GR L 19967; (May, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19967; May 31, 1965
Arsenio Reyes, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Sinai C. Hamada and Geralda M. Hamada, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The properties of spouses Sinai C. Hamada and Geralda M. Hamada were extrajudicially foreclosed by the Philippine National Bank and sold at public auction on February 11, 1960, with Arsenio Reyes as the highest bidder. On the last day of the redemption period, February 10, 1961, the Hamada spouses delivered checks for the redemption amount to the City Sheriff of Baguio, who accepted the payment. Reyes refused to recognize the validity of this redemption. On March 9, 1961, Reyes filed Civil Case No. 1025 in the Court of First Instance of Baguio against the Hamada spouses, seeking a declaration of his ownership and right to possession of the properties based on his purchase at the auction sale. Subsequently, on May 26, 1961, while Civil Case No. 1025 was pending, Reyes filed Civil Case No. 1041 against the same defendants, seeking to recover rentals paid by the tenants of the disputed properties to the Hamada spouses. Reyes claimed entitlement to these rentals under Section 30 of Rule 39 of the old Rules of Court, as the purchaser of the properties. The lower court dismissed Civil Case No. 1041 on the ground of litis pendentia, due to the pendency of Civil Case No. 1025 between the same parties involving the same properties.
ISSUE
Whether the pendency of Civil Case No. 1025, which involves the validity of the redemption and the ownership and right to possession of the properties, precludes the institution of Civil Case No. 1041 for the recovery of rentals from the same properties.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order dismissing Civil Case No. 1041. The Court held that under Section 30 of Rule 39, a purchaser at an execution or foreclosure sale is entitled to receive rentals from tenant-occupied property during the redemption period, but such rentals are not the purchaser’s absolute property. The purchaser is accountable for these rentals to the judgment-debtor or mortgagor, and the amount received is credited against the redemption price if redemption is effected. The right to these rentals is necessarily included in the issue of the timeliness and adequacy of the redemption made by the mortgagors, which is the central issue in Civil Case No. 1025. Therefore, the pendency of Civil Case No. 1025 bars the prosecution of Civil Case No. 1041, as the issues in both cases can be properly resolved in a single action. The lower court committed no error in dismissing the complaint.