Ocampo v. Tirona Digest

Ocampo v. Tirona

Interpleader

Facts: 

Respondent Tirona was a lessee of a land purchased by the petitioner. However, when the area was declared a priority development, respondent informed petitioner that she will suspend paying the rentals. The petitioner purchased the said land from the original owner. This prompted the petitioner to file an action for unlawful detainer and damages against the respondent.

The MTC held that Tirona had no reason to suspend the payment of rents as this made her occupation of the property illegal. Thus, the petitioner has the right to recover possession. The RTC concurred with this decision.

Issue: Whether or not an action for interpleader is proper in this case

RULING:

Yes. Tirona should have filed an interpleader and need not wait for the actual filing of a suit by petitioner against her. The action is proper when a lessee does not know who to pay to the rentals due to conflicting claims in the subject property.

This remedy is afforded not to protect anyone against double liabilities but to protect him against double vexation with respect to one's liability.

When a court orders that claimants litigate among themselves there arises a new action. The pleading which initiates the action is referred to as the complaint of interpleader and not a cross-complaint.