INTRAMUROS ADMINISTRATION, PETITIONER, VS.

OFFSHORE
CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
G.R. No. 196795, March 07, 2018

FACTS:

Intramuros leased three real properties of the national government, which it administered to
Offshore Construction. Offshore Construction occupied and introduced improvements in the
leased premises. However, Intramuros and the Department of Tourism halted the projects due to
Offshore Construction's non-conformity with PD. 1616, which required 16 th to 19th centuries'
Philippine-Spanish architecture in the area. Eventually, the parties came up with an amicable
settlement.

During the lease period, Offshore Construction repeatedly failed to pay its utility bills and rental
fees, despite several demands. This prompted Intramuros to file a complaint for Ejectment before
MTC. Offshore filed a Very Urgent Motion praying that Intramuros' complaint be dismissed on
the grounds of violation of the rule on non-forum shopping, lack of jurisdiction over the case,
and litis pendentia.

The MTC granted Offshore’s motion and dismissed the case on the ground of forum shopping.
First, it pointed out that there were two (2) pending cases at the time Intramuros filed its
complaint: one for specific performance filed by Offshore Construction against Intramuros, and
another for interpleader against Offshore Construction and Intramuros filed by 4H Intramuros,
Inc. (4H Intramuros), which claimed to be a group of respondent's tenants. The MTC found that
the cause of action in Intramuros' complaint was similar with those in the specific performance
and interpleader cases. Any judgment in any of those cases would affect the resolution or
outcome in the ejectment case, since they would involve Offshore Construction's right to have its
expenses offset from the rentals it owed Intramuros, and the determination of the rightful lessor
of Puerta de Isabel II.

It was found that specific performance case was anchored on Offshore Construction's rights under
the Compromise Agreement. In that case, Offshore Construction claimed that it complied with its
undertakings, but Intramuros failed to perform its obligations when it refused to offset Offshore
Construction's expenses with the alleged unpaid rentals. The interpleader case, on the other hand,
dealt with Offshore Construction's threats to evict the tenants of Puerta de Isabel II. 4H
Intramuros prayed that the Regional Trial Court determine which between Offshore Construction
and Intramuros was the rightful lessor of Puerta de Isabel II.

Intramuros appealed with the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed the Municipal Trial Court in
toto. Thus, Intramuros filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, arguing that the issue in the specific performance case was whether or not
Intramuros should offset the rentals in arrears from Offshore Construction's expenses in
continuing the WOW Philippines Project; meanwhile, the issue in the interpleader case was to
determine which between Intramuros and Offshore Construction was the rightful lessor of Puerta
de Isabel II.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Interpleader suit can be res judicata on the ejectment suit.

HELD:

No. A judgment in the Complaint for Interpleader will likewise not be res judicata against the
ejectment complaint. The plaintiff in the interpleader case, 4H Intramuros, allegedly representing
the tenants occupying Puerta de Isabel II, does not expressly disclose in its Complaint for
Interpleader the source of its right to occupy those premises. However, it can be determined from
petitioner's Answer and from respondent's Memorandum that the members of 4H Intramuros are
respondent's sublessees. A sublessee cannot invoke a superior right over that of the sublessor. A
judgment of eviction against respondent will affect its sublessees since the latter's right of
possession depends entirely on that of the former. A complaint for interpleader by sublessees
cannot bar the recovery by the rightful possessor of physical possession of the leased premises.
Since neither the specific performance case nor the interpleader case constituted forum shopping
by petitioner, the Metropolitan Trial Court erred in dismissing its Complaint for Ejectment.
 BELO MEDICAL GROUP, INC. VS JOSE L. SANTOS and VICTORIA G. BELO
G.R. NO. 185893 August 30, 2017

Facts:

The controversy in this case began on May 5, 2008 when Belo Medical Group received a request
from Santos for the inspection of corporate records. Belo objected to this request and wrote Belo
Medical Group on May 14, 2007 to repudiate Santos’ co-ownership of her shares and his interest
in the corporation. She claimed that Santos held the 25 shares in his name merely in trust for her,
as she, and not Santos, paid for these shares.

