G.R. No. L-12567; May 30, 1958
TAN GIN SAN, petitioner, vs. 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.

FACTS

Three related cases are pending in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City concerning two buildings owned by the deceased Tan Cuan. In Civil Case No. 608, the administratrix of Tan Cuan’s estate, Rosalia A. Tan Carpizo (his widow), seeks to annul a chattel mortgage on the buildings executed by Tan Cuan in favor of Tan Gin San, alleging it is invalid as to one-half for being conjugal property. In Civil Case No. 610, Tan Gin San seeks to obtain legal possession of the buildings after extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage, which the administratrix refused to surrender. The buildings are leased to tenants. Due to conflicting claims over the rents, sixteen tenants filed Civil Case No. 648 for interpleader, depositing the monthly rentals with the court. The respondent judge issued orders (dated February 16, April 29, and May 7, 1957) in the interpleader case authorizing the administratrix to withdraw the deposited rentals. Tan Gin San filed this petition for certiorari, alleging the orders constituted excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, citing Rivera vs. Ocampo. A preliminary injunction was granted. The administratrix defended the orders, arguing they were a necessary consequence of a prior order in Civil Case No. 610 (dated December 29, 1956) that restored possession of the buildings to her, which order had become final. She also argued Tan Gin San’s rights were secured by a P140,000 bond she filed in Civil Case No. 610 to answer for any damages from the restoration of possession.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders in the interpleader case (Civil Case No. 648) authorizing the administratrix to withdraw the rentals deposited by the tenants.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and dissolved the preliminary injunction. The respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
1. The court had jurisdiction over the interpleader case and the deposited funds.
2. There was no abuse of discretion. The right to collect rents followed the right to possession. The court had previously, in Civil Case No. 610, upheld the administratrix’s possessory right over the buildings and ordered their return to her. This right to possession includes the right to the fruits (rentals). As civil fruits, rentals belong to the possessor in good faith. Furthermore, Tan Gin San himself considered Tan Cuan the owner, and thus the estate (represented by the administratrix) was entitled to the rents in the absence of a superior right shown by Tan Gin San.
3. The bond of P140,000 filed in Civil Case No. 610 was sufficient to secure any potential damages to Tan Gin San (whose credit was about P46,000) resulting from the return of possession, which included the consequence of releasing the rentals.
4. The case of Rivera vs. Ocampo is distinguishable. In Rivera, the order allowing withdrawal was to help one claimant where the right to the money was disputed. Here, the order was a consequence of a prior final order awarding possession, and the right of the owner/possessor to the rents was reasonably clear.