Reyes v. Hamada
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Hamada mortgaged certain real properties to the Philippine National Bank. These properties were sold at public auction on February 11, 1960, to Arsenio Reyes as the highest bidder for P38,000.00. On February 10, 1961, the last day of redemption, the mortgagors delivered checks for the redemption amount to the City Sheriff, which were accepted. Reyes refused to recognize the redemption and demanded possession. Procedural History: Reyes filed Civil Case No. 1025 for declaration of ownership and right to possession. Subsequently, during the pendency of Civil Case No. 1025, Reyes filed Civil Case No. 1041 to recover rentals paid by tenants to the Hamadas, asserting his right as the purchaser under Section 30 of Rule 39 of the old Rules of Court. The lower court dismissed Civil Case No. 1041 due to the pendency of Civil Case No. 1025. The Petition: The plaintiff-appellant, Arsenio Reyes, assails the order of dismissal, arguing that there is no identity of cause of action between the two cases because the first concerns ownership and possession, while the second concerns the recovery of rentals.
Issue(s)
Whether the pendency of Civil Case No. 1025, involving ownership and possession and the validity of redemption, precludes the institution of Civil Case No. 1041 for the recovery of rentals. Whether the purchaser of properties sold at public auction is entitled, as a matter of right, to the rentals from tenants during the redemption period, independent of the outcome of a case questioning the validity of the redemption.
Ruling
The order of dismissal is affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled that the pendency of Civil Case No. 1025 is a bar to the prosecution of Civil Case No. 1041, as the issues in both cases can properly be resolved in one.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of pendency of another action: The Court held that the pendency of Civil Case No. 1025, which involved the validity of the tender of redemption price and the ownership and right to possession of the properties, necessarily included the issue of the right to rentals during the redemption period. Therefore, the issues in both cases could properly be resolved in the first action, making the second action for rentals unnecessary and subject to dismissal on the ground of litis pendentia. The Court reiterated the principle that a party should not be vexed twice by the same cause of action. On the purchaser's right to rentals during the redemption period: The Court clarified that while Section 30 of Rule 39 of the old Rules of Court grants the purchaser the right to receive rents and profits from tenants during the redemption period, this right is not absolute and the purchaser is accountable to the judgment debtor or mortgagor for the amounts received. These amounts are to be credited against the redemption price. The Court cited Chan v. Espe (G.R. No. L-16777, April 20, 1961) for the proposition that if the property is in the possession of a tenant, the purchaser is entitled to receive rents, but is accountable to the judgment debtor when redemption is made. This accountability underscores that the rentals, while collectible by the purchaser, do not definitively belong to him until the redemption period expires without redemption or the redemption is invalidated. The underlying rationale is to secure the payment of the redemption amount for the benefit of the debtor or mortgagor.
Main Doctrine
The pendency of a prior action involving the ownership and possession of properties, wherein the validity of the redemption is also in issue, precludes the institution of a subsequent action for the recovery of rentals from the same properties during the redemption period, as the right to rentals is necessarily included in the determination of the redemption's validity.