002 Eternal Gardens v. IAC, North Phil.

Union Mission
of the 7th Day Adventists
GR No. L-73794; Sept. 19, 1988
TOPIC: Interpleader
PONENTE: Paras, J.

AUTHOR:
NOTES: (if applicable)

FACTS: (chronological order)

1. The petitioners and the Private respondents entered into Land Devt. Agreement where Eternal Gardens will turn
the property owned by the 7th Day Adventists into a Memorial Park.
2. All went well until Maysilo Estates asserted ownership over the Land to be developed.
3. The petitioner now files a complaint for interpleader against the 7 th Day Adventists and Maysilo Estates.
4. 7th Day Adventists presented motion to place on judicial deposit the amounts due and unpaid from the petitioners.
5. RTC: denied.
6. 7th Day now files a petition for certiorari with the IAC praying to set aside the order of the RTC and to order the
judicial deposit.
7. IAC: petition dismissed.
8. Later the IAC reversed itself on MR and now orders the petitioner to make the deposit.
9. The petitioner moved for MR but it was denied for lack of merit.
10. Hence this petition.
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the IAC committed GAD in ordering the petitioner to make the deposit for the payment pursuant to the Land
Development Agreement?
HELD: No.
RATIO:
Same; Civil Procedure; Special Civil Actions; Interpleader; The essence of interpleader, aside from the disavowal of
interest of the property in litigation by petitioner, is the deposit of the property or funds in controversy, with the court. As
correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, the essence of an interpleader, aside from the disavowal of interest in the
property in litigation on the part of the petitioner, is the deposit of the property or funds in controversy with the court. It is a
rule founded on justice and equity: that the plaintiff may not continue to benefit from the property or funds in litigation
during the pendency of the suit at the expense of whoever will ultimately be decided as entitled thereto. (Rollo, p. 24). The
case at bar was elevated to the Court of Appeals on certiorari with prohibitory and mandatory injunction. Said appellate
court found that more than twenty million pesos are involved; so that on interest alone for savings or time deposit would be
considerable, now accruing in favor of the Eternal Gardens. Finding that such is violative of the very essence of the
complaint for interpleader as it clearly runs against the interests of justice in this case, the Court of Appeals cannot be
faulted for finding that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion which requires correction by the requirement
that a deposit of said amounts should be made to a bank approved by the Court.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
The essence of interpleader, aside from the disavowal of interest of the property in litigation by petitioner, is the deposit of
the property or funds in controversy, with the court.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):