Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > November 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14769 November 29, 1960 - LAURO P. LEVISTE v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

110 Phil 190:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14769. November 29, 1960.]

LAURO P. LEVISTE, Petitioner, v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS, Judge of the Eighth Judicial District, in his capacity as presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro, TEODORA BANAYO and FELIX ORTEGA, Respondents.

Leviste & Agoncillo for Petitioner.

Leido, Andrada, Perez & Associates for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. RECEIVER; RECEIVER OF PROPERTY WHEN MAY BE APPOINTED BY COURT. — A receiver of property may be appointed by a competent court where the action is pending "when it appears from the complaint or answer, and such other proof as judge may require, that the party applying for the is the subject of the action, and that such property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured unless a receiver be appointed to guard and preserved it," or "whenever in other cases it appears that the appointment of a receiver is the most convenient and feasible means of preserving, administering, or disposing of the property in litigation." clubjuris

2. ID.; APPOINTMENT LIES AT COURT; DISCRETION. — The appointment of a receiver largely lies in the discretion of the court to which application is made and should be made only when there is no other means by which the rights of the petitioner could be protected.

3. ID.; AS THE WRIT OF INJUNCTION RECEIVER SHOULD NOT BE APPOINTED TO DEPRIVE A PARTY IN POSSESSION OF PROPERTY IN LITIGATION. — Just as a writ of preliminary injunction should not be issued to put a party in possession of the property in litigation and to deprive another party who is in possession thereof, except in a very clear case of evident usurpation, so also a receiver should not be appointed to deprive a party who is in possession of the property in litigation.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


This is a petition under Rule 67 for writs of certiorari and mandamus to annul an order of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro denying his petition for appointment of a receiver in civil case No. R-802 and to compel the court to appoint one.

In a verified complaint dated 9 July 1958 filed in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro, Lauro P. Leviste, the petitioner, seeks to recover from the respondents possession of a parcel of land situated at barrio Inarawan, municipality of Naujan, province of Oriental Mindoro, Lot No. 5013, Cad-200-Ext., S.A. No. 22196, containing an area of 132 hectares, 26 areas and 83 centares, covered by original certificate of title No. P-706, issued in his name upon a patent by the Registrar of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro; to secure a judicial declaration that he is the owner of the plants and trees sown or planted and buildings constructed thereon in bad faith by the respondents; to collect the sums of P12,000 as actual damages for the value of the crops that he had failed to gather or harvest as a result of the respondents’ unlawful occupation of the parcel of land, P35,000 as moral damages, P3,300 as expenses of litigation including attorney’s fee, incurred by the petitioner in defending his rights thereto in the administrative case commenced by the respondents, and P3,500 as expenses of litigation including attorney’s fee, incurred by him in this suit. The petitioner further prayed for the appointment of a receiver, preferably Gabriel Fernandez of Inarawan, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, of the "crops, plants and improvements sown and/or planted, or otherwise constructed." (Annex A.) The respondents filed an answer to the complaint with a counterclaim of P15,000 as moral damages, P900 for attorney’s fee and P150 for expenses of litigation (Annex B). On 16 August 1958 the respondent court denied the petitioner’s motion for appointment of a receiver (Annex C). The petitioner moved for reconsideration of the foregoing order (Annex E).

The petitioner claims and contends that the respondent court gravely abused its discretion in denying his petition for appointment of a receiver and that he has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

A receiver of property in litigation may be appointed by a competent court where the action is pending "When it appears from the complaint or answer, and such other proof as the judge may require, that the property of fund which is the subject of the action, and that such property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured unless a receiver be appointed to guard and preserve it," or "Whenever in other cases it appears that the appointment of a receiver is the most convenient and feasible means of preserving, administering, or disposing of the property in litigation." 1 The appointment of a receiver largely lies in the discretion of the court to which application is made; 2 and should be made only when there is no other means by which the rights of the petitioner could be protected. 3 Just as a writ of preliminary injunction should not be issued to put a party in possession of the property in litigation and to deprive another party who is in possession thereof, except in a very clear case of evident usurpation, so also a receiver should not be appointed to deprive a party who is in possession of the property in litigation. 4 In an action for ejectment where there is no claim on the crops, a receiver cannot be appointed to take charge of the crops. 5 Conversely, where the fruits of the land are claimed, a receiver thereof may be appointed, but such power should be sparingly used. 6

Bearing in mind the foregoing rules evolved by this Court on receivership, it is difficult to conceive how the respondent court may be held to have gravely abused its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for appointment of a receivership. In his complaint the petitioner avers that sometime in 1955 the respondents entered upon the parcel of land without previous authority from him and over the objection of his overseer, and cultivated it. One of the remedies he prays is that he be declared owner of the crops, plants and trees sown or planted and buildings constructed thereon in bad faith by the respondents. In their answer, the respondents claim that since 1951 they have been in the actual possession and occupation of the parcel of land when it was of the public domain, they made clearings thereon for the purpose of cultivation without molestation from no one. As the good faith or bad faith of the respondents is yet to be determined by the respondent court, the status of the parties in relation to the crops plants, trees and buildings sown and erected thereon should not be disturbed until the case shall have been fully decided.

