MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. PEDRO C. TANJUATCO & CONCRETE AGGREGATES, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Appeal by plaintiff Makati Development
Corporation from an order of dismissal of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig),
predicated upon lack of jurisdiction.

On February 21, 1963, said plaintiff and defendant Pedro C. Tanjuatco entered into a contract whereby the latter bound
himself to construct a reinforced concrete covered water reservoir, office and
pump house and water main at Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal, furnishing, inter alia,
the materials necessary therefor.  Before making the final payment of the
consideration agreed upon, plain­tiff inquired from the suppliers of materials,
who had called its attention to unpaid bills therefor
of Tanjuatco, whether the latter had settled his
accounts with them.  In response to this
inquiry, Concrete Aggregates, Inc. – hereinafter referred to as the Sup­plier –
made a claim in the sum of P5,198.75, representing the
cost of transit-mixed concrete allegedly delivered to Tanjuatco.  With his consent, plaintiff withheld said
amount from the final payment made to him and, in view of his subsequent failure to settle the issue thereon with
the Supplier, on September 16, 1955,
plaintiff instituted the present action, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, against Tanjuatco and the
Supplier, to compel them “to interplead their conflicting claims.”

On October 4, 1965,
Tanjuatco moved to dismiss the case, upon the ground
that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the litigation,
the amount involved therein being less than P10,000.00.^[1]
Finding this motion “to be well-taken”, the lower court granted the
same, over plaintiff’s opposition thereto, and, accordingly, issued an order,
dated November 16, 1965, dismissing the case, without
costs.  Hence, this appeal, in which
plaintiff main­tains that the subject-matter of this litigation is, not the
aforemen­tioned sum of P5,198.75, but the right to
compel the defendants “to litigate among themselves” in order to
protect the plaintiff “against a double vexation in respect to one
liability.”

We find no merit in this contention.  There is no question in this case that
plaintiff may compel the defendants to interplead among themselves, concerning
the aforementioned sum of P5,198.75.  The only issue is who among the defendants is
entitled to collect the same.  This is
the object of the action, which is not within the juris­diction of the lower
court.  As a matter of fact, on May 25,
1966, the Supplier sued Tanjuatco, in Civil Case No.
149173 of the Municipal Court of Manila, for the recovery of said amount of
P5,198.75, and the decision therein will settle the question as to who has a right to the sum withheld by plaintiff
herein.

The latter relies upon Rule 63 of the present Rules of Court,
prescribing the procedure in cases of interpleading, and section 19 of Rule 5 of
said Rules of Court, which, unlike section 19 of Rule 4 of the Old Rules, omits
the Rules on Interpleading among those made applicable to inferior courts.  This fact does not warrant, however, the
conclusion drawn therefrom by plaintiff herein.  To begin with, the jurisdiction of our courts
over the subject-matter of justiciable controversies
is governed by Rep. Act No. 296, as amended, pur­suant to which^[2]
municipal courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil cases
“in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property
in controversy” amounts to not more than ‘’ten thousand pesos.”  Secondly, “the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts” belongs
to Congress1 and is beyond the rule-making
power of the Supreme Court, which is limited to matters “concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the
practice of law.”2 Thirdly,
the failure of said section 19 of Rule 5 of the present Rules of Court to make
its Rule 63, on interpleading, applicable to inferiour
courts, merely implies that the same are not bound to follow Rule 63 in dealing
with cases of interpleading, but may apply thereto the general rules on
procedure applicable to ordinary civil action in said courts.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with the costs of this instance against plaintiff Makati
Development Corporation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz
Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and
Barredo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Citing Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3828.

^[2]
Section 44 (c) in relation to Sections 86 (b) and 88.

1 Section 2,
Article VIII of the Constitution.

2 Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution.