Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33081)
Facts:
The case is Eulalio Arce, Leonor Laperal, Lorenza Arce, Pedro Garcia, Ramon Arce, Jr., Nieves Drueco, Mauro Arce, Priscilla Soriano, and Aurelia Arce v. The Hon. Carlos L. Sundiam, Judge, Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch IV (Baliuag), and Esperanza Arce, Marcelino Vergel de Dios, Exaltacion Arce, Manuel Arabit, Evangeline Arce, and Alicia S. Bustos, G.R. No. L-33081, March 10, 1976, Supreme Court Second Division, Antonio, J., writing for the Court.The estate context: Ramon Arce died testate on May 12, 1961, leaving a last will and testament executed October 12, 1960, which was duly probated in Special Proceedings No. Q-5864 before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch V; a project of partition (dated March 13, 1962) was approved by the probate court and, after payment of estate taxes, the probate proceedings were considered closed in an August 1962 order. Pursuant to the approved project, transfer certificates were cancelled and new titles issued to the heirs in specified pro indiviso shares; the petitioners are among those heirs and some of the private respondents are other heirs.
Contested-administration events and trial-court proceedings: On November 25, 1970 private respondents (heirs other than petitioners, except Alicia S. Bustos) filed Civil Case No. 204-B in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, seeking partition and accounting and alleging that certain co-heirs (notably Mauro and Eulalio Arce) had since August 30, 1962 unilaterally managed estate lands and business enterprises (including the Selecta businesses), collected rents and proceeds, failed to render accounting or deliver co-heirs’ shares, and had allegedly encumbered properties by secret loans — and they prayed, among other reliefs, for the appointment of a receiver pending final resolution. On the day the complaint was filed the respondent judge issued an ex parte order appointing Alicia S. Bustos as receiver and she posted a P10,000 receiver’s bond.
Petitioners moved in the CFI to discharge the receiver (filed December 12, 1970) and for other reliefs, contending inter alia that (a) there was no showing of imminent danger to the properties, (b) the will prohibited partition for twenty years and probate was the proper forum, (c) the incumbent managers had administered the estate faithfully for years, (d) the receiver lacked the expertise to run the businesses, and (e) the ex parte appointment prejudiced majority owners. Private respondents sought extensions to oppose; after delays and procedural exchanges the respondent judge denied petitioners’ motion to discharge the receiver and denied their ex parte relief (order dated January 15, 1971). Petitioners then fil...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge commit judicial abuse in appointing a receiver ex parte without notice to the petitioners?
- Did the regular court lack jurisdiction to entertain the partition action because the disposition of the estate belonged exclusively to ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)