G.R. No. L-7214 - Patricio Ceniza, Judge of Court of 1st Instance of Misamis Occ., Benito Bedad, et al. vs. Magdaleno Atad

Before 1935, respondent Magdaleno Atad filed a homestead application (H.A. No. 114004 - E106070) with the Bureau of Lands for a portion of public land in Guinabot, Baliangao, Misamis Occidental. The application included a 17-hectare parcel, later subdivided into 12 lots, occupied by appellants Benito Bedad et al.
The appellants protested Atad’s application, claiming they were the actual occupants of the 17 hectares and requested its segregation from Atad’s application. The Director of Lands overruled their protest on November 10, 1935, and denied their motion for reconsideration.
On December 26, 1939, the Director of Lands issued an order of execution to enforce the decision, but the appellants refused to vacate the land.

Due to the appellants’ persistent protest, the Secretary of Agriculture issued an order on September 2, 1941, directing that Atad’s homestead application proceed only for the portion he actually occupied. The 17 hectares occupied by the appellants were to be adjudicated to them under the homestead provisions of the Public Land Law.

Atad was dissatisfied with the Secretary’s order and filed Civil Case No. 911 for unlawful detainer and damages against the appellants on November 11, 1946. He also filed a criminal case against them for violating Section 2725 of the Revised Administrative Code, alleging interference with the Bureau of Lands’ orders.
Both cases were dismissed. The criminal case was dismissed on appeal, and the civil case was dismissed based on the belief that the Secretary of Agriculture’s order had superseded the Director of Lands’ earlier decision.

On December 10, 1951, Atad and his companions allegedly harvested coconuts from five of the twelve lots occupied by the appellants. This act was repeated on July 22, 1952, prompting the appellants to file Civil Case No. 1484 on July 23, 1952, for damages and recovery of the value of the coconuts.
The trial court granted a writ of preliminary injunction ex parte, which was later lifted upon Atad’s filing of a P2,000 counterbond.
On September 10, 1952, Atad and his men allegedly invaded all 12 lots, harvesting coconuts and other fruits, including immature coconuts, damaging the trees. The appellants filed an amended complaint and, on February 17, 1953, sought the appointment of a receiver to preserve the property.
Judge Ceniza granted the petition, appointing Vicente Roa as receiver. Atad challenged this order via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which annulled the appointment, finding the P2,000 counterbond sufficient and criticizing the trial judge’s reliance on personal knowledge.

Whether the trial court erred in appointing a receiver ex parte to preserve the property in litigation.
Whether the P2,000 counterbond filed by Atad was sufficient to protect the appellants’ interests.
Whether the trial judge improperly relied on his personal knowledge of the case in granting the petition for a receiver.