession" since "time immemorial," alleging fraud or error in the plaintiff's registration. The Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered judgment for the plaintiff, declaring the defendant without right to the land, ordering him to restore possession, and to pay monthly rent. The defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court due to the property's value. The Petition: The defendant appealed, assigning several errors, including the court's failure to dismiss the case for lack of a real party in interest, the admission of the third amended complaint, the inclusion of land not involved, the finding that the land was covered by plaintiff's titles, the holding that the defendant was not the owner, the imposition of monthly rent, and the denial of the order to reconvey the land.
Issue(s)
Whether the action was brought by the real party in interest given that a corporation was represented by another corporation acting as a 'managing partner.' Whether the trial court erred in admitting the third amended complaint to conform to the evidence. Whether the defendant's claim of 'immemorial possession' and prescription can defeat a registered Torrens title.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, finding no merit in the defendant's assigned errors and holding that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the land in dispute. The defendant was ordered to restore possession to the plaintiff and pay monthly rent.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the action was brought in the name of the real party in interest, J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., as required by Section 2, Rule 3. The fact that the plaintiff was represented by Gregorio Araneta, Inc. as 'managing partner' does not invalidate the suit. While a corporation generally lacks the power to enter into a partnership, it is legally permitted to enter into a joint venture if the venture is consistent with its authorized business charter. The defendant failed to show that this representation was outside the corporate business of either entity. On Issue 2: The admission of the third amended complaint was proper under Rule 17, Section 4 (now Rule 10, Section 5). This rule allows for the amendment of pleadings to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise issues tried by the express or implied consent of the parties. The Court noted that American jurisprudence, which informs the Rules of Court, allows for relief based on proven facts even without an actual amendment to the complaint, provided the merits of the action are subserved and no prejudice is caused to the opposing party. On Issue 3: The defendant's claim of prescription is untenable because the land is covered by a Torrens certificate of title issued in 1914. Under Section 46 of Act No. 496, no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Furthermore, the decree of registration cannot be collaterally attacked on the ground of fraud after the lapse of one year from its issuance. Consequently, the right of the registered owner to secure possession of the property does not prescribe, as reaffirmed in Alcantara v. Mariano.
Main Doctrine
Title to registered land under a Torrens title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession, and the right to secure possession under a decree of registration does not prescribe. Amendments to pleadings to conform to the evidence are sanctioned by the Rules of Court.