Case Digest (G. R. No. 11787)
Case Digest (G. R. No. 11787)
Facts:
The Sheriff of the City of Manila, Plaintiff and Interpleader, vs. Angel Jose Realty Corporation, Inc., Defendant and Appellant, G.R. No. 11787, November 28, 1958, the Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.The sheriff of Manila held P783.85, money arising from the sale in execution of movable property under a writ issued in Criminal Case No. 13731 by the Court of First Instance of Manila. The movables sold belonged to Jose Romualdez and were located in Room No. 405 of the Teodorica Apartments, which Romualdez had rented from Angel Jose Realty Corporation, Inc. Two sets of claimants asserted competing rights to the proceeds: Soledad Alconcel and Wilhelmina Carlos claimed the whole amount under the judgment and execution in Criminal Case No. 13731 (their credit arising from a counter-bond or surety bond in favor of Romualdez), while Angel Jose Realty Corporation, Inc. claimed the money as unpaid rentals for the apartment occupied by Romualdez for the period July to September 30, 1955.
After the sale and payment of other claims, P783.85 remained with the sheriff. The realty corporation sought permission to intervene in the Court of First Instance proceedings but was denied. It thereafter sued Romualdez in the Municipal Court of Manila for back rentals, obtained judgment, and secured a writ of execution dated March 10, 1956, directing the sheriff to deliver the P783.85 to it. The sheriff instituted an action of interpleader to compel the parties to litigate their respective claims; the trial or "lower court" (below the Supreme Court) ruled that Alconcel and Carlos had preference because their writ of execution dated September 10, 1955, antedated the realty corporation’s writ of March 10, 1956, applying Article 2244, paragraph (7) of the Civil Code, and ordered payment to Alconcel and Carlos.
Angel Jose Realty Corporation, Inc. appealed to this Court, contending its claim for unpaid rent should be preferred under the rule on credits against specific movable property (Article 2241, paragraph (12) of the Civil Code) because the disputed funds derive from the sale of movables found in the leased premises.
Issues:
- Procedural/substantive: Did the lower court correctly award preference to Soledad Alconcel and Wilhelmina Carlos over Angel Jose Realty Corporation, Inc. for the P783.85 in the sheriff’s hands?
- Substantive: Are the landlord’s unpaid rentals for one year on movables found in the leased premises entitled to preference under Article 2241(12) of the Civil Code, thereby making Article 2241 rather than Article 2244 applicable to the proceeds from the sale of those movables?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)