Facts:

This case involves Dominador S. Pongos, the petitioner, against Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., Judge Bienvenido A. Tan of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and the Sheriff of Rizal as respondents. The factual backdrop of the case dates back to the management and operation of the Pasay Ice Plant and Cold Storage. The petitioner initiated a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, designated as Civil Case No. 472, seeking to rescind a contract where he had transferred the management, operation, possession, and control of the aforementioned properties to Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. This transfer was secured by a chattel mortgage on the plant's machinery and equipment to guarantee the payment of the advances made by the respondent for settling the petitioner's debts to third parties related to the plant.

During the pendency of the suit, Hidalgo Enterprises sought and obtained a mandatory injunction ordering the petitioner to vacate the premises and surrender posse

...

Facts:

Background and Parties

• Dominador S. Pongos is the petitioner, and Hidaglo Enterprises, Inc., represented by its counterclaimant, along with Judge Bienvenido A. Tan of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Rizal City Branch) and the Sheriff of Rizal are the respondents.
• The case involves the management, operation, possession, and control of the Pasay Ice Plant and Cold Storage, including its machineries, equipment, accessories, and the certificate of public convenience.

Underlying Transaction and Contractual Relationship

• The petitioner had earlier entered into a contract with Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., under which he turned over full management and control of the said plant.
• The property was conveyed by way of chattel mortgage to serve as security for advances made by Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. to settle outstanding debts and obligations related to the plant.

Lower Court Proceedings and Reliefs Sought

• The petitioner initiated an action in civil case No. 472 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal to cancel or rescind the contract with Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc.
• During the pendency of the suit, Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. secured a writ of mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to surrender possession of the plant’s property to them.
• Subsequently, upon the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the respondent judge retracted the initial order and appointed a receiver, who took possession on March 30, 1948.
• The appointed receiver later died in February 1949, leaving the matter unresolved regarding the control and rightful disposition of the property.

Development of the Counterclaim

• On or about June 25, 1945, prior to the appointment of a new receiver, Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. amended their answer to include a counterclaim.
• The counterclaim sought recovery of money allegedly due from the petitioner and the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage.
• As part of the foreclosure proceedings, the defendant requested that the court order the petitioner to deliver possession of the machineries, equipment, and appurtenances of the Ice Plant and Cold Storage to the defendant.
• The court granted this delivery order, prompting the petitioner to file the present special civil action of certiorari challenging the order.

Petitioner’s Arguments and Contentions

• The petitioner argued that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering the delivery of the mortgaged properties.
• The first ground asserted that the property was in custodia legis (held in the custody of law), implying that the judge did not have the authority to order its delivery to the defendant.
• The second ground contended that because Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. was a defendant in the civil action, it could not request the delivery order; only the plaintiff was entitled to secure such an order under Rule 62 of the Rules of Court.

Issue:

Jurisdictional Authority of the Judge

• Did the respondent judge exceed his jurisdiction by ordering the delivery of the personal properties mortgaged in the contract?
• Is such an order permissible when properties are said to be in custodia legis?

Nature and Validity of the Counterclaim

• Can a defendant, by way of a counterclaim, effectively act as a plaintiff in seeking relief, such as the delivery of the property?
• Does the counterclaim’s character as a mutual petition allow for the ordering of delivery, notwithstanding the traditional rule that only a plaintiff may secure such an order under Rule 62 of the Rules of Court?

Impact of Receivership on the Dispute

• Does the appointment of a receiver vest the court with unilateral authority over the disposition of the property?
• How does receivership affect the rights of the parties concerning the personal property involved?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)