The writs prayed for the denied, with costs against the petitioner.

Par�s, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Section 1 (b) and (e), Rule 61.

2. Mendoza v. Arellano, 36 Phil., 59; Lama v. Apacible, 79 Phil., 68; Lacson v. Hodges, 80 Phil., 216; Go Tecson v. Macadaeg, 88 Phil.,

3. Lacson v. Hodges, supra.

4. Municipality of Camiling v. de Aquino, 103 Phil., 128; 54 Off. Gaz. 4716; see Ylarde v. Enriquez, 78 Phil., 527.

5. Valenton v. Murciano, 3 Phil., 537.

6. Almarez v. Florentino, 46 Phil., 407, 408.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



November-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11001 November 23, 1960 - FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    110 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-12125 November 23, 1960 - LUIS G. ABLAZA v. AMANCIO SYCIP

    110 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13251 November 23, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    110 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-14223 November 23, 1960 - SABINA SANTIAGO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-14569 November 23, 1960 - BENITO CODILLA v. JOSE L. MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-14641 November 23, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA

    110 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-14764 November 23, 1960 - CENON VILLANUEVA v. BARBER WILHELMSEN LINE

    110 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-14864 November 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO SOLON

    110 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-14897 November 23, 1960 - JESUS NEPOMUCENO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    110 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. L-15904 November 23, 1960 - ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-16022 November 23, 1960 - NATALIA B. NICOMEDES v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    110 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-13114 November 25, 1960 - ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA v. ESTHER PERALTA

    110 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-15276 November 28, 1960 - EPIFANIO J. ALANO v. CLARO CORTES

    110 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-7330 November 29, 1960 - JOSE BENARES v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

    110 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-10508 November 29, 1960 - PO ENG TRADING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-10810 November 29, 1960 - JOSEFINA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA BLANCO v. COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    110 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-10836 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: PROCOPY MOSCAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    110 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-11325 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOTO BALONTO

    110 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-11482 November 29, 1960 - ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG v. JOSE FERNANDEZ

    110 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-11837 November 29, 1960 - MAGDALENA G. VDA. DE CUAYCONG v. CRISTETA L. VDA. DE SENGBENGCO

    110 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-12275 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO RUBINIAL

    110 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-12508 November 29, 1960 - JOSE L. LAGRIMAS v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

    110 Phil 127

  • G.R. Nos. L-13107-08 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIO DELMAS

    110 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13173 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SORIO

    110 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-14217 November 29, 1960 - LUZ H. COLOMA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-14274 November 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    110 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-14283 November 29, 1960 - GIL BALBUNA v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

    110 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-14382 November 29, 1960 - REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-14559 November 29, 1960 - REYNALDO MADRIÑAN v. VICENTE G. SINCO

    110 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-14567 November 29, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-14594 November 29, 1960 - SEVERINO CAÑGAS v. TAN CHUAN LEONG

    110 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14611 November 29, 1960 - EVANGELINO LASERNA v. MARIA JAVIER

    110 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-14656 November 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-14682 November 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO EVARISTO v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA

    110 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-14690 November 29, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. JOSE T. GARCIA, SR.

    110 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-14769 November 29, 1960 - LAURO P. LEVISTE v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    110 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-14780 November 29, 1960 - POMPEYO L. PALARCA v. RESTITUTA BAROL DE ANZON

    110 Phil 194

  • G.R. Nos. L-14785 & L-14923 November 29, 1960 - FELIX ABE v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION

    110 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-14983 November 29, 1960 - AGRIPINA VDA. DE ALBURO v. FILOMENA VDA. DE UMBAO

    110 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-15231 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO PERVEZ

    110 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-15271 November 29, 1960 - ONG YET MUA HARDWARE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    110 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-15312 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: JUAN TACDORO v. JESUS ARCENAS

    110 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-15439 November 29, 1960 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN.

    110 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-15551 November 29, 1960 - DAVID CONSUNJI v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-15593 November 29, 1960 - MARIA BALDO v. PEDRO GUERRERO

    110 Phil 235

  • G.R. Nos. L-15618, L-16000 & L-16116 November 29, 1960 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-15671 November 29, 1960 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. v. RICHARD A. KLEPPER

    110 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-15804 November 29, 1960 - SANCHO B. DE LEON v. ESTANISLAO FAUSTINO

    110 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-15925 November 29, 1960 - ESTELA FRANCISCO DE LASALA v. PEDRO SARNATE

    110 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-16028 November 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO URTULA

    110 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-16030 November 29, 1960 - SEGUNDA INOCANDO v. JUAN INOCANDO

    110 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-16068 November 29, 1960 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF GERVACIO TANJANGCO

    110 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-16093 November 29, 1960 - LOCAL 7, PRESS & PRINTING FREE WORKERS v. EMILIANO TABIGNE

    110 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-16406 November 29, 1960 - PRIMO QUETULIO v. DELFIN B. FLORES

    110 Phil 284

  • G.R. Nos. L-16409 & L-16416 November 29, 1960 - ALEJANDRO L. GUMPAL v. MANUEL ARRANZ

    110 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-16523 November 29, 1960 - LUIS G. PERALTA v. FELIXBERTO SERRANO

    110 Phil 301