G.R. No. 26418 , November 15, 1926
AQUILINO CALVO, VICENTE T. FERNANDEZ, and MARTIN JAMIAS, petitioners, vs. Hon. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, and JUANA ORDOÑEZ, respondents.

FACTS

The Municipality of San Quintin, Pangasinan, initiated expropriation proceedings for several parcels of land, including one owned by petitioner Aquilino Calvo. The court-appointed commissioners fixed the value of Calvo’s land at P6,943.25, which the trial court approved in a decision dated November 25, 1925. The municipality initially appealed but later withdrew it, and the decision was declared final on June 29, 1926. The court then ordered the provincial treasurer to pay the deposited indemnity of P4,353.05 to the defendants (petitioners Calvo, Fernandez, and Jamias).

Meanwhile, respondent Juana Ordoñez, a judgment creditor of Calvo, levied execution on Calvo’s “rights, interest, actions, and participation” in the land on December 23, 1925. At a sheriff’s sale on January 22, 1926, Ordoñez purchased these rights. She subsequently moved to be substituted for Calvo in the expropriation case and to have the payment order revoked so the money could be retained pending resolution of conflicting claims. The trial judge granted her motion on July 20, 1926, revoking the payment order and directing the provincial treasurer to retain the funds to allow for an interpleader action. The petitioners filed this certiorari proceeding, arguing the judge acted without jurisdiction by effectively preventing the execution of a final judgment.

ISSUE

Did the respondent judge act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in revoking the order for payment of the expropriation indemnity to the petitioners and ordering the funds retained pending an interpleader?

RULING

No. The petition for certiorari is denied.

The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge acted within his jurisdiction and in the promotion of justice. While the November 1925 judgment may have finalized the right to indemnity as between the expropriating municipality and the original landowners, it did not bind Juana Ordoñez, who was not a party to those proceedings. She acquired her interest (Calvo’s rights to the land and consequently to the indemnity) after the judgment was rendered but before the indemnity was paid. Since title to the land had not yet passed to the municipality upon payment, Ordoñez’s claim of subrogation to Calvo’s right to the indemnity had the appearance of validity and deserved judicial determination.

The proper remedy for conflicting claims to a fund is an interpleader under Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Recognizing this, the judge’s order to retain the funds was a valid exercise of his power to stay the execution of a judgment temporarily when necessary to serve the ends of justice. This power prevents the premature disbursement of funds that are lawfully claimed by another, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits and ensuring all claimants have their day in court. The Court noted that an interpleader action was already pending, confirming the propriety of the judge’s action.