G.R. No. L-12567 - MAY 1958 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-12567May 30, 1958 Tan Gin San vs. Rosalia A. Tan Carpizo, et al. G.R. No. L-12530May 30, 1958 Consolidated Labor Association of the Phil., et al. vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. G.R. No. L-12081May 30, 1958 Lorenzo Lerma vs. Victoriano L. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-12053May 30, 1958 Roberta C. Diaz vs. Jesus Y. Perez, et al. G.R. No. L-11533May 30, 1958 Maria Concepcion vs. Payatas Estate Improvement Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-11532May 30, 1958 Alfonso Cruz vs. Payatas Estate Improvement Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-11531May 30, 1958 Maria Concepcion vs. Payatas Estate Improvement Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-11498May 30, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben J. Rodriguez, et al. G.R. No. L-11444May 30, 1958 Vicente Roullo vs. Margarito Lumayno G.R. No. L-11374May 30, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Dioscoro Pinuila, et al. G.R. No. L-11073May 30, 1958 Heirs of Melecio Arceo vs. Andres E. Varela G.R. No. L-10952May 30, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Benigno V. Lingad G.R. No. L-10837-38May 30, 1958 Associated Insurance and Surety Company, Inc. vs. Isabel Iya, et al. G.R. No. L-10642May 30, 1958 In Re: ALfredo Ong.Alfredo Ong vs. Republic G.R. No. L-8439May 30, 1958 Co Cho Chit vs. Hanson,Orth and Stevenson, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-7955May 30, 1958 Joaquin Lopez vs. Enrique P. Ochoa G.R. No. L-12287May 29, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Fortunato Ortiz, et al. G.R. No. L-13069May 28, 1958 Jovencio A. Reyes vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-12348May 28, 1958 Mariano Cordova vs. Gregorio Narvasa, et al. G.R. No. L-12289May 28, 1958 Lim Siok Huey, et al. vs. Alfredo Lapiz, et al. G.R. No. L-12222May 28, 1958 University of San Agustin vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-12214-17May 28, 1958 Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency vs. Associated Watchmen and Security Union G.R. No. L-12196May 28, 1958 Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Bataan vs. Ambrosio T. Dollete G.R. No. L-11744May 28, 1958 Pilar Gil vda. de Murciano, et al. vs. Auditor General, et al. G.R. No. L-11640May 28, 1958 Claudio Degollacion vs. Li Chui G.R. No. L-11538May 28, 1958 Commissioner of Customs, et al. vs. Jea Commercial, et al. G.R. No. L-11491May 28, 1958 Director of Lands, et al. vs. Bienvenida Jocson Lagniton G.R. No. L-11427May 28, 1958 Dimas Reyes, et al. vs. Fidel D. Dones, et al. G.R. No. L-11412May 28, 1958 Mauricia vda. de Villanueva, et al. vs. Montano A. Ortiz, et al. G.R. No. L-11311May 28, 1958 Marta C. Ortega vs. Daniel Leonardo G.R. No. L-11271May 28, 1958 Paz Ty Sin Tei vs. Jose Lee Dy Piao G.R. No. L-11112May 28, 1958 Philippine National Bank vs. Luzon Surety Company, Inc. G.R. No. L-10989May 28, 1958 Ponciano Gacho, et al. vs. Sergio Osmeña, Jr., etc., et al. G.R. No. L-10972May 28, 1958 In Re: Perfecto Gotauco.Perfecto Gotauco vs. Republic G.R. No. L-10931May 28, 1958 Florencia R. Soriano vs. Ong Hoo, et al. G.R. No. L-10574May 28, 1958 Panay Electric Co., Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-10322May 28, 1958 Government of the Phil. vs. Jacinta Alvarez, et al. G.R. No. L-9328May 28, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Ambrosio Paunil G.R. No. L-8190May 28, 1958 Gonzalo Garcia vs. Consolacion Manzano G.R. No. L-11361May 26, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Semañada G.R. No. L-10610May 26, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Silvela G.R. No. L-7451May 26, 1958 Hacienda Luisita vs. Board of Tax Appeals G.R. No. L-11504May 23, 1958 Eliseo Saulog vs. N. Baens del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-11442May 23, 1958 Manuel T. vda de Salvatierra vs. Lorenzo C. Garlitos G.R. No. L-11152May 23, 1958 Benito Co vs. Republic G.R. No. L-11060May 23, 1958 A.U. Valencia and Co. vs. Herminia C. Layug, et al. G.R. No. L-11036May 23, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Tolentino, et al. G.R. No. L-10704May 23, 1958 Simeon Tan Lim vs. Republic G.R. No. L-10286May 23, 1958 Luis F. Arriola vs. Republic G.R. No. L-8317May 23, 1958 Government of the Phil. vs. Juan Abad, et al. G.R. No. L-12375May 21, 1958 Republic vs. Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-11305May 21, 1958 Dominador P. Canlas, et al. vs. Republic, et al. G.R. No. L-11539May 19, 1958 Aring Bagoba, et al. vs. Enrique A. Fernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-8776May 19, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-11924May 16, 1958 Isidro Cebrero vs. Jose Talaman G.R. No. L-11285May 16, 1958 Vicente Sapto, et al. vs. Apolonio Fabiana G.R. No. L-10657May 16, 1958 Numeriano L. Valeriano, et al. vs. Concepcion Kerr, et al. G.R. No. L-10559May 16, 1958 In Re: Yu Neam.Yu Neam vs. Republic G.R. No. L-11629May 14, 1958 Celedonio E. Escudero vs. Antonio G. Lucero, et al. G.R. No. L-11578May 14, 1958 Geronimo Avecilla vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. G.R. No. L-9531May 14, 1958 Warner Barnes and Co., Ltd. vs. Guillermo C. