G.R. No. 28133 , March 9, 1928
THE CITY OF MANILA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMOS G. BELLIS, defendant-appellee. BENITA QUIOGUE DE V. DEL ROSARIO and SALVADOR V. DEL ROSARIO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The City of Manila filed a bill of interpleader under the Code of Civil Procedure due to conflicting claims over the rental payments for the “Manila East High School” building. The City had ceased paying rent since January 1, 1925. The defendants were:
1. Benita Quiogue de V. del Rosario and her husband (Appellants): The original lessors who claimed entitlement to the full monthly rent of P1,640 under their lease contract with the City.
2. Amos G. Bellis (Appellee): He acquired 60.28% of the property through a foreclosure sale confirmed by the Court of First Instance on February 19, 1925. He claimed a proportionate share (60.28%) of the rent from that date onward, amounting to P988.60 per month. He also asserted a claim against the Del Rosarios’ share for a deficiency judgment from the foreclosure.

The case initially proceeded on an agreed statement of facts. However, after a judgment was rendered, the trial court granted motions for a new trial filed by the City and Bellis. The Del Rosarios objected, arguing the case should be decided solely on the original stipulation. The court allowed amended pleadings and the presentation of new evidence, leading to a second stipulation and trial.

The new evidence established that Bellis was the registered Torrens title owner of the land. A surveyor from the Bureau of Lands testified that 60.28% of the school building was situated on Bellis’s land. The trial court found this testimony credible and uncontradicted.

ISSUE

1. Did the trial court err in granting a new trial, allowing amended pleadings, and admitting new evidence beyond the original agreed statement of facts?
2. What is the proper apportionment of the rental payments between the conflicting claimants?

RULING

1. On the Procedural Issue: The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial and permitting the filing of an amended answer by Bellis. The Court reasoned that accepting the appellants’ argument would nullify a court’s inherent power to set aside judgments, grant new trials, or allow amended pleadings that might modify earlier stipulations. Since the appellants participated in the second trial by entering into a new stipulation and presenting evidence, the first assignment of error was without merit.

2. On the Merits: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s factual findings and judgment. The evidence, particularly the uncontradicted testimony of the government surveyor, conclusively established that 60.28% of the building occupied by the City was constructed on the land owned by Amos G. Bellis. Consequently, Bellis was entitled to a proportionate share (60.28%) of the rental payments from the date he acquired ownership (February 19, 1925). The claim of the Del Rosarios was limited to the remaining portion of the rent corresponding to their share of the property.

The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, with costs against the appellants (the Del Rosarios).