Title
Supreme Court
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. vs. Metro Container Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 127913
Decision Date
Sep 13, 2001
A dispute over rental payments arose after a foreclosure sale, resolved by an unlawful detainer ruling, rendering the interpleader action moot.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 127913)

Petitioner

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, holder of a consolidated title over the mortgaged property

Respondent

Metro Container Corporation, lessee of the subject property under lease with Ley Construction Corporation

Key Dates

• September 26, 1990 – LEYCON borrows ₱30 million from RCBC, mortgage on Valenzuela property
• December 28, 1992 – Extrajudicial foreclosure, RCBC highest bidder
• May 26, 1994 – LEYCON files unlawful detainer (MeTC Civil Case No. 6202) against METROCAN
• May 27, 1994 – METROCAN institutes interpleader (RTC Civil Case No. 4398-V-94) against LEYCON and RCBC
• July 4, 1995 – METROCAN and LEYCON settle; RTC dismisses interpleader as to them
• October 31, 1995 – MeTC orders METROCAN to pay LEYCON rentals; decision becomes final
• February 1, 1996 – METROCAN and LEYCON move to dismiss interpleader as moot; RTC denies motion (March 12, 1996)
• October 18, 1996 – CA grants METROCAN’s petition, sets aside RTC orders, dismisses interpleader
• January 8, 1997 – CA denies RCBC’s motion for reconsideration
• September 13, 2001 – Supreme Court promulgates decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Rule 63, Revised Rules of Court (now Rule 62, Rules of Civil Procedure): interpleader action

Facts

Ley Construction Corporation mortgaged a Valenzuela property to RCBC for a ₱30 million loan. After Leycon defaulted, RCBC foreclosed extrajudicially in December 1992 and acquired title. Metro Container, originally leasing the property from Leycon, continued occupancy. RCBC demanded rental payments under its newly consolidated title; Metro Can hesitated, leading to competing claims by Leycon and RCBC over rent.

Proceedings Below

  1. Leycon’s unlawful detainer suit (MeTC No. 6202) sought possession and rentals from Metro Can.
  2. Metro Can’s interpleader (RTC No. 4398-V-94) named Leycon and RCBC to resolve conflicting claims to rental payments.
  3. After Metro Can and Leycon settled and MeTC ruled that Metro Can must pay Leycon rentals, Metro Can and Leycon moved to dismiss the interpleader as moot. The RTC denied these motions; appeals and petitions ensued.
  4. The Court of Appeals granted Metro Can’s certiorari petition, set aside the RTC orders, and dismissed the interpleader action. RCBC’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Issue

Whether the final and executory MeTC judgment in the unlawful detainer case, directing Metro Can to pay Leycon the rentals, rendered the interpleader action moot and academic, justifying its dismissal despite RCBC’s contested ownership claim.

Interpleader Rule and Its Application

Under Rule 63, an interpleader protects a stakeholder claiming no interest or a non-disputed interest in the subject matter from vexation by conflicting claims. Metro Can filed interpleader because it was uncertain whether to pay Leycon (as contractual lessor) or RCBC (as title owner). The MeTC unlawful detainer decision, however, conclusively bound Metro Can to pay rentals to Leycon. That judgment resolved the very conflict over rental payments, el

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.