ORIENTAL SAWMILL, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MANUEL TAMBUNTING AND ANGEL DE LEON ONG, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This is an action for interpleader filed by Oriental Sawmill against
Manuel Tambunting and Angel de Leon Ong with respect to the rental of a
vacant lot behind apartment No.343 Tanduay, Quiapo, Manila, occupied by
the plaintiff. The latter alleges that defendants Manuel Tambunting and
Angel de Leon Ong have conflicting claims on said rental, and it
brought the action for the purpose of compelling them to interplead and
litigate their conflicting claims for judicial determination. The
defendant Manuel Tambunting filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of res adjudicata which was granted by the court. Hence, this appeal by plaintiff.

The facts are as follows: In the Municipal Court of Manila a suit
was filed by Manuel Tambunting against Pio Barretto, general manager of
Oriental Sawmill, for ejectment, the property involved being the same
lot located at No.343 Tanduay, Quiapo, Manila. The defendant Angel de
Leon Ong was allowed to intervene in that suit. After trial a judgment
was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Manuel Tambunting, and against
the defendant , Pio Barretto, ordering the latter to vacate the
premises and to pay the former the sum of P300 as damages for the use
and occupation thereof, plus the sum of P500, value of the garage
removed by defendant, and to pay the costs. No mention, however, was
made of the intervenor Angel de Leon Ong, whose appeal to the Court of
First Instance was filed out of time and was dismissed for that reason.
Pio Barretto appealed also to the Court of First Instance where he and
plaintiff Manuel Tambunting reached an amicable settlement whereby the
defendant withdrew his appeal and plaintiff waived his right to collect
damages and allowed the defendant to use the property for an indefinite
period of time provided said defendant pays P130 monthly rent from
April, 1947.

The rents corresponding to the period from April to September of
1947, amounting to P780, was deposited in court upon the filing of the
complaint for interpleader.In the complaint it is alleged that said
rents are being claimed by both Manuel Tambunting and Angel de Leon Ong
and since plaintiff knows not whom to make payment, he brought the
action for interpleader. It appears that the property involved in this
case belonged originally to Manuel Tambunting who allegedly sold it to
Angel de Leon Ong on April 15, 1944. There are several “accesorias”
(apartments) on the property which at the time of the sale were leased
to Manuel Tambunting by the purchaser Angel de Leon Ong. Tambunting, in
turn, subleased these “accesorias” to several persons some of whom are
the herein plaintiff Oriental Sawmill and one Alfonso Pagkalinawan. At
present, there are three civil cases pending between Manuel Tambunting
and Angel de Leon Ong regarding the ownership of the property. In one
case, Ong seeks to revoke the lease execubed in favor of Tambunting
and to eject him from the premises upon the ground that Tambunting
subleased the property without the written consent of Ong. Tambunting
in his answer raised the question of ownership, and the case was
referred to the Court of First Instance of Manila where it was docketed
as civil case No.2977.

Upon the other hand, Tambunting filed an action against de Leon for
the annulment of the supposed contract of sale upon the ground of
duress. This case was docketed as civil case No.815 in the Court of
First Instance of Manila where, after trial, judgment was rendered in
favor of de Leon with the statement that no duress had attended the
sale and Angel de Leon Ong was, therefore, the owner of the property.
The case is now in the Court of Appeals wherein it is docketed as case
No.2491-R. There is another case filed by Tarnbunting against de Leon
in the Court of First Instance seeking to annul the sale because of the
purchaser’s citizenship but the case was decided against Tambunting
upon the ground of res adjudicata. That case is pending appeal in this Court.

Considering these different suits between Tambunting and de Leon
regarding the ownership of the property, plaintiff Oriental Sawmill has
reasonable grounds to doubt as to whom it should make payments of the
rents, and consequently, its complaint for interpleading is proper. We
so held in a similar case under similar facts. In Pagkalinawan vs.
Rodas, (80 Phil., 281), Manuel and Alfonso surnamed Pagkalinawan were,
like Oriental Sawmill, sublessees of part of the same property
supposedly sold by Tambunting to de Leon. And, because of the
conflicting claims on the rental between Tambunting and de Leon, the
two sublessees filed an action for interpleader against the two
conflicting claimants.We held that that action was proper. And in De
Jesus vs. Sociedad Arrendataria de Galleras de Pasay et al.
(23 Phil. 76), we held that a lessee who is in doubt as to the person
to whom he should pay the rent because the property leased is claimed
by several persons may properly bring an action for interpleader
against such persons.

It is true that Angel de Leon Ong was allowed to intervene by the
Municipal Court in the suit by ejectment filed by Tambunting against
the Oriental Sawmill and that Ong’s appeal to the Court of First
Instance was taken out of time and dismissed for that reason; it must
be noted, however, that neither the Municipal Court nor the Court of
First Instance on appeal had jurisdiction to settle or determine in
that suit the question of ownership between Tambunting and de Leon.

From the foregoing, the order of dismissal appealed from is
reversed and the case remanded to the court below for further
proceedings, the costs to be paid by appellee.

Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.