Facts:

In the case of Getulio Almarez and Juanita Avila vs. Mariano Florentino, Justice of the Peace of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, et al., the events unfolded in March 1924 when the respondents, Cipriana Alvarez, Maria Alvarez, Vicente de Leon, and Estefania Morales, initiated a legal action against the petitioners, Almarez and Avila, in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. The plaintiffs sought the recovery of possession of seventeen parcels of land. On April 5, 1924, the petitioners filed a general denial to the complaint. Subsequently, on May 31, 1924, the respondent justice of the peace, acting in the capacity of a judge of the Court of First Instance, appointed a receiver for the disputed property. This appointment was made on the plaintiffs' motion and over the objections raised by the petitioners, who contended that the defendants were committing waste on the property and were insolvent. The petitioners argued that the justice of the peace lacked the authority to act as a j...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioners: Getulio Almarez and Juanita Avila.
   • Respondents: Mariano Florentino (Justice of the Peace of Vigan, Ilocos Sur), Cipriana Alvarez, Maria Alvarez, Vicente de Leon, and Estefania Morales.

2. Nature of the Case:

   • The case is a petition for a writ of certiorari.

3. Background of the Dispute:

   • In March 1924, the respondents filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur against the petitioners for the recovery of possession of seventeen parcels of land.
   • On April 5, 1924, the petitioners entered a general denial to the complaint.

4. Appointment of a Receiver:

   • On May 31, 1924, the respondent justice of the peace, acting as Judge of the Court of First Instance, appointed a receiver for the property in litigation.
   • The appointment was made on the grounds that the petitioners were committing waste on the property and were insolvent.
   • The petitioners objected to the appointment of the receiver.

5. Petitioners' Contentions:

   • The petitioners argued that the respondent justice of the peace had no authority to act as Judge of the Court of First Instance because a vacation judge had been designated for the district.
   • They also contended that even if the respondent had authority, he exceeded his jurisdiction in appointing a receiver, as there was no evidence that the property was in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured.

Issue:

1. Whether the respondent justice of the peace had the authority to act as Judge of the Court of First Instance and appoint a receiver.
2. Whether the appointment of the receiver exceeded the jurisdiction of the court.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)