Facts:

The case involves Leonor Arcega, serving as the Special Administratrix of the Testate Estate of Bonifacia de Guzman, and Antonio Miranda, who is the Judicial Receiver of the estate, as petitioners against Potenciano Pecson, Judge of the First Instance of Bulacan, Branch II, and Eulalio Arcega (also known as Macario de Guzman), as respondents. The events unfolded following the death of Bonifacia de Guzman, wherein the validity of her purported last will and testament was in question. Leonor Arcega, appointed as administratrix, initiated an ordinary action for ejectment against Eulalio Arcega, claiming that several parcels of land, including a house, formed part of the decedent's estate.

In the lower court, the complaint detailed that the defendant, a relative of the deceased and a devisee under her will, contended that he had acquired the aforementioned property through a donation from the deceased. The case reached the point of appointing a receiver by Judge Pablo Angeles Da

...

Facts:

Parties and Procedural Background

• Leonor Arcega, acting as special administratrix of the testate estate of Bonifacia de Guzman, is a petitioner.
• Antonio Miranda was appointed as judicial receiver in connection with the case.
• Respondents include Potenciano Pecson, Judge of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch II, and Eulalio Arcega (alias Macario de Guzman).

Nature of the Underlying Case

• The case arises from an ejectment action initiated by the special administratrix pending the probate of what purports to be Bonifacia de Guzman’s last will and testament.
• The complaint alleges that several parcels of land and a house, claimed to be part of the decedent’s estate, are subject to dispute.
• The defendant contends that he acquired the real property by donation from Bonifacia de Guzman, challenging the plaintiff’s claim over the estate.

Proceedings Involving the Receiver Appointment

• On motion by the plaintiff, Judge Pablo Angeles David ordered the appointment of Antonio Miranda as receiver, and the appointee duly qualified.
• The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration proposing, “in the alternative,” the execution of a counter-bond of P500 to secure his interest.
• Judge Catalino Buenaventura, who succeeded Judge Angeles David, accepted the defendant’s proposal but raised the required bond amount to P4,000.
• Subsequently, the plaintiff moved to have Judge Buenaventura’s order revoked so as to restore the initial receiver appointment order.

Involvement of Judge Pecson and the Contested Orders

• Judge Potenciano Pecson later replaced Judge Buenaventura as the presiding judge.
• Acting on the plaintiff’s motion, Judge Pecson set aside both the initial order appointing a receiver (and its implied security) and Judge Buenaventura’s order permitting the execution of a counter-bond.
• The main effect of Judge Pecson’s order was the wholesale revocation of the receiver appointment, rendering the counter-bond moot despite its prior establishment and the defendant’s deferential conduct.

Additional Allegations and Issues Raised

• Petitioners also complained that Judge Pecson failed or refused to examine respondent Macario de Guzman regarding his alleged concealment of property belonging to the estate.
• Macario de Guzman, through his counsel, argued that the examination had been partially granted with respect to only three lots on a previous order, clarifying that only one lot was claimed by him under the donation.
• The issue of whether certiorari is the proper remedy to compel a judge to examine a party under the provisions of section 6, Rule 88 was also raised.

Motions for Reconsideration and Their Resolution

• Two motions for reconsideration were filed by the petitioners on August 14 and 15, 1947.
• One motion reiterated the arguments for certiorari to set aside the receiver appointment and related bond order.
• The other motion sought urgent relief including:
• An order directing respondent De Guzman to deliver 700 cavanes of palay (harvested from the disputed lands) to the former receiver.
• A directive for respondent De Guzman to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
• A preliminary injunction restraining respondent Arcega (De Guzman) and his agents from interfering with the possessor of the lands.
• The court noted that since the receiver’s appointment had been vacated and Macario de Guzman remained in lawful possession of the lands, the acts charged did not constitute contempt, nor did they warrant additional relief.

Issue:

Appropriateness of Receivership

• Whether it is proper to appoint a receiver in a case where the dispute primarily concerns the determination of legal title to real property.
• Whether the appointment of a receiver, being an extraordinary remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure, should be exercised with greater caution given its drastic effects.

Validity and Necessity of the Bond

• Whether the filing and subsequent cancellation of the counter-bond, which the defendant himself proposed, is justified.
• Whether the increased bond amount imposed by Judge Buenaventura complied with the requirements to protect the plaintiff’s interests in a contested sale of property rights.

Judicial Discretion in Modifying Orders

• Whether Judge Pecson abused his discretion in revoking the lower court orders regarding the receiver and bond without sufficient justification.
• Whether the action to set aside these orders exceeded the bounds of judicial review, especially when the defendant had exhibited deference by proposing a counter-bond.

Examination of Respondent on Concealed Estate Property

• Whether the failure or refusal to examine respondent Macario de Guzman on allegations of concealed estate property warrants certiorari.
• Whether the court’s conduct in this matter violates or disregards the procedural duty under section 6, Rule 88.

Appropriateness of Extraordinary Remedies in Property Disputes

• Whether remedies such as a preliminary injunction or receivership are suitable when the legal title is disputed and one party is in possession of the property.
• Whether subjecting the possessor to such drastic measures is akin to a judicial overreach into private rights.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)