Case Digest (G.R. No. 28133)
Facts:
The City of Manila v. Amos G. Bellis, G.R. No. 28133, March 09, 1928, the Supreme Court, Johns, J., writing for the Court.This was a bill of interpleader filed by the City of Manila (plaintiff and appellee) under section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine competing claims to rental payments for the school building known as the “Manila East High School.” The defendants were Amos G. Bellis (defendant and appellee) and Benita Quiogue de V. del Rosario with her husband Salvador V. del Rosario (defendants and appellants). The City alleged conflicting claims to rent had prevented payment since January 1, 1925.
The del Rosarios had leased the premises to the City on July 31, 1923 (lease to run from August 1, 1923) for P1,640 per month. Bellis held a mortgage executed May 31, 1923, for P40,000 on the property. After defaults, Bellis foreclosed, the property was sold at sheriff’s sale on January 24, 1925, and the sale was confirmed February 19, 1925; a Torrens title in Bellis’s name (subsequently reclassified in cadastral proceedings) was later issued (titles Nos. 20151, 24084, and finally 27359).
The case was first tried on an agreed statement of facts and the trial court entered judgment on March 31, 1926 in favor of the del Rosarios. The City and Bellis moved for a new trial; the trial court granted a new trial and permitted Bellis to file an amended answer (July 26, 1926). A second stipulation of facts was later entered and further evidence was received at a retrial on March 22, 1927. At the second trial the Court of First Instance found, based on a Bureau of Lands survey, that Bellis’s interest in the building was 60.28% (with the del Rosarios owning 39.72%), that Bellis had been vested with ownership and possession by the confirmed foreclosure sale, and that under article 1877 of the Civil Code his mortgage included unpaid rents which could be applied to his deficiency judgment.
The trial court adjudicated the respective shares of rental: 60.28% of rents from February 20, 1925 onward to Bellis (P27,021.68 with interest from judgment), 39.72% to the del Rosarios (with certain amounts for the January 1–February 19, 1925 period), and allowed Bellis a credit of P1,647.68 (60.28% of rents for January 1–February 19, 192...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err by admitting additional evidence and permitting an amended answer after the parties had submitted an agreed statement of facts and the trial court had already rendered judgment on that stipulation?
- Was the trial court’s finding that Amos G. Bellis owned 60.28% of the property and therefore entitled to 60.28% of the rents (and to apply unpaid rents to his deficiency judgment under the mo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)