Case Summary (G.R. No. 178842)
Factual Background
petitioners were among the heirs and legatees named in the last will and testament of Ramon Arce. The will was probated and the estate administered in Special Proceedings No. Q-5864 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch V, wherein letters testamentary issued and a Project of Partition dated March 13, 1962 was approved. Pursuant to that project, transfer certificates of title covering real properties were cancelled and new titles were issued in pro indiviso shares among the heirs in proportions reflected in the record. Personal properties were likewise divided pro indiviso.
Probate Proceedings and Partition
The probate court found that estate and inheritance taxes had been paid and, noting that there was nothing more to be done, considered the probate proceedings closed and terminated by order in August 1962. The respective heirs received their shares under the approved project of partition and the probate court’s administration of the estate ceased according to the order as set forth in the record.
Complaint for Partition, Accounting and Receiver
On November 25, 1970, private respondents filed Civil Case No. 204-B in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, praying for partition and accounting. The complaint alleged that from August 30, 1962 certain defendants, including Mauro Arce and Eulalio Arce, had unilaterally managed common properties and businesses, collected and disposed of produce and rentals, failed to render accounting or to deliver co-heirs’ shares, and had mortgaged some common real properties to secure loans, all without informing the plaintiffs. The complaint sought, among other reliefs, the appointment of a receiver pending final resolution.
Ex Parte Appointment of Receiver and Bond
On the date the complaint was filed the respondent Judge issued an ex parte order appointing Alicia S. Bustos as receiver of the properties described in the complaint. The order recited that, from the allegations in the verified complaint, there was a need for appointment of a receiver. Alicia S. Bustos filed a receiver’s bond in the amount of P10,000.00 as ordered by the court.
Motions to Discharge Receiver and Proceedings Below
On December 12, 1970 petitioners filed an “Urgent Motion to Discharge Receiver and/or Motion for Reconsideration,” contending inter alia that no factual or legal basis existed for the appointment because the probate court had imposed a prohibition against partition under the will and because the probate proceedings had exclusive jurisdiction; that the present management had been accepted for eight years and performed faithfully; and that the appointed receiver lacked the special training or experience required to manage the business enterprises. Petitioners also filed an ex parte motion on December 14, 1970 requesting an order requiring the receiver to desist temporarily from discharging powers. The motions were set for hearing December 16, 1970. Private respondents sought extensions to file opposition. The respondent Judge granted specified periods for filing opposition and rejoinder, but on January 15, 1971 issued an order denying petitioners’ motions. Petitioners then brought the present petition for certiorari.
Petition for Certiorari and Interim Relief
petitioners sought relief from this Court on the ground that the respondent Judge had acted arbitrarily in appointing a receiver ex parte and without adequate factual showing of emergency or imminent danger to the properties. This Court on February 1, 1971 issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the respondent Judge from implementing the challenged orders and enjoining the receiver from discharging her duties pending resolution of the petition.
Legal Standard for Appointment of Receivers
The Court reiterated the settled rule that the appointment of a receiver ex parte or without notice is one of the most drastic remedies in equity and must be exercised with great caution. The appointment without notice requires a clear showing of great emergency or imperative necessity. Allegations relied upon to justify such summary relief must be specifically pleaded and sworn to under oath in positive terms; affidavits based merely on information and belief or hearsay are insufficient. The Court cited authorities to the effect that the appointing court should be convinced that property will be lost, removed, or materially injured unless immediate receivership is ordered, and that the remedy is equitable and not a matter of absolute right.
Court’s Analysis of Factual Sufficiency
The Court examined the complaint and the attached affidavit and found wanting any allegation that the common properties were in immediate danger of being lost, removed or materially injured without appointment of a receiver. The allegations that management had been unilateral and that accounting had been withheld were not supported by sworn factual particulars showing imminent peril. The affidavits were not shown to contain the necessary direct evidentiary matter to justify ex parte deprivation of possession. The Court emphasized that the remedy of receivership must be resorted to only when no other adequate remedy exists and after weighing the interests of all parties.
Consideration of Business Management and Competence of Receiver
The Court noted the particular consequence of the receivership sought: change of management of ongoing business enterprises by placing them in the hands of a stranger. The Court observed that the management of the alleged business enterprises required persons with practical training, experience and expertise. The appointed receiver was a full-time academician and, according to petitioners, lacked the specialized business experience necessary to manage such enterprises. These considerations reinforced the conclusion that the trial court should have exercised greater caution and should have conducted a hearing before granting an ex parte receivership that could cause grave injustice.
Jurisdictional Contenti
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 178842)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners were Eulalio Arce, Leonor Laperal, Lorenza Arce, Pedro Garcia, Ramon Arce, Jr., Nieves Drueco, Mauro Arce, Priscilla Soriano, and Aurelia Arce who sought certiorari relief against receiver-related orders.
- Respondents included The Hon. Carlos L. Sundiam, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch IV (Baliuag), and private respondents Esperanza Arce, Marcelino Vergel de Dios, Exaltacion Arce, Manuel Arabit, Evangeline Arce, and Alicia S. Bustos.
- The original action in the trial court was Civil Case No. 204-B, entitled Esperanza Arce, et al. vs. Eulalio Arce, et al., filed as an ordinary action for partition and accounting under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.
- The petition sought to annul the trial court orders appointing a receiver ex parte and denying petitioners' motions to discharge the receiver.
Key Factual Allegations
- Ramon Arce died testate on May 12, 1961 and executed his last will on October 12, 1960, which was duly probated.
- The probate proceedings, Special Proceedings No. Q-5864 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch V, approved a Project of Partition dated March 13, 1962 and ordered the proceedings closed on August 18, 1962 after estate and inheritance taxes were paid.
- Pursuant to the approved partition, transfer certificates of title were cancelled and new titles were issued in pro indiviso proportions among the heirs, and the personal properties were divided in like proportion.
- Private respondents alleged that, since August 30, 1962, defendant Mauro Arce unilaterally managed two Baliwag parcels planted with about 700 mango trees and disposed of their produce, and defendant Eulalio Arce collected rentals from estate properties.
- Private respondents also alleged that defendants Eulalio and Mauro Arce managed and controlled the Selecta-Refreshments-Restaurants-Caterer businesses and factory, failed to render accounting, denied access to co-heirs, and secretly mortgaged some common properties to secure loans.
Probate Proceedings and Partition
- The probate court approved the Project of Partition and in its order of August 18, 1962 stated that estate and inheritance taxes had been paid and that nothing more remained to be done, thereby closing the probate proceedings.
- The partition resulted in issuance of new titles and delivery of estate properties to the heirs in pro indiviso shares as reflected in the record.
- The probate court's closure and the delivery of the residue to heirs were treated in the record as terminating probate jurisdiction over the estate.
Complaint and Pleadings
- Private respondents filed their complaint for partition and accounting on November 25, 1970, alleging refusal to partition, failure to render accounting, concealment of loans and mortgages, and denial of access to factory premises.
- The complaint prayed for partition, separate and joint accounting, delivery of shares in income with legal interest, and the appointment of a receiver pending final resolution.
- An affidavit attached to the complaint reiterated the allegations and asserted that appointment of a receiver was the most convenient and fea