RULE 62-INTERPLEADER MERAKI LEX 1

G.R. No. L-25138 As held by this Court in an early case, the action of interpleader is a remedy whereby a person who has property in his possession or has an obligation to render wholly
August 28, 1969 or partially, without claiming any right in both, comes to court and asks that the defendants who have made upon him conflicting claims upon the same property or who
JOSE A. BELTRAN, ET consider themselves entitled to demand compliance with the obligation be required to litigate among themselves in order to determine who is entitled to the property or
AL., plaintiffs-appellants, payment of the obligation. "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."
vs. PEOPLE'S HOMESITE &
HOUSING
CORPORATION, defendants-
appellees.

G.R. No. L- It was held that where the conflicting claims involve the right to receive a particular sum, the amount of the sum claimed determines the jurisdiction. The issue is who
26443 March 25, 1969 between or among the defendants is entitled to collect the same and the amount is the object of the action. There is no merit in the contention that the subject matter of
MAKATI DEVELOPMENT the litigation is not the sum, but the right “to compel the defendants to litigate among themselves.”
CORPORATION, plaintiff-
appellant,
vs. PEDRO C. TANJUATCO
and CONCRETE
AGGREGATES,
INC., defendants-appellees.

G.R. NO. 193494 MARCH 7,

2014 “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.
LUI ENTERPRISES INC., 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
Petitioner. vs. ZUELLIG not have allowed claimants in interpleader cases to be declared in default if it would "ironically defeat the very purpose of the suit."”
PHARMA CORP. AND THE
PHILIPPINE BANK
COMMUNICATIONS,
Respondents.
G.R. No. L-23851 March 26,
1976 Besides, a successful litigant cannot later be impleaded by his defeated adversary in an interpleader suit and compelled to prove his claim anew against other adverse
WACK WACK GOLF & claimants, as that would in effect be a collateral attack upon the judgment.
COUNTRY CLUB,
INC., plaintiff-appellant, In fine, the instant interpleader suit cannot prosper because the Corporation had already been made independently liable in civil case 26044 and, therefore, its present
vs. application for interpleader would in effect be a collateral attack upon the final judgment in the said civil case; the appellee Lee had already established his rights to
LEE E. WON alias RAMON membership fee certificate 201 in the aforesaid civil case and, therefore, this interpleader suit would compel him to establish his rights anew, and thereby increase instead
LEE and BIENVENIDO A. of diminish litigations, which is one of the purposes of an interpleader suit, with the possibility that the benefits of the final judgment in the said civil case might eventually
TAN, defendants-appellees. be taken away from him; and because the Corporation allowed itself to be sued to final judgment in the said case, its action of interpleader was filed inexcusably late, for
which reason it is barred by laches or unreasonable delay.

CASTRO, C.J.: