Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23851)
Facts:
Wack Wack Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Lee E. Won alias Ramon Lee and Bienvenido A. Tan, G.R. No. L-23851, March 26, 1976, the Supreme Court En Banc, Castro, C.J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff-appellant Wack Wack Golf & Country Club, Inc. (the Corporation) is a non-stock athletic corporation with its principal office in Mandaluyong, Rizal. In an amended and supplemental complaint filed October 23, 1963, the Corporation alleged that there were conflicting claims to its proprietary membership fee certificate No. 201: respondent Lee E. Won claimed ownership by virtue of a decision in Civil Case No. 26044 of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila and by virtue of a membership fee certificate issued October 17, 1963 (serial no. 1478) by the deputy clerk of the CFI of Manila; respondent Bienvenido A. Tan claimed ownership by virtue of a certificate issued July 24, 1950 (serial no. 1199) based on an earlier assignment from the original holder "Swan, Culbertson and Fritz."
The Corporation alleged it claimed no interest in the membership, that it could not lawfully issue duplicate certificates under its by‑laws, and that it was unable to determine the true owner; it therefore sought to compel the two claimants to interplead and asked the court to declare who was the lawful owner and to order surrender and cancellation of the certificate issued to Lee. The defendants separately moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of res judicata, failure to state a cause of action, and, in Tan's motion, prescription. The Corporation opposed the motions.
The Court of First Instance of Rizal (trial court) found the grounds of prior judgment (res judicata) and failure to state a cause of action well taken and dismissed the complaint on May 28, 1964, with costs against the Corporation. The record shows the Corporation had been defendant in the earlier CFI of Manil...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Was the action for interpleader by the Corporation timely and procedurally proper (i.e., did the Corporation exercise reasonable diligence or was the remedy barred by laches and related principles)?
- Substantive/procedural: Does the prior judgment in Civil Case No. 26044 of the CFI of Manila operate as res judicata that bars the present interpleader action?
- Relief: Did the trial court err in dismissing the complaint instead of compelling the appellee...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)