Belo Medical Group then filed a Complaint for Interpleader to compel Belo and Santos to
interplead and litigate their conflicting claims of ownership of, as well as the corresponding right
of inspection arising from, the twenty-five (25) [Belo Medical Group] shares. Said complaints
were raffled to the special commercial court, thus classifying them as intra-corporate. Belo
prayed that the case be tried as a civil case and not as an intra corporate controversy, arguing that
intra-corporate controversies did not include special civil actions for interpleader and declaratory
relieve, and clarified that the issue of ownership of the shares of stock must first be resolved
before the issueon inspection could even be considered ripe for determinations.

Instead of filing an answer, Santos filed a Motion to Dismiss. Though a motion to dismiss
is a prohibited pleading under the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate
Controversies, the trial court ruled that according to the Rules of Court, motions to dismiss are
allowed in interpleader cases, while the complaint for Declaratory Relief was struck down as
improper. Belo filed her petition for Review before the CA, which was however, dismissed. Belo
Medical Group, on the other hand, directly filed its Petition for Review with this Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the present controversy in intra-corporate.

RULING: Yes. The present controversy is classified as an intra-corporate.

This Court uses both the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test to determine if an
intra-corporate controversy is present.

Applying the relationship test, this Court notes that both Belo and Santos are named shareholders
in Belo Medical Group's Articles of Incorporation [94] and General Information Sheet for 2007.
[95]
 The conflict is clearly intra-corporate as it involves two (2) shareholders although the
ownership of stocks of one stockholder is questioned. Unless Santos is adjudged as a stranger to
the corporation because he holds his shares only in trust for Belo, then both he and Belo, based on
official records, are stockholders of the corporation. 

Applying the nature of the controversy test, this is still an intra-corporate dispute. The Complaint
for interpleader seeks a determination of the true owner of the shares of stock registered in
Santos' name. Ultimately, however, the goal is to stop Santos from inspecting corporate books.
This goal is so apparent that, even if Santos is declared the true owner of the shares of stock upon
completion of the interpleader case, Belo Medical Group still seeks his disqualification from
inspecting the corporate books based on bad faith. Therefore, the controversy shifts from a mere
question of ownership over movable property to the exercise of a registered stockholder's
proprietary right to inspect corporate books.

Further, Belo Medical Group cannot use Lim vs. Continental Development Corporation as its
basis for filing its Complaint for interpleader. The Court ruled in this case that The action of
interpleader, under section 120, is a remedy whereby a person who has personal property in his
possession. or an obligation to render wholly or partially, without claiming any right in both
comes to court and asks that the persons who claim the said personal property or who consider
themselves entitled to demand compliance with the obligation. be required to litigate among
themselves, in order to determine finally who is entitled to one or the other thing.

The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against a double liability but to protect him against
a double vexation in respect of one liability.
An interpleader merely demands as a sine qua non element that there be two or more claimants to
the fund or thing in dispute through separate and different interests. 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.

Therefore, As an intra-corporate dispute, Santos should not have been allowed to file a Motion to
Dismiss.[100] The trial court should have continued on with the case as an intra-corporate dispute
considering that it called for the judgments on the relationship between a corporation and its two
warring stockholders and the relationship of these two stockholders with each other.
 LUI ENTERPRISES INC., Petitioner. vs. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORP. AND THE
PHILIPPINE BANK COMMUNICATIONS, Respondents.

Facts:

Lui Enterprises and Zuellig Pharma Corporation entered into a 10-year contract of lease over a
parcel of land. Subsequently, Zuellig received a letter from the Philippine Bank of
Communications. Claiming to be the new owner of the leased property, the bank asked Zuellig to
pay rent directly to it. Zuellig promptly informed Lui Enterprises of the PBCom’s claim.

Lui enterprises wrote to Zuellig and insisted on its right to collect the leased property. Due to the
conflicting claims of Lui Enterprises and PBCom over the rental payments, Zuellig filed a
complaint for interpleader with the RTC. PBCom filed its answer to the complaint, while Lui
Enterprises filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Zuellig’’s alleged representative did not
have authority to file the complaint for interpleader on behalf of the corporation.

According to Lui Enterprises, an earlier filed nullification of deed of dation in payment case
pending with the RTC of Davao barred the filing of the interpleader case. Lui Enterprises filed
this case against the PBCom with respect to several properties it dationed to the bank in payment
of its obligations, one of which being the property leased to Zuellig. In the nullification of deed of
dation in payment case, Lui Enterprises raised the issue of which corporation had the better right
over the rental payments, which, as Lui Enterprises argued, was the same issue involved in the
interpleader case.

