ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11219 May 7, 1958 - PACITA SALABARIA VDA. DE SUATARON v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

    103 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-11580 May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    103 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-11231 May 12, 1958 - ROSARIO CARBONNEL v. JOSE PONCIO

    103 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. L-9531 May 14, 1958 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. GUILLERMO C. REYES

    103 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-11578 May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. L-11629 May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

    103 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-10559 May 16, 1958 - IN RE: YU NEAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-10657 May 16, 1958 - NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION KERR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-11285 May 16, 1958 - VICENTE SAPTO v. APOLONIA FABIANA

    103 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-11924 May 16, 1958 - ISIDORO CEBRERO v. JOSE TALAMAN

    103 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-8776 May 19, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CRUZ

    103 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-11539 May 19, 1958 - ARING BAGOBA v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ

    103 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11305 May 21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-12375 May 21, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-8317 May 23, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUAN ABAD, ET AL.

    103 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-10286 May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-10704 May 23, 1958 - SIMEON TAN LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-11036 May 23, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO TOLENTINO

    103 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-11060 May 23, 1958 - A. U. VALENCIA & Co. v. HERMINIA C. LAYUG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-11152 May 23, 1958 - BENITO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-11442 May 23, 1958 - MANUELA T. VDA. DE SALVATIERRA v. LORENZO C. GARLITOS

    103 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-11504 May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-7451 May 26, 1958 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    103 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-10610 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SILVELA

    103 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX SEMAÑADA

    103 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-8190 May 28, 1958 - GONZALO GARCIA v. CONSOLACION MANZANO

    103 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-9328 May 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO PAUNIL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-10322 May 28, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTA ALVAREZ

    103 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-10574 May 28, 1958 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-10931 May 28, 1958 - FLORENClA R. SORIANO v. ONG HOO

    103 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-10972 May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-10989 May 28, 1958 - PONCIANO GACHO v. SERGIO OSMEÑA

    103 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-11112 May 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY

    103 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-11271 May 28, 1958 - PAZ TY SIN TEI v. JOSE LEE DY PIAO

    103 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. L-11311 May 28, 1958 - MARTA C. ORTEGA v. DANIEL LEONARDO

    103 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-11412 May 28, 1958 - MAURICIA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    103 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11427 May 28, 1958 - DIMAS REYES v. FIDEL D. DONES

    103 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-11491 May 28, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. BIENVENIDA JOCSON LAGNITON

    103 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11538 May 28, 1958 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. JEA COMMERCIAL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. L-11640 May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI

    103 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11744 May 28, 1958 - PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    103 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12196 May 28, 1958 - ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATAAN v. AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    103 Phil 914

  • G.R. Nos. L-12214-17 May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)

    103 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-12222 May 28, 1958 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    103 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12289 May 28, 1958 - LIM SIOK HUEY v. ALFREDO LAPIZ

    103 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-12348 May 28, 1958 - MARIANO CORDOVA v. GREGORIO NARVASA

    103 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. L-13069 May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-12287 May 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-7955 May 30, 1958 - JOAQUIN LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE P. OCHOA

    103 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-8439 May 30, 1958 - CO CHO CHIT v. HANSON, ORTH & STEVENSON, INC., ET AL.

    103 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-10642 May 30, 1958 - IN RE: ALFREDO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 964

  • G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. ISABEL IYA

    103 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-10952 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO V. LINGAD

    103 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-11073 May 30, 1958 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES E. VARELA

    103 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-11374 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO PINUILA

    103 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. L-11444 May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO

    103 Phil 1004

  • G.R. No. L-11498 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN J. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 1008

  • G.R. Nos. L-11531-33 May 30, 1958 - MARIA CONCEPCION v. PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CP. INC.

    103 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-12053 May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ

    103 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-12081 May 30, 1958 - LORENZO LERMA v. VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. L-12530 May 30, 1958 - CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    103 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-12567 May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO

    103 Phil 1042

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-12567   May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO<br /><br />103 Phil 1042

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-12567. May 30, 1958.]

    TAN GIN SAN, Petitioner, v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO Administratrix of the Intestate of TAN CUAN, deceased, HON. LEOVIGILDO B. MIJARES, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, ET AL., Respondents.

    Catis Law Office and Climaco & Climaco Law Office for Petitioner.

    Vicente R. Suarez for respondent Rosalia A. Tan Carpizo.

    Rodolfo A. Araneta for the respondent Tenants.


    SYLLABUS


    1. INTERPLEADER; WITHDRAWAL OF RENT; DEPOSITED IN COURT; WHEN ALLOWED WITHOUT COMMITTING ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — While this Court has held it was abuse of discretion, in interpleader cases, to allow one party to get the money deposited in court, even upon the filing of a bond, it is not so, where the withdrawal was permitted as a consequence of the court’s previous order awarding to said party the possession of the rented premises. The right to possession of the buildings includes the right to the use or the fruits thereof. Rentals which are civil fruits belong to the possessor in good faith.


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    Three litigations are now pending before the court of first instance of Zamboanga City concerning two buildings of strong materials in the same city owned by Tan Cuan, deceased.

    The first, Civil Case No. 608, is a suit wherein the administratrix of his intestate, his widow Rosalia A. Tan Carpizo, seeks the annulment of a chattel mortgage on the building reportedly executed by Tan Cuan during his lifetime in favor of Tan Gin San. She denies execution thereof by Tan Cuan, and alleges that in case it was duly executed it is illegal as to one-half, since the property belongs to their conjugal partnership, and she did not sign the mortgage deed.

    In the second, Civil Case No. 610, Tan Gin San tries to obtain legal possession of the two buildings, which the administratrix refused to surrender; even after extrajudicial proceedings to foreclose the chattel mortgage had been duly carried out through the intervention of the Sheriff.

    As the two buildings were leased to several tenants, the latter were subjected to conflicting claims regarding the rents of the occupied premises. Consequently, sixteen of them, Santiago Bernardo, Et. Al. instituted the third Civil Case No. 648 for interpleader. Therein they made deposits of the monthly rentals when and as they become due. Therein also were issued the orders of the respondent judge dated February 16, 1957, April 29, 1957, May 7, 1957, etc. which gave rise to the institution of this petition for certiorari. Said orders authorized the administratrix to withdraw and receive from the Clerk of Court the amounts deposited as rents by the tenants of the aforesaid buildings.

    Citing Rivera v. Ocampo 1 wherein we held it impermissible, in interpleader cases, to deliver to one party the money deposited in court even upon the filing of a bond, and alleging excess of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion, plus irreparable damages, petitioner asked for preliminary injunction, which was in due course granted after submission of a suitable bond.

    The tenants, who were made respondents expressed, in their answer, their objection to the disputed orders. However, inasmuch as they may not be required again to pay the rentals they have already deposited, they have really no interest in the matter, their stand may be disregarded and the controversy may be limited to petitioner against Rosalia Tan.

    The respondent judge is a mere nominal party. The respondent administratrix is actually the one called upon to defend. And she explains, in her answer, that the orders were necessary consequence of the court’s directive in Civil Case No. 610 on December 29, 1956, requiring the sheriff to return the possession of the two buildings to her; that possession was thus restored to her; that her possession necessarily entailed the right to collect rents from the tenants; that it was too late for petitioner to complaint, since he did not appeal nor question in a higher court the order restoring possession, which has thereby become final; that anyway the rights of petitioner are amply secured by the bond of P140,000 the administratrix had filed in Civil Case No. 610.

    Disputing this last proposition, petitioner denies the legal feasibility of extending the surety’s liability — without its consent — under the bond in Civil Case No. 610 to the damages resulting from an order in another Civil Case No. 648. To settle this point it becomes necessary to describe the background and the terms of the bond filed in Civil Case No. 610, which as stated aimed to wrest possession of the buildings from the administratrix.

    It seems clear from the pleadings and annexes thereto, that in said Civil Case No. 610, plaintiff Tan Gin San secured, by an order of replevin the surrender to him of the two buildings which had been extra-judicially foreclosed; that subsequently, acting on a petition of Rosalia Tan which asserted nullity of said foreclosure in view of the ruling of this Court in Manarang v. Ofilada 2 the judge impliedly annulling the foreclosure, declared the administratrix entitled to the return of the buildings "upon the posting of a bond of P140,000 to answer for the alleged unpaid loan and for any damage which plaintiff" (Tan Gin San) may suffer by virtue thereof. (November 16, 1956.) The bond was submitted, and the sheriff redelivered possession to the administratrix in January 1957.

    Now, in ordering delivery of the rentals deposited in court in Civil Case No. 648 the Court expressly said it was giving effect to the orders in Civil Case No. 610 declaring the administratrix’s right to possession of buildings and returning them to her. Therefore, it would not be erroneous to hold that if the deposited rentals should be lost, the damages, if any, suffered thereby is a mere consequence of the return of possession and is chargeable against the bond of P140,000.

    The petitioner’s credit, secured by the mortgage is P40,000 with interest at 6 per cent beginning February 28, 1958. At the time this petition was filed, such credit did not exceed P46,000. He has therefore no serious ground for concern because the bond is amply sufficient.

    Turning to the issues of jurisdiction or discretion, the court undoubtedly had jurisdiction; the moneys were in court in a litigation properly within its competence. And no authority is cited to the contrary.

    Was there abuse of discretion? We think not. The rentals accrued in and after December 1956. Yet in November 1956, the court had declared and upheld the possessory right over the buildings of the administratrix, thereby overruling the claims of Tan Gin San as mortgage creditor — temporarily of course.

    The right to possession of the buildings includes the right to the use or the fruits thereof. Rentals, which are civil fruits (Waite v. Williams, 5 Phil., 571) belong to the possessor in good faith (Art. 544 New Civil Code). Furthermore, and this is conclusive, Tan Gin San considers Tan Cuan the owner of the buildings. Therefore, Tan Cuan (or his estate represented by Rosalia Tan) is entitled to the rents, in the absence of better rights of Tan Gin San — which the latter has not shown.

    And this brings us to Rivera v. Ocampo, supra, on which rests the petitioner’s contentions. There we held it was abuse of discretion, in interpleader cases, to allow one of the contestants to get the money deposited, even upon the filing of a bond. But that case is distinguishable from this in that the order permitting withdrawal was avowedly for the purpose of helping one of the claimants; whereas here it was permitted as a consequence of the court’s previous order — final it seems — awarding to Rosalia Tan possession of the rented premises. A further distinction is that whereas in the Rivera case the right to the money was disputed among several interested parties, in this case the right of the owner and the possessor to rents is reasonably clear.

    Everything considered, we perceive no grave abuse of discretion calling for the issuance of certiorari. Accordingly, the petition is denied, and the injunction heretofore issued is dissolved. Costs against petitioner.

    Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. 52 Off. Gaz., 3364; 93 Phil., 588.

    2. 52 Off. Gaz., 3954, 99 Phil., 108.

    G.R. No. L-12567   May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO<br /><br />103 Phil 1042


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED