Facts:

O c a m p o b o u g h t t h e s u b j e c t p a r c e l o f l a n d f r o m Rosauro Breton, heir

of the registered owner Alipio BretonC r u z . T i r o n a , t e n a n t o f B r e t o n , w a s i n f o r m e d o f
t h i s arrangement and started paying Ocampo rent. Some monthsthereafter, Ocampo received a letter from Callejo
Law Officestating that Tirona will stop paying rent because the area hasbeen declared under area for priority development.
Ocampothen wrote a demand letter for payment of rental. Despite receipt of said letter, Tirona failed and
refused and still failsand refuses to heed Ocampo’s demands.Ocampo then filed
a complaint for unlawful detainer anddamages against Tirona before the MTC. Tirona answered
byasserting that Dona Yaneza was the owner, not
Ocampo. Tirona subsequently filed a motion for leave to amend hera n s w e r b e c a u s e a l a w y e r d i d n o t a s
s i s t h e r i n h e r i n i t i a l answer. In her amended answer, Tirona maintained thatOcampo is not the
owner of the subjec t land. Tirona alsoalleged that she has a right of first refusal in case of sale of the land.MTC
ruled in favor of Ocampo because of non-payment of rentand because of the termination of Tirona’s right to possessand occupy
the subject land. Tirona changed theory in the RTCand raised that it was Rosauro’s sister Ma. Lourdes who couldvalidly sell the land to
Ocampo. The court did not believe herand still ruled in favor of Ocampo. CA considered partition of the estate of
Alipio as a prerequisite to Ocampo’s action so itreversed the decision of the MTC and RTC.
Issue:
Who has the right of possession of the subject land?What should have been filed by Tirona to show good faith
of Tirona in not paying rent?
Decision:
Ocampo has a better right. All the elements of unlawful detainer are present. Tirona obviously is in bad faith. The good
faith of Tirona is put in question in her preference forMaria Lourdes Breton-Mendiola when Ocampo informed
herearlier that the land has already been sold to him.
As as t a k e h o l d e r , T i r o n a s h o u l d h a v e u s e d r e a s o n a b l e diligence in hailing the
contending claimants to court.Tirona need not have awaited actual institution of
as u i t b y O c a m p o a g a i n s t h e r b e f o r e f i l i n g a b i l l o f interpleader
.
An action for interpleader is proper whenthe lessee does not know the person to whom to
payrentals due to conflicting claims on the propertyNote:
The action of interpleader is a remedy whereby aperson who
has property whether personal or real, in hispossession, or an obligation
to render wholly or partially, without claiming any right in both, or claims an interest whichin whole or in part is not disputed by the
conflicting claimants,comes to court and asks that the persons who claim the
saidproperty or who consider themselves entitled to demandcompliance with the obligation, be required to
litigate amongthemselves, in order to determine finally who is entitled to oneor the other thing. The remedy is afforded not to
protect aperson against a double liability but to protect him against adouble vexation in respect of one liability. When
the courtorders that the claimants litigate among themselves,
therea r i s e s i n r e a l i t y a n e w a c t i o n a n d t h e f o r m e r a r e s t y l e d interpleaders, and in such a case the
pleading which initiatesthe action is called a complaint of interpleader and not across-complaint