Case Digest (G.R. No. 203585)
Facts:
In G.R. No. 203585, July 29, 2013, petitioners Mila Caboverde Tantano and Roseller Caboverde challenged the appointment of receivers over three disputed parcels of land (Lots 2, 3, and 4 in Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte) in Civil Case No. S-760 before the RTC of Sindangan, Branch 11. These lots had been purportedly sold by their parents, Maximo and Dominalda Espina-Caboverde, in favor of Mila, Roseller, and siblings Ferdinand, Jeanny, and Laluna. Respondents Eve Caboverde-Yu and Fe Caboverde-Labrador initially sought annulment of that deed of sale; Dominalda was impleaded, later intervened, and filed an amended answer denying any sale and asserting her conjugal and intestate shares. After a Partial Settlement Agreement covering eight uncontested lots (appointing Josephine Caboverde as administrator and granting Dominalda one-half of the net income from those lots), Dominalda filed a verified urgent application for receivership over the three contested lots, alleging that petitiCase Digest (G.R. No. 203585)
Facts:
- Parties and disputed properties
- Petitioners Mila Caboverde Tantano and Roseller Caboverde are children of Dominalda Espina-Caboverde and siblings of respondents Eve Caboverde-Yu, Fe Caboverde-Labrador, and Josephine E. Caboverde.
- Ferdinand, Jeanny, and Laluna (other siblings) and petitioners purchased Lots 2, 3, and 4 in Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte from their parents Maximo and Dominalda.
- Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA)
- March 7, 2005: Eve and Fe filed Civil Case No. S-760 for annulment of the Deed of Sale over Lots 2, 3, and 4. Defendants, including Maximo and Dominalda, opposed. Maximo died during the case; eight children and Dominalda substituted.
- March 10, 2008: Parties entered a Partial Settlement Agreement (PSA) on uncontroverted properties; Josephine appointed administrator; Dominalda entitled to half net income from those properties.
- May–July 2008: Dominalda intervened, admitted an Amended Answer, and separately filed an urgent petition for receivership over Lots 2, 3, and 4, alleging her income from the properties was being diverted by petitioners and she needed funds for medical expenses.
- February 8 and July 19, 2010: RTC granted receivership, appointed neutral receivers, gave Dominalda 2/10 share of monthly net income. Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were denied.
- September 29, 2010: Petitioners filed certiorari with the CA challenging the RTC resolutions on grounds of lack of bond and improper grounds for receivership.
- June 25, 2012 and September 21, 2012: CA denied petition, ruling no need for bond given petitioners’ concurrence and that the RTC did not gravely abuse discretion.
Issues:
- Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in sustaining the appointment of a receiver despite grounds not enumerated in Rule 59, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in holding that no receivership bond was required prior to appointment, contrary to Rule 59, Section 2.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)