To avoid possible conflicting decisions of the Davao trial court and the Makati trial court on the
same issue, Lui Enterprises argued that the subsequently filed interpleader case be dismissed.
Zuellig filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss, arguing that the same should be dismissed
for having been filed late.

The RTC of Makati subsequently rendered a decision holding that Lui Enterprises was barred
from any claim in respect of the rental payments since it was declared in default. Thus, according
to the RTC, there was no issue as to which corporation had the better right over the rental
payments. The trial court awarded the total consigned amount to the PBCom.

Issue:

Whether or not the annulment of deed of dation in payment pending in the RTC of Davao barred
the subsequent filing of the interpleader case in the RTC of Makati

Held:

No. the deed of dation in payment did not bar the subsequent filing of the interpleader case.

Under Rule 16, Section 1, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground of litis pendentia. The
requisites of litis pendentia are:

a. Identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest in both actions;
b. Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts;
and
c. The identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one
would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other. All of the
requisites must be present. Absent one requisite, there is no litis pendentia.

In this case, there is no litis pendentia since there is no identity of parties in the nullification of
deed of dation in payment case and the interpleader case.

Zuellig Pharma is not a party to the nullification case filed in the Davao RTC. There is also no
identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. Lui Enterprises filed the first case to nullify the
deed of dation in payment it executed in favor of PBCom. Zuellig subsequently filed the 34
interpleader case to consign in court the rental payments and extinguish its obligation as lessee.
The interpleader case was necessary and was not instituted to harass either Lui Enterprises or the
PBCom. Thus, the pending nullification case did not bar the filing of the interpleader case.

“At any rate, an adverse claimant in an interpleader case may be declared in default. Under
Rule 62, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a claimant who fails to answer within
the required period may, on motion, be declared in default.
The consequence of the default is that the court may "render judgment barring [the
defaulted claimant] from any claim in respect to the subject matter." The Rules would not
have allowed claimants in interpleader cases to be declared in default if it would "ironically
defeat the very purpose of the suit."”
 SUBHASH C. PASRICHA and JOSEPHINE A. PASRICHA vs. DON LUIS DISON
REALTY, INC.
GR 136409 March 14, 2008

FACTS:

Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc. and petitioners executed two Contracts of Lease whereby the former,
as lessor, agreed to lease to the latter 9 units of the San Luis Building. While the contracts were in
effect, petitioners dealt with Francis Pacheco the General Manager of private respondent.
Thereafter, Pacheco was replaced by Roswinda Bautista (Ms. Bautista).
Petitioners religiously paid the monthly rentals until May 1992.After that, however, despite
repeated demands, petitioners continuously refused to pay the stipulated rent causing the
respondent to file a complaint for ejectment/

Petitioners admitted their failure to pay the stipulated rent for the leased premises but claimed that
such refusal was justified because of the internal squabble in respondent company as to the
person authorized to receive payment. To further justify their non-payment of rent, petitioners
alleged that they were prevented from using the units (rooms) subject matter of the lease contract.

The Trial ensued and the MeTC rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint for ejectment due
to lack of authority to sue of Ms. Bautista on behalf of the corporation.

The RTC however, reversed the decision and ordered the defendants to vacate the premises.

The CA affirmed the decision of the lowercourt. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of an action for interpleader is proper.

RULING: Yes. Action for interpleader should have been the proper remedy.

An action for interpleader is proper whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are
or may be made against a person who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter, or an
interest in whole or in part is not disputed by claimants, he may bring an action against
conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among
themselves.

Otherwise stated, an action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know to whom
payment of rentals should be made due to conflicting claims on the property (or the right to
collect). The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against double liability but to protect him
against double vexation in respect of one liability.

Here, It is undisputed that petitioners and respondents entered into 2 separate contracts of lease
involving 9 rooms. Records likewise show that respondent repeatedly demanded that petitioners
vacate the premises, but the latter refused to heed the demand; thus, they remained in possession
of the premises.

What was clearly established by the evidence was petitioners' non-payment of rentals because
ostensibly, they did not know to whom payment should be made. However, this did not justify
their failure to pay, because if such were the case, they were not without any remedy. They
should have availed of the provisions of the Civil Code on consignation of payment and of the
Rules of Court on interpleader.