Tan Gin San v. Tan Carpizo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Three litigations were pending concerning two buildings owned by the deceased Tan Cuan. Civil Case No. 608 was filed by the administratrix, Rosalia A. Tan Carpizo, seeking annulment of a chattel mortgage on the buildings executed by Tan Cuan in favor of Tan Gin San, alleging denial of execution, illegality as to one-half due to conjugal partnership, and her non-signature. Civil Case No. 610 was filed by Tan Gin San to obtain legal possession of the buildings after extrajudicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage, which the administratrix refused to surrender. Civil Case No. 648 was an interpleader case filed by sixteen tenants who were subjected to conflicting claims for rent, wherein they deposited the monthly rentals. Procedural History: In Civil Case No. 648, the respondent judge issued orders authorizing the administratrix to withdraw the deposited rents. Tan Gin San filed a petition for certiorari, citing Rivera vs. Ocampo and alleging excess of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion, and sought a preliminary injunction, which was granted. The administratrix argued that the orders were a necessary consequence of a prior order in Civil Case No. 610 directing the sheriff to return possession of the buildings to her, which had become final. She also contended that Tan Gin San's rights were secured by a P140,000 bond filed in Civil Case No. 610. Tan Gin San disputed this, arguing the bond's liability could not be extended without consent. The bond in Civil Case No. 610 was posted after Tan Gin San had secured an order of replevin for the buildings, and the court, in light of Manarang vs. Ofilada, declared the administratrix entitled to the return of the buildings upon posting the bond to answer for the alleged unpaid loan and any damages Tan Gin San might suffer. The Petition: Tan Gin San filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the orders in Civil Case No. 648 that authorized the administratrix to withdraw the deposited rentals. He argued that these orders constituted an abuse of discretion, citing Rivera vs. Ocampo, and that the bond posted in Civil Case No. 610 could not cover damages arising from an order in Civil Case No. 648.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the withdrawal of deposited rentals by the administratrix. Whether the bond posted in Civil Case No. 610 could answer for damages arising from the withdrawal of deposited rentals in Civil Case No. 648.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied, and the injunction is dissolved. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abuse of discretion in ordering the withdrawal of deposited rentals: The Court held that the respondent judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. The rentals accrued from December 1956 onwards, and in November 1956, the court had already upheld the administratrix's right to possession of the buildings, a decision that had seemingly become final as Tan Gin San did not appeal it. The right to possession of property inherently includes the right to its fruits, such as rentals, which are considered civil fruits. The Court cited Article 544 of the New Civil Code, stating that civil fruits belong to the possessor in good faith. Furthermore, Tan Gin San himself considered Tan Cuan the owner, thus the estate represented by the administratrix was entitled to the rents in the absence of superior rights shown by Tan Gin San. The Court distinguished the present case from Rivera vs. Ocampo, where withdrawal was allowed to aid a claimant whose right was disputed. In this case, the withdrawal was a consequence of a prior order awarding possession to the administratrix, and the right to the rents was considered reasonably clear. On the issue of whether the bond in Civil Case No. 610 could answer for damages from the withdrawal of rentals in Civil Case No. 648: The Court found that the orders authorizing the withdrawal of rentals were a direct consequence of the court's previous order in Civil Case No. 610, which awarded possession of the buildings to the administratrix. Therefore, any damages suffered from the loss of these deposited rentals would be a consequence of the return of possession and thus chargeable against the P140,000 bond. The Court noted that Tan Gin San's credit, secured by the mortgage, was P40,000 with interest, which did not exceed P46,000 at the time of the petition, making the P140,000 bond amply sufficient to cover any potential damages.
Main Doctrine
The right to possession of property includes the right to its fruits, such as rentals, and the withdrawal of deposited rentals by the possessor, when authorized as a consequence of a prior final order awarding possession, does not constitute an abuse of discretion, distinguishing it from cases where withdrawal is allowed to aid a claimant whose right is disputed.