G.R. No. L-1806; February 25, 1948
ALFONSO PAGKALINAWAN and MANUEL PAGKALINAWAN, petitioners, vs. SOTERO RODAS, Judge of First Instance of Manila, JOAQUIN GARCIA, Sheriff of Manila, and MANUEL TAMBUNTING, respondents.

FACTS

In an ejectment case, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a final decision ordering petitioners (the Pagkalinawans) to pay rentals directly to respondent Manuel Tambunting and to vacate the premises upon default. Petitioners, however, were notified by a third party, Angel de Leon Ong, to stop paying rentals to Tambunting due to a conflicting claim over the property. Petitioners filed an interpleader suit and deposited the accrued rentals with the clerk of court. Despite this deposit, the trial court, upon Tambunting’s motion, ordered the execution of its judgment. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to restrain the execution.

ISSUE

Whether the execution of the final judgment in the ejectment case should be restrained given that the petitioners, faced with conflicting claims to the rentals, deposited the amounts with the court instead of paying Tambunting directly.

RULING

Yes, the execution should be restrained. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The deposits made with the clerk of court constituted a bona fide compliance with the judgment. Petitioners had a legal right to file an interpleader suit because they were confronted with adverse claims from Tambunting and Ong. The existence of the conflicting claim was substantiated by other pending cases between Tambunting and Ong involving the same property. The Court ordered the respondent judge and sheriff to desist from carrying out the writ of execution. Tambunting, if entitled, could move for the withdrawal of the deposited rentals.

AI Generated by Armztrong.