RULE 62 INTERPLEADER Interpleader is a remedy whereby a person who has property, real or personal, in his possession, or an obligation to render

wholly or partially, without claiming any right to either, comes to court and asks that the persons who claim the said property or demand compliance with the obligation, be required to litigate among themselves in order to determine finally who is entitled to the same. The essence of an interpleader, aside from disavowal of the interest in the property in litigation on the part of the petitioner, is the deposit of the property or funds in controversy with the court. It is a rule founded on justice and equity, in order that the plaintiff may not continue to benefit from the property or funds in litigation during the pendency of the suit at the expense of whoever will ultimately be decided as entitled thereto. !urther, the remedy of interpleader has for its purpose to compel conflicting claimants to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves and thus affording protection to a person not against double liability but against double vexation in respect of one"s liability. # REQUISITES Interpleader, as a special civil action, is governed by $ule %& of the #''( $ules of )ourt. Its subject matter includes property, whether personal or real, and an obligation to be rendered wholly or partially. !or an action of interpleader to prosper, it requires that* #. The conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are, or may be made against the plaintiff who claims no interest in the subject matter or an interest +in whole or in part, which is not disputed by the claimants.
1

-eltran vs. .eople"s /omesite 0.$. 1o. 23&4#56, 7ugust &6, #'%'

&. There are two or more claimants to the fund or thing in dispute through separate and different interest. 5. The claims must be adverse before relief can be granted and the parties sought to be interpleaded must be in a position to make effective claims. 8. The subject matter +fund, thing or duty, over which the parties assert adverse claims must be one and the same and derived from the same source. Thus, in an instance where a warehouseman is confronted with two or more claimants not having the same interests with regard to goods deposited in his warehouse, an action of interpleader can be given due course for the court to determine the rightful owner of the goods. & Interpleader is likewise available in the following instances* +#, in an action of a lessee who does not know to whom to pay rentals due to conflicting claims on the property 59 +&, in an action by a bank where the purchaser of a cashier"s check claims it was lost and another has presented it for payment89 and +5, in an action by the sheriff being in doubt as to the priority of conflicting claims in order to determine the respective rights of the claimants.4 :oreover, the remedy is proper in search warrant cases. 7s held in ;lasons <nt. )orp. vs. /on )7 %, where personal property has been sei=ed under a search warrant, and it appears reasonably definite that the sei=ure will not be followed by the filing of any criminal action for the prosecution of the offenses in connection with which the warrant was issued, the public prosecutors having pronounced the absence of basis therefore, and there are, moreover, conflicting claims asserted over the sei=ed property, the appropriate remedy is the institution of an ordinary civil action by any interested party, or of a special civil action of interpleader by the 0overnment itself, that action being cogni=able not exclusively by the court

>arehouse $eceipts 2aw, 7ct 1o. &#5(, ?ection #( +#'&#, .agkalinawan vs. $odas, #'86 4 :esina vs. I7) #'6% 5 ?y3@uia vs. ?heriff 0.$. 1o. 23&&6A(, Bctober #A, #'&8 6 #44 ?)$7 #6%, Bctober &6, #'6(
2 3

issuing the search warrant but by any other competent court to which it may be assigned by raffle. PARTIES 7n interpleader may be brought by a disinterested person who has no claim of any right in the property or the obligation to be performed9 or one who claims an interest, but which, in whole or in part, is not disputed by the conflicting claimants. The action is directed against two or more persons who claim the property in the possession of the plaintiff9 or two or more persons who consider themselves entitled to demand compliance with the obligation against the plaintiff. In such action, the plaintiff asks the court that abovementioned defendants be required to litigate among themselves, in order to determine finally who is entitled to one or the other thing. AS DISTINGUISHED FROM INTERVENTION Interpleader has a concept almost similar to the action of intervention in that both remedies involve at least three parties. /owever, the former actually differs from the latter. The following are the well3recogni=ed distinctions* INTERPLEADER 7n original action .resupposes that plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of the action B$ has an interest therein in whole or in part which is not disputed by the other parties INTERVENTION 7ncillary action .roper in any of the four situations* person having a, legal interest in the matter in litigation, or b, success of either of the parties, or c, an interest against both, or d, is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. +$ule #', ?ec.#, Cefendants are original parties to the pending suits
3

Cefendants are sued precisely to interplead them

PROCEDURE A. COURT ORDER & SUMMONS 7n action for interpleader is commenced by the filing of a complaint and the payment of the docket and other lawful fees. The complaint should be filed within a reasonable time after a dispute has arisen without waiting to be sued by either of the contending claimants. Btherwise, the action may be barred by laches or undue delay. The court shall then issue an order upon the filing of the complaint. The order requires the conflicting claimants to interplead with one another.
The court may also direct that the subject matter be paid or delivered to the court if the interests of justice so require.

