You are on page 1of 1

TUASON VS. BOLANOSGR. No. L-4935. May 28, 195495 Phil.

106CASE DIGESTFacts:Plaintiff’s complaint


against defendant was to recover possession of a registered land. Inthe complaint, the plaintiff is
represented by its Managing Partner, Gregorio Araneta, Inc.,another corporation. Defendant, in his
answer, sets up prescription and title in himself thru"open, continuous, exclusive and public and
notorious possession under claim of ownership,adverse to the entire world by defendant and
his predecessors in interest" from "timeimmemorial". After trial, the lower court rendered
judgment for plaintiff, declaring defendant tobe without any right to the land in question and ordering
him to restore possession thereof toplaintiff and to pay the latter a monthly rent. Defendant appealed
directly to the Supreme Courtand contended, among others, that Gregorio Araneta, Inc. can not act as
managing partner forplaintiff on the theory that it is illegal for two corporations to enter into a
partnershipIssue:Whether or not a corporation may enter into a joint venture with another
corporation.Ruling:It is true that the complaint states that the plaintiff is "represented herein by its
ManagingPartner Gregorio Araneta, Inc.", another corporation, but there is nothing against
onecorporation being represented by another person, natural or juridical, in a suit in court.
Thecontention that Gregorio Araneta, Inc. cannot act as managing partner for plaintiff on the theorythat
it is illegal for two corporations to enter into a partnership is without merit, for the true rule isthat
"though a corporation has no power to enter into a partnership, it may nevertheless enterinto a joint
venture with another where the nature of that venture is in line with the businessauthorized 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 inwhich plaintiff is represented by
Gregorio Araneta, Inc. as "its managing partner" is not in linewith the corporate business of either of
them

You might also like