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-11231May 12, 1958 Rosario Carbonnel vs. Jose Poncio, et al. G.R. No. L-11580May 9, 1958 Marcelino Gabriel vs. Government Service Insurance System G.R. No. L-11219May 7, 1958 Pacita Salabaria vda. de Suataron vs. Hawaii-Philippine Company The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Tan Gin San vs. Rosalia A. Tan Carpizo, et al. Consolidated Labor Association of the Phil., et al. vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. Lorenzo Lerma vs. Victoriano L. Reyes, et al. Roberta C. Diaz vs. Jesus Y. Perez, et al. Maria Concepcion vs. Payatas Estate Improvement Co., Inc. Alfonso Cruz vs. Payatas Estate Improvement Co., Inc. Maria Concepcion vs. Payatas Estate Improvement Co., Inc. People of the Phil. vs. Ruben J. Rodriguez, et al. Vicente Roullo vs. Margarito Lumayno People of the Phil. vs. Dioscoro Pinuila, et al. Heirs of Melecio Arceo vs. Andres E. Varela People of the Phil. vs. Benigno V. Lingad Associated Insurance and Surety Company, Inc. vs. Isabel Iya, et al. In Re: ALfredo Ong.Alfredo Ong vs. Republic Co Cho Chit vs. Hanson,Orth and Stevenson, Inc., et al. Joaquin Lopez vs. Enrique P. Ochoa People of the Phil. vs. Fortunato Ortiz, et al. Jovencio A. Reyes vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Mariano Cordova vs. Gregorio Narvasa, et al. Lim Siok Huey, et al. vs. Alfredo Lapiz, et al. University of San Agustin vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency vs. Associated Watchmen and Security Union Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Bataan vs. Ambrosio T. Dollete Pilar Gil vda. de Murciano, et al. vs. Auditor General, et al. Claudio Degollacion vs. Li Chui Commissioner of Customs, et al. vs. Jea Commercial, et al. Director of Lands, et al. vs. Bienvenida Jocson Lagniton Dimas Reyes, et al. vs. Fidel D. Dones, et al. Mauricia vda. de Villanueva, et al. vs. Montano A. Ortiz, et al. Marta C. Ortega vs. Daniel Leonardo Paz Ty Sin Tei vs. Jose Lee Dy Piao Philippine National Bank vs. Luzon Surety Company, Inc. Ponciano Gacho, et al. vs. Sergio Osmeña, Jr., etc., et al. In Re: Perfecto Gotauco.Perfecto Gotauco vs. Republic Florencia R. Soriano vs. Ong Hoo, et al. Panay Electric Co., Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. Government of the Phil. vs. Jacinta Alvarez, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Ambrosio Paunil Gonzalo Garcia vs. Consolacion Manzano People of the Phil. vs. Felix Semañada People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Silvela Hacienda Luisita vs. Board of Tax Appeals Eliseo Saulog vs. N. Baens del Rosario, et al. Manuel T. vda de Salvatierra vs. Lorenzo C. Garlitos Benito Co vs. Republic A.U. Valencia and Co. vs. Herminia C. Layug, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Tolentino, et al. Simeon Tan Lim vs. Republic Luis F. Arriola vs. Republic Government of the Phil. vs. Juan Abad, et al. Republic vs. Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. Dominador P. Canlas, et al. vs. Republic, et al. Aring Bagoba, et al. vs. Enrique A. Fernandez, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Cruz, et al. Isidro Cebrero vs. Jose Talaman Vicente Sapto, et al. vs. Apolonio Fabiana Numeriano L. Valeriano, et al. vs. Concepcion Kerr, et al. In Re: Yu Neam.Yu Neam vs. Republic Celedonio E. Escudero vs. Antonio G. Lucero, et al. Geronimo Avecilla vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. Warner Barnes and Co., Ltd. vs. Guillermo C. Reyes, et al. Rosario Carbonnel vs. Jose Poncio, et al. Marcelino Gabriel vs. Government Service Insurance System Pacita Salabaria vda. de Suataron vs. Hawaii-Philippine Company The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-12567 May 30, 1958
TAN GIN SAN,petitioner,
vs.
ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO Administratix 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 and Climaco Law Office for petitioner.
Vicente R. Suarez for respondent Rosalia A. Tan Carpizo.
Rodolfo A. Araneta for the respondent Tenants.
BENGZON,J.:
Three litigations are now pending before the court of first instance of Zamboanga City concerning two building of strong materials in the same buildings 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 chattel motgage on the building reportedly 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 forcertiorari. 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.
CitingRivera vs. Ocampo1wherein 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 tenant; 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 right of petitioner are amply secured by the bond of P140,000 the administratix had filed in Civil Case No. 610.
Disputing the 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 administratix.
It seems clear from the pleadings an annexes thereto, that in said Civil Case No. 160, Plaintiff Tan Gin San secured, by an order of replevin the surrender to him of the two building, which had been extra-judicially foreclosed; that subsequently, acting on a petition of Rosalia Tan which asserted nullity of said of foreclosure in view of the ruling of this Court inManarang vs. Ofilada2the judge impliedly annulling the foreclosure declared the administratix 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 Courtexpressly said it was giving effectto 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 (Waitevs.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 toRivera vs. 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 avowedlyfor the purpose of helping one of the claimants; whereas here it was permitted as aconsequence 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 moneywas disputed amongseveral interested parties, in this case the right of the owner and the possessor to rents isreasonably clear.
Everything considered, we perceive no grave abuse of discretion calling for the issuance ofcertiorari. 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.
Footnotes
152 Off. Gaz., 3364; 93 Phil., 588.
252 Off. Gaz., 3954, 99 Phil., 108.