Facts:

This case centers on the dispute among siblings regarding the partition of their deceased father's estate. The petitioner group consists of Eulalio Arce, Leonor Laperal, Lorenza Arce, Pedro Garcia, Ramon Arce, Jr., Nieves Drueco, Mauro Arce, Priscilla Soriano, and Aurelia Arce. The respondents include Esperanza Arce, Marcelino Vergel de Dios, Exaltacion Arce, Manuel Arabit, Evangeline Arce, and Alicia S. Bustos. The conflict arose following the death of Ramon Arce, who passed away on May 12, 1961, leaving a will that designated specific heirs, including his children and grandchildren.

The will was duly probated in the Special Proceedings No. Q-5864 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, with the estate formally settled and a project of partition approved on March 13, 1962. This partition allocated inherited properties to the heirs, and by August 18, 1962, the probate court considered the proceedings closed and issued new titles for the properties to the heirs in specified

...

Facts:

Background and Inheritance

• Ramon Arce died testate on May 12, 1961, leaving behind a last will and testament executed on October 12, 1960, in Manila.
• His estate, including real and personal properties, was distributed among his sons, daughters, and grandchildren as legatees or devisees.
• The heirs include:
• Eulalio Arce (son)
• Lorenza Arce (daughter)
• Ramon Arce, Jr. (son)
• Mauro Arce (son)
• Aurelia Arce (daughter)
• Ofelia Arce (grandchild)
• Esperanza Arce (daughter)
• Exaltacion Arce and Evangeline Arce (granddaughters)
• The petitioners in this case are the first six (all except Ofelia) while the remaining three are private respondents.

Probate Proceedings and Partition

• The deceased's will was duly probated in Special Proceedings No. Q-5864 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City.
• A Project of Partition dated March 13, 1962, was executed following the disposition of the will; it was approved and led to the cancellation of old titles and issuance of new transfer certificates in pro indiviso proportions.
• The personal properties of the deceased were similarly divided.

The Controversial Administration and Management

• Private respondents (except Alicia S. Bustos) filed an action for partition and accounting on November 25, 1970, in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.
• Allegations included:
• Mauro Arce’s unilateral management of two parcels of land in Baliwag, Bulacan, including planting of approximately 700 mango trees and other crops.
• Eulalio Arce’s collection of rentals from various estate properties.
• Joint control and management by Mauro Arce and Eulalio Arce of the Selecta-Refreshments-Restaurants-Caterers business and its factory.
• Defendants' failure to render accounting or distribute the corresponding shares of income from these properties and businesses.
• Alleged concealment of loans and mortgages taken by the defendants on common properties.

Appointment of a Receiver and Subsequent Motions

• On the filing date of the complaint, the respondent Judge issued an ex parte order appointing Mrs. Alicia S. Bustos as receiver to administer the properties, based on the perceived necessity implied in the verified complaint.
• The receiver filed a bond of P10,000.00 as required.
• Petitioners filed urgent motions on December 12, 1970, to discharge the receiver or reconsider the appointment, arguing:
• The properties were not in immediate danger of loss or waste.
• The existing management had been conducted faithfully over eight years.
• The business enterprises required specialized management, which the receiver lacked.
• The appointment was prejudicial as it favored parties with lesser share interests (25/140) against those holding majority (105/140).
• Additional motions were filed to restrain the receiver from discharging her powers temporarily.
• Procedural delays occurred when private respondents submitted their opposition late, leading to further extensions and requests, culminating in the trial court denying petitioners' relief on January 15, 1971.
• Petitioners then sought certiorari, alleging that:
• The ex parte appointment of the receiver was arbitrary.
• There was insufficient evidence of an emergency justifying such an appointment.
• The management and business operations were better handled by the co-heirs rather than an outsider.
• Matters relating to the partition were subject to probate court jurisdiction, which had already terminated proceedings.

Findings Regarding the Receiver’s Appointment

• On February 1, 1971, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued, enjoining the respondent Judge from implementing the receiver’s powers.
• The petition was found meritorious by the Court due to the lack of demonstrated emergency or urgent necessity upon which an ex parte receivership could be justified.

Issue:

Validity of Ex Parte Appointment

• Was the ex parte appointment of the receiver proper given the absence of an emergency or specific evidentiary basis?
• Did the record show clear facts justifying the need to preserve the disputed properties by placing them under external administration?

Jurisdictional Concerns

• Is the regular court, rather than the probate court, the appropriate forum for partitioning inherited properties after the probate proceedings had been conclusively terminated?
• Does a clause in the Last Will and Testament preventing partition for twenty years confer jurisdiction to the probate court or does the closure of probate proceedings divest it of further involvement?

Impact on Business Operations

• Does appointing a receiver who lacks expertise in managing business enterprises (such as the Selecta-Refreshments-Restaurants-Caterers business) unjustly affect the operations and rights of the co-heirs?
• What are the implications for party rights when a receiver is appointed without proper hearing or notice to all interested parties?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)