+?ection &,

It is necessary that there be a declaration to this effect before the defendants may litigate among themselves and file a complaint of interpleader. This procedure will do away with groundless suits, and will save the parties time, inconvenience, and unnecessary expenses. ( /owever, it was held in a much later case that the Brder of the trial court requiring the parties to file their answers is to all intents and purposes an order to interplead, substantially and essentially and therefore in compliance with the provisions of $ule %& of the $ules of )ourt. 6 Thereafter, the following documents shall be served upon the conflicting claimants* +#, ?ummons, together with +&, )opy of the )omplaint9 and +5, )opy of the Brder. +?ection 5, B. MOTION TO DISMISS9 Dpon service of summons, each claimant has #4 days within which he must file his answer. >ithin such time, each claimant may file a motion to dismiss on the ground of* #., impropriety of the interpleader action9 or &., other appropriate grounds specified in $ule #%.
7 8 9

.raxedes 7lvare=, et al. vs. The )ommonwealth of the .hil., %4 .hil. 5A& :esina vs I7), #84 ?)$7 8'( +#'6%, ?ection 8, $ule %& of the #''( $ules of )ourt

Dpon filing of the motion to dismiss, the period to file the answer is suspended. If the motion is denied, the movant may file his answer within the remaining period, or at least 4 days, whichever is longer, to be reckoned from the receipt of the notice of denial. 7n interpleader action is said to be improper when not filed within a reasonable time. 7 party may no longer file for an application for interpleader when it has been formerly sued by one of the conflicting claimants and, instead of interpleading the other claimant, proceeded with the litigation.#A The party who initiates an interpleader action may file a motion to dismiss the same when there is no more need to pursue such cause of action. In the case of $)-) vs :<T$B)B1 ##, the reason for the interpleader action ceased when the :eT) judgment directed :<T$B)71 to pay 2<E)B1 whatever rentals due on the subject premises. >hen the decision became final and executory, :<T$B)71 has no other alternative left but to pay the rentals to 2<E)B1. C. ANSWER AND OTHER PLEADINGS12 Dpon the service of summons, each claimant has #4 days to file his answer. 7 copy of the answer must be served to the plaintiff and to each of the conflicting claimants. 7 reply may be filed within #A days from such service by the other conflicting claimants. If a claimant fails to file his answer within the period prescribed +#4 days or shorter if he has earlier filed a motion to dismiss which was denied,, a party may file a motion to declare such claimant in default. The court will thereafter render judgment, barring him from any claim in respect to the subject matter.

10 11 12

>ack3>ack 0olf F )ountry )lub vs. 2ee >on, 23&564#, :arch &%, #'(% 0$. 1o. #&('#5, ?eptember #5, &AA# ?ection 4, supra.

The parties are also allowed to file counterclaims, cross3claims, third3 party complaints and responsive pleadings thereto. In 7rre=a vs Cia= #5, the paragraph providing such rule is added to ?ection 4 to expressly authori=e additional pleadings and claims enumerated therein, in the interest of a complete adjudication of the controversy and its incidents. /ence, a compulsory counterclaim not pleaded in the interpleader action bars the right of a defendant to raise it in a subsequent litigation. D. JUDGMENT 7fter filing of the pleadings, a pre3trial shall be conducted. Thereafter, the court shall determine the respective rights and adjudicate their respective claims. +?ection %, 7 writ of possession does not necessarily follow upon adjudication on an interpleader. In :aglente vs .adilla +&AA(,, the ?upreme )ourt held that the decision in the interpleader case merely resolved the question of who, between petitioners and respondents, had the right to purchase the property. The interpleader case did not delve into the issue of who has the right of possession over the property. The docket and other lawful fees shall be paid by the party who filed the complaint. ?uch fees as well as the costs and expenses of litigation shall however constitute a lien on the subject matter of the action unless the court shall order otherwise. +?ection (,

