Case Digest (G.R. No. 203585)
Facts:
Milacaboverde Tantano and Roseller Caboverde v. Dominalda Espina-Caboverde, Eve Caboverde-Yu, Fe Caboverde-Labrador, and Josephine E. Caboverde, G.R. No. 203585, July 29, 2013, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Mila Caboverde Tantano and Roseller Caboverde are among the children of respondent Dominalda Espina-Caboverde; their co-respondents are other siblings. The siblings (including petitioners) were registered owners in possession of Lots 2, 3 and 4 in Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, which were the main subject of litigation in Civil Case No. S-760 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Sindangan.
On March 7, 2005 respondents Eve and Fe filed suit in the RTC seeking annulment of a Deed of Sale purporting to transfer Lots 2, 3 and 4 from Maximo and Dominalda (the parents) to several children including petitioners. Defendants (including Maximo and Dominalda) answered asserting validity of the Deed. Maximo later died and was substituted by his heirs; an Amended Complaint (May 30, 2007) added eight additional estate parcels. The parties negotiated and executed a Partial Settlement Agreement (PSA), submitted to the RTC in March 2008 and approved May 13, 2008, which apportioned uncontroverted properties and provided that Dominalda would receive a share (described in the PSA as one-half of net income from the uncontroverted properties) and that Josephine would be appointed administrator with authority to provide for their mother’s medicine.
Although impleaded as a defendant, Dominalda separately moved to intervene and, on May 12, 2008, was allowed to file an Amended Answer denying any sale of the three contested lots and asserting her conjugal and intestate shares. On July 15, 2008, she filed a Verified Urgent Petition/Application for Receivership over Lots 2, 3 and 4, alleging that petitioners (particularly Mila) had been appropriating all income from those lots, leaving her—an elderly, sickly woman—without funds for medication and sustenance, and that unless a receiver were appointed the income would be dissipated.
The RTC heard the application August 27, 2009 and encouraged settlement talks. On October 9, 2009 petitioners and some siblings manifested conditional concurrence with receivership only if Mila were appointed receiver; the court disfavored a party acting as receiver and asked for neutral nominations. On February 8, 2010 the RTC granted the receivership application, ordered that Dominalda be given 2/10 of the net monthly income from the three lots, and directed the parties’ nominees to be considered; by July 19, 2010 the RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and appointed Annabelle Saldia and Jesus Tan as receivers, fixing each receiver’s bond at PhP100,000.
Petitioners filed an Urgent Precautionary Motion to Stay Assumption of Receivers (August 9, 2010), which the RTC treated as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration and denied by Resolution dated October 7, 2011. Before the RTC ruled on that motion, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 03834 (Sept. 29, 2010), complaining that (1) the RTC failed to require the applicant to post the bond required by Section 2, Rule 59, and (2) there was no factual or legal basis for receivership because Dominalda’s asserted need for funds was not a proper ground under the Rules.
The CA denied the certiorari petition in a Decision dated June 25, 2012 (and subsequently denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated Sept. 21, 2012), relying in part on peti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the appointment of a receiver over Lots 2, 3 and 4 despite the circumstances shown in the record?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the RTC’s ruling that the applicant need not have filed the bond required by Section 2, Rule 59 prior to issuance of th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)