Facts:

The case involves Felixberto Medel and Prisco Jojuyco as petitioners against Hon. Bernabe de Aquino and others as respondents. The events leading to this case began on November 19, 1933, when Prisco Jojuyco, claiming ownership of lots 4354 and 4355 in Paniqui, Tarlac, executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of Jose Jojuyco and Maria Marquez for P700. The vendees took possession of the lots and cultivated them through tenants. On July 3, 1944, Prisco Jojuyco filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac for a second owner's duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7025, claiming the original was lost due to the war. The court granted this motion on July 4, 1944, and on the same day, Prisco sold the same lots to Felixberto Medel, who also took possession and harvested the land.

On June 19, 1945, Jose Jojuyco filed Civil Case No. 7 in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac against Medel, Prisco Jojuyco, and the Register of Deeds, seeking to establish his ...

Facts:

1. Ownership and Sale of Lots:
   On November 19, 1933, respondent Prisco Jojuyco, claiming ownership of Lots 4354 and 4355 in Paniqui, Tarlac, executed an escritura de venta absoluta (absolute deed of sale) in favor of Jose Jojuyco and Maria Marquez for P700. The vendees took possession and cultivated the lots through tenants, receiving their share of the yearly harvests.

2. Issuance of Second Owner's Duplicate Title:
   On July 3, 1944, Prisco Jojuyco filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, claiming that his owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7025 was lost due to the war. The court granted the motion on July 4, 1944, and directed the Register of Deeds to issue a second owner's duplicate title.

3. Second Sale to Felixberto Medel:
   On the same day (July 4, 1944), Prisco Jojuyco sold the same lots to petitioner Felixberto Medel. Medel took possession of the lots and appropriated the yearly products.

4. Filing of Civil Case No. 7:
   On June 19, 1945, Jose Jojuyco filed Civil Case No. 7 in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac against Felixberto Medel, Prisco Jojuyco, and the Register of Deeds to establish his ownership of the lots and recover possession. Medel and Prisco Jojuyco defended their position, claiming the 1933 deed of sale was merely a contract of antichresis to secure a loan.

5. Appointment of a Receiver:
   On November 7, 1951, Jose Jojuyco filed an urgent ex-parte petition for the appointment of a receiver. Despite Medel's opposition, respondent Judge Bernabe de Aquino appointed Dionisio Manalo as receiver on November 26, 1951, upon filing a bond of P500.

6. Petition for Certiorari:
   Medel and Prisco Jojuyco filed the present petition for certiorari to annul the order appointing the receiver, alleging that the petition for the receiver was not verified and that they were not notified of the hearing.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Discretion in Appointing a Receiver:
   The appointment of a receiver is a discretionary act of the trial court. Appellate courts will not interfere with such discretion unless there is a clear case of abuse or excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the respondent judge acted within his discretion, as the appointment was necessary to preserve the products of the land and ensure that the court's decision would not be rendered ineffectual.

2. Verification and Notification:
   While the application for a receiver should ideally be made by a verified petition supported by affidavits, the failure to follow this procedure does not affect the court's jurisdiction. The lack of verification or notification does not justify certiorari unless there is gross abuse of discretion causing substantial prejudice. Here, the petitioners were not substantially prejudiced, as Medel filed an opposition to the petition, indicating he was aware of it.

3. Justification for Appointment:
   The appointment of the receiver was justified because Medel had been enjoying the products of the land since 1945 without offering any security to reimburse Jose Jojuyco if the latter prevailed in the case. Medel admitted he had no other property except the lots in question, further supporting the need for a receiver to preserve the property and its products.