Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    WILLIAM G. PFLEIDER v. SERVILLANA CORDOVA DE BRITANICO

    Uploaded by

    Philip Suplico
    C.N. Hodges sought to intervene in a case regarding the rescission of a lease contract over certain parcels of land. The lower court denied the motion to intervene because the issues were being addressed in another pending case involving all the parties. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion as Hodges' rights could be protected in the other pending case and the intervention could delay the original case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    WILLIAM G. PFLEIDER v. SERVILLANA CORDOVA DE BRITANICO

    Uploaded by

    Philip Suplico
    26 views1 page
    C.N. Hodges sought to intervene in a case regarding the rescission of a lease contract over certain parcels of land. The lower court denied the motion to intervene because the issues were being addressed in another pending case involving all the parties. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion as Hodges' rights could be protected in the other pending case and the intervention could delay the original case.

    Original Description:

    CivPro - Motion for Intervention

    Original Title

    230. WILLIAM G. PFLEIDER v. SERVILLANA CORDOVA DE BRITANICO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    C.N. Hodges sought to intervene in a case regarding the rescission of a lease contract over certain parcels of land. The lower court denied the motion to intervene because the issues were being addressed in another pending case involving all the parties. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion as Hodges' rights could be protected in the other pending case and the intervention could delay the original case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    26 views1 page

    WILLIAM G. PFLEIDER v. SERVILLANA CORDOVA DE BRITANICO

    Uploaded by

    Philip Suplico
    C.N. Hodges sought to intervene in a case regarding the rescission of a lease contract over certain parcels of land. The lower court denied the motion to intervene because the issues were being addressed in another pending case involving all the parties. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion as Hodges' rights could be protected in the other pending case and the intervention could delay the original case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    230. WILLIAM G. PFLEIDER v.

    SERVILLANA CORDOVA DE BRITANICO

    FACTS: This is an appeal by C. N. Hodges from the denial on 6 July 1961 of his motion, filed on 30 May
    1961, for leave to intervene in Civil Case No. 6161 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental.
    The said case is an action for rescission of a lease contract between the plaintiff-lessor, William Pfleider,
    and the defendant lessee, Servillana Cordova de Britanico, covering certain parcels of land, located at
    sitios Alim and Manalimsin, municipality of Asis, Negros Occidental, known as Lots Nos. 1 & 3, Plan 11-
    13650, with Transfer Certificate of Title No. 10413, together with the buildings and improvements thereon,
    for a term of years, under certain conditions. The complaint includes a prayer for the ejectment of the
    defendant and for the restoration of the possession of the properties to the plaintiff, aside from the
    payment of accrued rentals, attorney’s fees, and costs.

    Appellant Hodges sought to intervene in the case, pleading that if the lower court orders the delivery of
    the possession of the properties, which are admittedly registered in Hodges’ name under Transfer
    Certificate of Title No. 33345, then the order would destroy the decision of the same court in Civil Case
    No. 2860, Hodges v. Pfleider, and the writ of execution thereon ordering the delivery or surrender of the
    possession of the two parcels of land in favor of Hodges and against Pfleider.

    But the court a quo denied the motion to intervene because of the pendency in Branch I of the same court
    of another case, one for interpleader, instituted by Britanico against both Pfleider and Hodges, and
    docketed as Civil Case No. 6146, where the issues are practically the same, a fact which intervenor-
    appellant, in the case at bar, does not deny.
    Hodges appealed to this Court, as aforesaid, the record on appeal having been certified on 9 October
    1961.

    ISSUE: Whether the lower court erred in disallowing the intervention?

    HELD: The rule on intervention allows to the trial court an exercise of discretion (Sec. 2, Rule 12, Revised
    Rules; Sec. 1, Rule 13, old Rules of Court), and no showing is made that such discretion was abused. At
    any rate, it was correctly held by the trial court, and the intervenor does not deny, that the rights of the
    intervenor-appellant Hodges are fully protected in Civil Case No. 6146, which is pending. This is a valid
    ground for denying intervention (Revised Rules, sec. 2(b), Rule 12; former Rules of Court, sec. 3, Rule
    13; Rizal Surety v. Tan, 83 Phil. 732).

    "SECTION 2(b). Discretion of court. — In allowing or disallowing a motion for intervention, the court, in
    the exercise of discretion, shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the
    adjudication of the rights of the original parties and whether or not the intervenor’s rights may be fully
    protected in a separate proceedings."

    We find no reversible error committed by the trial court in the questioned order, considering that any
    judgment rendered will not prejudice appellant, who is not a party to this action in personam, and that,
    moreover, he does not contest the holding that his own rights may be fully protected in the interpleader
    action, Civil Case No. 6146, still pending in the court of first instance.

    WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellant C. N. Hodges.

    You might also like