Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping Co.September 30, 1954103 PHIL.

473
PARAS, J.:
Nature of the Case: Appeal from an Order of the CFI of Manila.
FACTS
Defendant Pan Oriental took possession of the vesselin question after it had been repossessed by the
ShippingAdministration and title thereto reacquired by thegovernment, following the original purchaser,
FernandoFroilans, default in his payment of the unpaid balanceand insurance premiums for the said
vessel. Pan Orientalchartered said vessel and operated the same after it hadrepaired the vessel and paid
the stipulated initial payment, thereby exercising its option to purchase, pursuant to a bareboat charter
contract entered betweensaid company and the Shipping Corporation.The Cabinet resolved to restore
Froilan to his rightsunder the original contract of sale on condition that heshall pay a sum of money
upon delivery of the vessel tohim, that he shall continue paying the remaininginstallments due, and that
he shall assume the expensesincurred for the repair and by docking of the vessel. PanOriental protested
to this restoration of Froilans rightsunder the contract of sale, for the reason that when thevessel was
delivered to it, the Shipping Administrationhad authority to dispose of said authority to the
property,Froilan having already relinquished whatever rights hemay have thereon. Froilan paid the
required cash of P10,000.00 and as Pan Oriental refused to surrender possession of the vessel, he filed
an action for in the CFIof Manila to recover possession thereof and have himdeclared the rightful owner
of said property.The Republic of the Philippines was allowed tointervene in said civil case praying for the
possession of the in order that the chattel mortgage constituted thereonmay be foreclosed.
ISSUE Whether or not the governments motion to dismissPan Oriental counterclaims may prosper.
HELD:Under the circumstances already ad voted to, PanOriental cannot be considered a possessor in
bad faithuntil after the institution of the instant case. However,since it is not disputed that said
appellant is entitled tothe refund of such expenses with the right to retain thevessel until he has been
reimbursed therefore. As it is bythe corrected acts of defendant and intervenor Republicof the
Philippines that the appellant ha a lien far hisexpenses, appellees Froilan, Compania Maratma, and
theRepublic of the Philippines are declared liable for thereimbursement to appellant of its legitimate
expenses, asallowed by law, with legal interest from the time of disbursement.





RUIZ VS CABAHUG
ACTION; PUBLIC OFFICERS; WHEN SUIT ISNOT ONE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

Where the facts and circumstances show that the Governmentdoes not any longer have interested in the
subjectmatter of the action which the defendants-officials have retained and refused to pay the plaintiffs, or to the
person or entity to which it should be paid, and plaintiffs do not seek to sue the Government to require it to pay
the amount or involve it in the litigation,
Held:
That the suit is not one against the Government or a claim against it, but one against the officials to compel them
to act in accordance with the rights to be established by the contending architects, orto prevent them from making
payment and recognition until the contending architects have established their respective rights and interest in the
funds retained and in the credit for the work done.