GR 45315; (February, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45315 ; February 25, 1938
PRAXEDES ALVAREZ, ET AL. vs. THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA, interpleader-appellant.
FACTS
Plaintiffs, occupants of portions of the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan, filed a complaint for interpleader. They did not claim ownership of the land but only of their house improvements. They recognized an obligation to pay rent to the rightful owner and asked the court to determine who among the defendants (Commonwealth of the Philippines, Provincial Government of Laguna, Municipality of San Pedro, Colegio de San Jose, and Carlos Young) was the true owner so they could pay rent accordingly. The Municipality of San Pedro filed its own complaint-in-interpleader, claiming ownership by escheat and seeking an accounting of rentals from Colegio de San Jose. Various defendants filed motions to dismiss and demurrers. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint and the municipality’s complaint-in-interpleader as premature, and struck out certain motions. Plaintiffs and the municipality appealed.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint and the municipality’s complaint-in-interpleader.
2. Whether the trial court erred in striking out certain pleadings and denying motions for suspension of proceedings.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s resolution. The complaint for interpleader was properly dismissed. An action of interpleader requires that the plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter and that the conflicting claims have been made against the plaintiff. Here, the plaintiffs admitted they were not owners and were merely possessors willing to pay rent; they were not being sued by the defendants, nor were the defendants’ claims made against them. The plaintiffs were mere strangers without a right to compel the defendants to litigate title among themselves. The municipality’s complaint-in-interpleader was prematurely filed because the court had not yet ordered the defendants to litigate among themselves. The striking out of pleadings and denial of the motion for suspension (pending another escheat case) were not erroneous.
AI Generated by Armztrong.