13

5%8 ?)$7 66

DIGESTS OF INTERPLEADER CASES WACK WACK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB INC vs. LEE E. WON !"#!$ RAMON LEE !%& BIENVENIDO A. TAN F!'($) >ack >ack 0olf and )ountry )lub Inc. +the )orporation,, a non3 stock, civic and athletic corporation, filed a complaint of interpleader against 2ee e. >on and -ienvenido Tan. It alleged that both >on and Tan claim ownership of the same membership fee certificate &A#9 >on by virtue of a decision rendered in a civil case and the issuance of the certificate by the clerk of court pursuant to the order in the said case, and Tan, by virtue of an assignment made in his favor by the original owner and holder of the membership fee certificate. The court, upon motion of the defendants, dismissed the complaint upon grounds of res judicata. The )orporation appealed, contending that there was no identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action between the former civil case and the present action to constitute res judicata. R*"#%+) The interpleader suit cannot prosper because the corporation has already been made independently liable in the former civil case filed by >on, therefore its present application for interpleader would in effect be a collateral attack upon the final judgment in the said civil case. The )orporation was aware of the conflicting claims of the appellees long before filing the present interpleader suit. It recogni=ed Tan as the lawful owner yet when >on sued the corporation, it chose to not to interplead Tan but proceeded with the litigation. !inal judgment has been rendered against it. It is therefore too late to invoke the remedy of interpleader. 7 stakeholder +person entrusted with the custody of property or money that is subject of litigation or of contention between rival claimants in which the holder claims no right or property interest, should use reasonable diligence to hale the contending claimants to court. /e need not await actual institution of independent suits against him before filing a bill of interpleader. /e should file an action of interpleader within a reasonable time after a dispute has arisen without waiting to be sued by either of the contending claimants. Btherwise, he may be barred by laches or undue delay. -ut where he acts with reasonable diligence in view of the environmental circumstances, the remedy is not barred. RCBC ,$. METROCON F!'($) 2ey )onstruction )orporation +2<E)B1, obtained a loan from $)-), with a real estate mortgage as security. 2<E)B1 failed to pay its dues, prompting $)-) to institute extrajudicial foreclosure. $)-) was the highest bidder. ?ubsequently, 2<E)B1 filed an action to nullify the extrajudicial foreclosure. :eanwhile, $)-), by virtue of the consolidation of the title of the property in its name, demanded rental payments from :etro )ontainer )orporation +:<T$B)B1,, which was leasing the property from 2<E)B1. 2<E)B1, as lessor, also filed an unlawful detainer action against :<T$B)B1, causing :<T$B)B1 to file an action for interpleader.
7

In the unlawful detainer case, the :eT) court held :<T$B)B1 liable to pay 2<E)B1 whatever rentals due on the subject premises. This decision became final and executory. Thereafter, :<T$B)B1 moved to dismiss the interpleader action for being moot and academic due to the decision of the :eT). The motion was granted. R*"#%+) The reason for the interpleader action ceased when the :eT) rendered judgment in the Dnlawful Cetainer case. >hile $)-), not being a party to such case, could not be bound therein, :<T$B)71 is bound by the :eT) decision. >hen such decision became final and executor :<T$B)71 has no other alternative left but to pay the rentals to 2<E)B1. A--./! ,$ D#!/ 061 SCRA 22 F!'($) -liss Cevelopment )orporation +-liss, is the owner of a housing unit in @ue=on )ity. 7 civil case was ongoing between 7rre=a and Cia= Gr involving a conflict of ownership regarding the housing unit. -ecause of such, -liss filed a complaint for interpleader. The trial court resolved the conflict in favor of 7rre=a. The decision became final and executory. ?ubsequently. Cia= filed a complaint against -lis and 7rre=a, asking them to be liable for the cost of his acquisition and improvements on the subject property. 7rre=a moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of res adjudicate in the interpleader case. R*"#%+) .ursuant to $ule %&, ?ection 4, Cia= should have filed his claims against 7rre=a in the interpleader action. /aving asserted his rights as a buyer in good faith in his answer, and praying relief therefor, respondent Cia= should have crystalli=ed his demand into specific claims for reimbursement by petitioner 7rre=a. /aving failed to set up his claim for reimbursement, said claim of respondent Cia= being in the nature of a compulsory counterclaim is now barred. 7s stated by the )ourt of 7ppeals, the court in a complaint for interpleader shall determine the rights and obligations of the parties and adjudicate their respective claims. ?uch rights, obligations, and claims could only be adjudicated if put forward by the aggrieved party in assertion of his rights. M!+".%(. ,$ P!&#""! F!'($) .hilippine $ealty )orporation +.$), owned a parcel of land which was leased to :aglente. In the contract of lease, it stated that if .$) were to sell the property, :aglente would be given the first priority to buy it. The property was subleased by :aglente to the respondents. >hen the contract was about to expire, .$) offered to sell the property to :aglente, which :aglente accepted. ?ubsequently, .$) received a letter from respondents, expressing their desire to purchase said property. .$) filed a complaint for interpleader to determine who among the claimants has the right to purchase the property. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners. 7 deed of sale was executed by .$).
8

The petitioners then filed a write of possession, but respondents objected on the ground that the trial court"s decision on the interpleader case merely resolved petitioners" right to purchase the property but not declare them as owners entitled to possession. R*"#%+) The trial court"s decision in the interpleader case +affirmed by both the )7 and the ?), merely resolved the question of who, between petitioners and respondents, had the right to purchase .$)"s property. The directive was only for .$) to execute the necessary contract in favor of petitioners as the winning parties, nothing else. 7 writ of possession complements the writ of execution only when the right of possession or ownership has been validly determined in a case directly relating to either. The interpleader case obviously did not delve into that issue. .etitioners cannot recover possession of the property via a mere motion. They must file the appropriate action in court against respondents to recover possession.