Case Digest (G.R. No. L-252)
Facts:
Tranquilino Calo and Doroteo San Jose v. Hon. Arsenio C. Roldan, G.R. No. L-252. March 30, 1946, the Supreme Court En Banc, Feria, J., writing for the Court.The respondents, Regino Relova and Teodula Bartolome (plaintiffs below), filed Civil Case No. 7951 in the Court of First Instance of Laguna against petitioners Tranquilino Calo and Doroteo San Jose (defendants below), alleging that the plaintiffs were the owners and actual possessors of two described parcels (one rice land and one coconut land) and that the defendants intended, by force or stealth, to enter and harvest the fruits of those lands; the complaint prayed, inter alia, for an ex parte preliminary prohibitory injunction with a P2,000 bond and for damages of P200. The defendants answered, asserting they were the owners and had been in actual possession since 1925; they opposed the injunction.
A hearing on the preliminary injunction occurred on August 9, 1945, with evidence from both sides; Judge Rilloraza denied the petition (order dated August 17, 1945) on the ground that the defendants were in possession. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on August 20, 1945 (still pending), and a reply on September 4, 1945 reiterating their claim of possession and fee-simple title. On December 17, 1945, plaintiffs filed an urgent ex parte petition for reconsideration and, alternatively, for the appointment of a receiver for the properties and their fruits, alleging danger of loss and that receivership was the most convenient means to preserve and administer the properties; that same day Judge Arsenio C. Roldan granted the petition and appointed a receiver.
Petitioners then filed the present special civil action for a writ of certiorari alleging respondent Judge Roldan exceeded his jurisdiction and/or committed grave abuse of discretion by appointing a receiver in Case No. 7951 — an interlocutory order for which, the petition asserted, there was no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. The petition also pointed out (though was silent on it) that a receiver had been appointed in a separate but related suit, Case No. 7989; respondents below submitted a copy o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge exceed his jurisdiction or commit grave abuse of discretion in appointing a receiver in Case No. 7951?
- Is the appointment of a receiver a proper provisional remedy in an ordinary action for injunction where the plaintiff alleges ownership and actual possession?
- Is appointment of a receiver proper where ownership is disputed and the defendant is in actual po...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)