Practice question
A defendant regularly receives warehouse rent from a nonparty tenant under a lease. The litigants’ contract and admissions connect the disputed rental share to their pending case. The court orders the identified portion held in court pending final entitlement. Which is consistent with the cases?
- The described regular-receipts setting can support a qualified preservatory deposit rather than automatic final payment
- All rent must immediately be paid to the claimant without adjudication
- Every money claim automatically authorizes the same order regardless of facts
- A nonparty tenant’s payment always deprives the court of power
- The court must treat every deposit as a criminal forfeiture
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/feb2022/gr_253428_2022.html — Guerrero Estate Development Corp. v. Leviste & Guerrero Realty Corp., G.R. No. 253428, February 16, 2022, main decision; Rule 135 sections 5(g) and 6 quoted and applied to preservatory rental deposits.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/mar2019/gr_175727_2019.html — Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v. Villarin, G.R. Nos. 175727 and 178713, March 6, 2019, main decision, two deposit categories and limits where a juridical link is absent.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.