Rule 62 - Interpleader Section 1 Concept of Interpleader: It is a remedy afforded to protect him against a double vexation in respect of one liability

(NOT against a double liability) A person who has property in his possession OR an obligation to render Without claiming any right OR claims an interest but is not disputed by both parties Asks the claimants be required to litigate among themselves to determine in finality who is entitled to the thing or right. Possessor or has an obligation: Plaintiff Claimants: Interpleaders Action: Complaint of Interpleader Under the present Rules, the remedy is available REGARDLESS of the nature of the subject matter of the controversy. (ex. real AND personal) As opposed to the old rules that states that interpleader suit is proper if the subject matter is personal property only or the performance of an obligation. Essence: Disavowal of the petitioner on the interest in the property Deposit the property or funds in controversy with the court (consignation) Rule on Justice and Equity: 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.

Jurisdiction in Interpleader cases Jurisdiction – the authority to try & decide a case Determined by the nature and value of the subject matter IF to determine ownership of real property (real action) – RTC IF personal liability - depends on the amount, MTC (below 10K) or RTC Venue Subject matter is real object – where the property is located Subject matter is personal object – residence of plaintiff, OR election of plaintiff Requisites: (PECS) 1. Plaintiff claims no interest in the subject matter or his claim is not disputed 2. at least two or more Conflicting claims 3. parties must make Effective claims 4. Subject matter must be one and the same

Case: Vda de Camilo vs Arcamo Facts: -Adjacent lots owned by De Camilo and Franciscos respectively, a bldg was built by Ong Peng Kee and Adelia Ong in the middle thus encroaching both land -Separate cases of Unlawful Entry filed by petitioners against defendant thus causing him to file an action of interpleader Held: - interpleader was not proper: no conflicting claims and subject matter was not one and the same - plaintiff had interest in the subject matter: prolongation of their occupancy - assuming that an inerpleader action is proper, jurisdiction is with CFI, not Justice of the Peace - if ownership -> RTC - if incapable of pecuniary estimation -> RTC - if possession (forcible entry and unlawful detainer) -> MTC

MTC had jurisdiction because of the amount involved Comparison: Since the procedure with RTC and MTC is the same. ROC) .an action for interpleader is too late when filed after judgment has been rendered against him in favor of one of the contending claimants.amount is significant in determining jurisdiction: which is P5000+ . RTC Case: Ocampo vs Tirona Facts: -Tirona didn’t want to pay the increased rentals of Ocampo until it was determined who was the real owner of the land.lost the character of good faith due to the delay Cases where interpleader was held improper: Case: Ramos vs Ramos Facts: . in effect.Makati Dev’t did not pay due to the unresolved issue of who should be entitled to the P5K. in which the demand or value of property amounts to not more than P10K .what was involved was a real action.why the need to distinguish? to be able to determine which court has jurisdiction .distinguish action in personam vs action in rem in terms of subject matter . RTC . Held: .it would be.there are exceptions (Rule 5.Case: Makati Devt Corp.the order of the trial court requiring the parties to file their answers is to all intents and purposes an order to rem: if rem: real property 1. vs Tanjuatco Facts: .it is necessary that there be declaration to this effect before the defendants may litigate among themselves . a collateral attack upon the final judgment in the civil case Section 2 *There must be a order requiring defendants to litigate between themselves .Tirona should have filed IMMEDIATELY an interpleader action to determine who was the real owner and has the right to the rentals . if capable. and . MTC or RTC depending on the amount. could an interpleader be brought to either MTC or RTC? . if not capable. especially if he had notice of the conflicting claims prior to the rendition of judgment .RA 296: MTC shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction in all civil cases. substantially and essentially. Not available to one whomwas already held liable .personam: depends on whether capable of pecuniary estimation.personam: personal liability .daughter of one of the co-owners of the land sold the land to defendants causing issues of ownership between the previous co-owners in determining who owns the land Held: . alleging that the amount is insignificant but to compel defendants to litigate among themselves Held: .which court had jurisdiction over the claim . because the interpleader forced the heirs to decide the ownership of the land .the complaint was brought to the estate of the deceased owners -petitioners were asserting their right as heirs which is merely inchoate .

declare him in default. The court shall render judgment barring him from any claim with respect to the subject matter * Additional pleadings arenalso expressly authorized under ths section: counterclaims. as well as reasonable expenses of litigation are now a lien or charge upon the subject matter . and other lawful fees. 1986) Section 3 Section 4 * The filing of a MTD of an interpleader is allowed on the ground of impropriety of the action or other appropriate grounds (Rule 16. must file answer within he remaining period. on motion. third-party claims and other responsive pleadings Section 6 * The present rule contemplates a Pre-trial in accordane with the rules before the court proceeds wihpth the determination of their respective rights and adjudicate their several claims Section 7 *Costs. cross claims.if denied.therefore in compliance with the ROC (Mesina vs IAC. ROC) . docket fees. the court may. not less than 5 days from notice of denial Section 5 * If the claimant fails to plead within 15 days from service of summons upon him.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful