Case Summary (G.R. No. L-23851)
Petitioner
Wack Wack Golf & Country Club, Inc.
Respondents
Lee E. Won alias Ramon Lee
Bienvenido A. Tan
Key Dates
• July 24, 1950 – Certificate 201-serial no. 1199 issued to Tan by assignment
• September 23, 1963 – Manila CFI orders issuance of certificate 201-serial no. 1478 in favor of Lee
• October 23, 1963 – Club files amended and supplemental interpleader complaint in Rizal CFI
• May 28, 1964 – Rizal CFI dismisses complaint
• March 26, 1976 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1973 Philippine Constitution
• Code of Civil Procedure, § 120 (Interpleading)
• Revised Rules of Court, Rule 63, § 1 (Interpleader)
• Corporate articles of incorporation and by-laws governing issuance and cancellation of membership certificates
Procedural History
The Club instituted an interpleader suit in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, praying that Tan and Lee be required to litigate their adverse claims to certificate 201, that the Club be discharged from liability, and that Lee’s certificate be cancelled. Lee and Tan separately moved to dismiss on grounds of res judicata, failure to state a cause of action, and prescription. The trial court granted dismissal for res judicata and failure to state a cause of action. The Club appealed.
Facts
- Certificate 201 was originally issued to Swan, Culbertson and Fritz.
- Tan obtained certificate 201-serial no. 1199 by assignment in 1950. The Club recognized Tan’s ownership.
- In Manila CFI Civil Case No. 26044, Lee sued the Club and secured an order requiring the transfer of certificate 201, resulting in certificate 201-serial no. 1478 issued October 17, 1963.
- The Club defended that suit and ultimately suffered a final adverse judgment executed in favor of Lee.
- Only after judgment did the Club initiate the Rizal interpleader, despite prior knowledge of both claims.
Issue
Whether a stakeholder who has been sued and cast in a final judgment by one claimant may thereafter invoke the interpleader remedy to require that claimant and other adverse claimants litigate their conflicting rights.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding the interpleader action was inexcusable late, barred by laches and operating as a collateral attack on the final judgment in the Manila case.
Reasoning
- Interpleader exists to protect a stakeholder from multiple vexatious claims by directing claimants to resolve conflicts among themselves.
- A stakeholder must invoke interpleader with reasonable diligence once divergent claims surface, and need not await separate suits.
- By choosing to litigate Lee’s claim in Civil Case No. 26044 without impleading Tan, the Club elected to test its defenses at
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-23851)
Facts and Parties
- Wack Wack Golf & Country Club, Inc. (“Corporation”) is a non-stock civic and athletic corporation organized under Philippine law with principal office in Mandaluyong, Rizal.
- Under its articles of incorporation and by-laws, the Corporation may issue a maximum of 400 membership fee certificates, all of which were issued as early as December 30, 1939.
- Membership Fee Certificate No. 201 was originally issued in the name of “Swan, Culbertson and Fritz.”
- Bienvenido A. Tan holds Certificate No. 201-Serial No. 1199, issued July 24, 1950, pursuant to assignment by the original holder.
- Lee E. Won (alias Ramon Lee) claims Certificate No. 201 by virtue of:
- A decision in CFI Manila Civil Case No. 26044 (“Lee vs. Wack Wack”), and
- A deputy clerk’s certificate (No. 1478) issued October 17, 1963 under CFI order of September 23, 1963.
- The Corporation disclaims any interest in Certificate No. 201 and cannot issue two certificates for the same membership or a new certificate without violating its by-laws.
First Cause of Action: Interpleader for Conflicting Claims
- The Corporation alleges two adverse claims to Certificate No. 201 by Lee and Tan.
- It asserts inability to determine the lawful owner and potential double vexation if forced to satisfy conflicting demands.
- It prays that Lee and Tan be compelled to interplead and litigate their claims, with a declaration of the rightful owner and cancellation of Certificate No. 1478 if Lee is not entitled.
Second Cause of Action: Invalidity of Deputy Clerk’s Certificate
- The Corporation contends Certificate No. 1478 is null and void because:
- It was issued without surrender and cancellation of the outstanding Certificate No. 1199, in violation of its by-laws; and
- The CFI Manila decision is not binding on Tan, who has a legal and beneficial interest in the certificate.
- Tan is joined to ensure complete relief a