G.R. No. L-23851 March 26, 1976
It preferred to proceed with the litigation and
WACK WACK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC vs WON
Facts:
Wack Wack Golf and Country Club filed a complaint for
interpleader against Won and Tan who both claim ownership over
membership fee certificate 201. Won claims its ownership
stemming from a decision rendered in Civil Case 26044 entitled
"Lee E. Won alias Ramon Lee vs. Wack Wack Golf & Country Club,
Inc." Meanwhile, Tan claims ownership from the assignment
made by the alleged true owner of the same certificate. The trial
court dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata by
reason of the previous civil case that issued Won the right to the
certificate. Hence, the appeal.
Issue:
Was the remedy of interpleader proper and timely?
Held:
There is no question that the subject matter of the present
controversy, i.e., the membership fee certificate 201, is proper
for an interpleader suit. However, the Corporation may not
properly invoke the remedy of interpleader.
It is the general rule that before a person will be deemed to be in
a position to ask for an order of intrepleader, he must be
prepared to show, among other prerequisites, that he has not
become independently liable to any of the claimants. Indeed, if a
stakeholder defends a suit filed by one of the adverse claimants
and allows said suit to proceed to final judgment against him, he
cannot later on have that part of the litigation repeated in an
interpleader suit.  from him; and because the Corporation allowed itself to be sued
In the case at hand, the Corporation allowed civil case 26044 to
proceed to final judgment. It was aware of the conflicting claims
of the appellees with respect to the membership fee certificate
201 long before it filed the present interpleader suit. Yet it did
not interplead Tan.
to defend itself therein. As a matter of fact, final judgment was
rendered against it and said judgment has already been
executed. It is therefore too late for it to invoke the remedy of
interpleader
To now permit the Corporation to bring Won to court after the
latter's successful establishment of his rights in civil case 26044
to the membership fee certificate 201, is to increase instead of to
diminish the number of suits, which is one of the purposes of an
action of interpleader, with the possibility that the latter would
lose the benefits of the favorable judgment. This cannot be done
because having elected to take its chances of success in said civil
case 26044, with full knowledge of all the fact, the Corporation
must submit to the consequences of defeat. 
Besides, a successful litigant cannot later be impleaded by his
defeated adversary in an interpleader suit and compelled to
prove his claim anew against other adverse claimants, as that
would in effect be a collateral attack upon the judgment.
In fine, the instant interpleader suit cannot prosper because the
Corporation had already been made independently liable in civil
case 26044 and, therefore, its present application for
interpleader would in effect be a collateral attack upon the final
judgment in the said civil case; the appellee Lee had already
established his rights to membership fee certificate 201 in the
aforesaid civil case and, therefore, this interpleader suit would
compel him to establish his rights anew, and thereby increase
instead of diminish litigations, which is one of the purposes of an
interpleader suit, with the possibility that the benefits of the final
judgment in the said civil case might eventually be taken away
to final judgment in the said case, its action of interpleader was
filed inexcusably late, for which reason it is barred by laches or
unreasonable delay.
G.R. No. 73794 September 19, 1988
ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARKS CORPORATION vs FIRST
SPECIAL CASES DIVISION INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and
NORTH PHILIPPINE UNION MISSION OF THE SEVENTH-DAY
ADVENTISTS
Facts:
Eternal Gardens Memorial Parks Corporation and North Philippine Union
Mission Corporation of the Seventh Day Adventists executed a Land
Development Agreement whereby the former undertook to introduce and
construct at its own expense and responsibility necessary improvements
on the property owned by private respondent into a memorial park to be
subdivided into and sold as memorial plot lots, at a stipulated area and
price per lot. Out of the proceeds from the sale, private respondent is
entitled to receive 40% of the net gross collection from the project to be
remitted monthly by petitioner to private respondent through a designated
depositary trustee bank. On the same date private respondent executed in
petitioner's favor a Deed of Absolute Sale with Mortgage (Rollo, pp. 183-
186) on the lots with titles involved in the land development project.
All went well until Maysilo Estate asserted its claim of ownership over the
parcel of land in question. Confronted with such conflicting claims,
petitioner as plaintiff filed a complaint for interpleader. Private respondent
presented a motion for the placing on judicial deposit the amounts due and
unpaid from petitioner but the RTC denied such deposit. It was appealed
to the CA but it was affirmed thus this petition to the SC.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent Court of Appeals abused its discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in reconsidering its resolution of February
27, 1985 and in requiring instead in the resolution of September 5, 1985,
that petitioner Eternal Gardens deposit whatever amounts are due from it
under the Land Development Agreement with a reputable bank to be
designated by the respondent court?
Held:
In the case at bar, a careful analysis of the records will show that petitioner
admitted among others in its complaint in Interpleader that it is still
obligated to pay certain amounts to private respondent; that it claims no
interest in such amounts due and is willing to pay whoever is declared
entitled to said amounts.
Under the circumstances, there appears to be no plausible reason for
petitioner's objections to the deposit of the amounts in litigation after
having asked for the assistance of the lower court by filing a complaint for
interpleader where the deposit of aforesaid amounts is not only required by
the nature of the action but is a contractual obligation of the petitioner
under the Land Development Program (Rollo, p. 252).
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.
Petitioner would now compound the issue by its obvious turn-about,
presently claiming in its memorandum that there is a novation of contract
so that the amounts due under the Land Development Agreement were
allegedly extinguished, and the requirement to make a deposit of said
amounts in a depositary bank should be held in abeyance until after the
conflicting claims of ownership now on trial before Branch CXXII RTC-
Caloocan City, has finally been resolved.
All these notwithstanding, the need for the deposit in question has been
established, riot only in the lower courts and in the Court of Appeals but
also in the Supreme Court where such deposit was required in "the
resolution of July 8, 1987 to avoid wastage of funds.