Facts:

• Ramon Arce passed away on May 12, 1961, leaving a will that was probated and allowed.
• His heirs included three sons, three daughters, and three grandchildren, all designated as legatees or devisees.
• The Project of Partition, created according to the will, was approved by the probate court, and proceedings were closed on August 18, 1962.
• Real and personal properties were divided among the heirs in pro-indiviso proportions.
• On November 25, 1970, some heirs (private respondents) filed an action for partition and accounting against their co-heirs (petitioners) in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.
• They alleged that two petitioners, who managed some estate properties, failed to render an accounting or deliver the corresponding share of income despite repeated demands.
• They requested an accounting and the appointment of a receiver to manage the properties pending case resolution.
• The respondent judge issued an ex parte order appointing a receiver.
• Petitioners filed motions to discharge the receiver and for reconsideration, arguing no factual and legal basis for the principal action and the receiver's appointment.
• The judge denied these motions without a formal hearing, leading petitioners to seek relief from the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and set aside the questioned order appointing a receiver.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the regular court...(Unlock)

Ratio:

1. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appointment of a receiver ex parte or without notice is one of the most drastic actions known to law or equity and should be exercised with great caution, only where great emergency or imperative necessity requires it.

   • The complaint and affidavit did not allege any facts indicating that the properties were in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured.
   • There was no factual basis for the allegation that the appointment of a receiver was the most convenient and feasible means of preserving the property.
   • The appointment of a receiver is not a matter of absolute right and should only be resorted to when there is no other adequate remedy.
   • The discretion to appoint a receiver must be exercised with great caution and circumspection after full consideration of the particular facts and the interests of all parties concerned.
   • The respondent judge acted arbitrarily in granting the receivership ex parte without conducting a hearing to thresh out the issues of fact.

2. The Supreme Court held that the probate court loses jurisdiction over th...continue reading