FUNCTIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE RECEIVER Larrobis Jr vs. Philippine Veterans Veterans Bank 440 SCRA 34 (2004) FACTS: On march 3, 1980, !"#"#$n!r %$&%!% c$n"rac"!' a m$n!"ar( )$an *#"h r!%$n'!n" +h#)##n!V!"!ran% Ban #n "h! am$&n" $- +13.,000, E/#'!nc!' ( a r$m#%%$r( n$"!, '&! an' '!man'a)! $n F!r&ar( 2, 1981, S!c&r!' a R!a) E%"a"! $r"4a4! !5!c&"!' $n "h!#r )$" "$4!"h!r *#"h "h! #mr$/!m!n"%, On arch 3, 198., "h! r!%$n'!n" an *!n" anr&" an' *a% )ac!' &n'!r r!c!#/!r%h#6)#7&#'a"#$n "h! C!n"ra) Ban -r$m Ar#) 3, 198. &n"#) a&4&%" 199, On A&4&%" 3, 18., "h! an "hr$&4h Franc#%c$ G$, %!n" "h! %$&%!% a '!man' )!""!r -$r acc$&n"% r!c!#/a)! r!c!#/a)! #n "h! "$"a) am$&n" $- +3. a% $- A&4&%" 1., 198, *h#ch !r"a#n% "$ "h! #n%&ranc! #n%&ranc! r!m#&m% a'/anc!' ( r!%$n'!n" r!%$n'!n" an $/!r "h! m$r"4a4!' r$!r"( $- !"#"#$n!r%, On a&4&%" 3, 199., m$r! "han 1 (!ar% -r$m "h! "#m! "h! )$a' !c$m! '&! an' '!man'a)!, R!%$n'!n" an ;)!' a !"#"#$n -$r !5"ra <&'#c#a) -$r!c)$%&r! $- m$r"4a4! $- !"#"#$n!r=% r$!r"(> ISSUE: ?ON "h! !r#$' *#"h#n *h#ch "h! an *a% )ac!' &n'!r r!c!#/!r%h# an' )#7&#'a"#$n *a% a-$r"&#"$&% !/!n" *h#ch %&%!n'!' "h! r&nn#n4 $- "h! "!n (!ar r!%cr#"#/! !r#$' #n r#n4#n4ac"#$n%> HELD: ?h!r!-$r!, r!m#%!% c$n%#'!r!' <&'4m!n" #% h!r!( r!n'!r!' '#%m#%%#n4 "h! c$m)a#n" -$r )ac $- m!r#"> L#!*#%! "h! c$m&)%$r( c$&n"!r c)a#m $- '!-!n'an" #% '#%m#%%!' -$r !#n4 &nm!r#"$r#$&%> I" r!a%$n!' "ha" '!-!n'an" an *a% )ac!' &n'!r r!c!#/!r%h# r!c!#/!r%h# ( "h! C!n"ra) Ban -r$ Ar#)198. &n"#) 199, Fr$m ar#) 198. &n"#) @&)( 199, '!-!n'an" an *a% r!%"ra#n!' -r$m '$#n4 #"% &%#n!%%> Th! '!-!n'an" an% r#4h" "$ -$r!c)$%&r! "h! m$r"4a4!' r$!r"( r!%cr#!% #n 10 (!ar% &" %&ch !r#$' *a% #n"!rr&"!' *h!n #" *a% )ac!' &n'!r r!c!#/!r%h#> Ar"#c)! 11. $- "h! NCC "$ "h#% !!c"#/! r$/#'!% "h! !r#$' '&r#n4 *h#ch "h! $)#4!' *a% r!/!n"!' ( a -$r"&#"$&% !/!n" -r$m !n-$rc#n4 h#% r#4h" #% n$" r!c$n!' a4a#n%" h#m>
G.R. No. 174356
January 20, 2010
EVELINA G. CHAVEZ and AIDA CHAVEZDELE!, Petitioners, vs. C"#R$ "% A&&EAL! and A$$'. %IDELA '. VARGA!, Respondents. This case is about the propriety of the Court of Appeals (CA), which hears the case on appeal, placing the property in dispute under receivership upon a claim that the defendant has been remiss in maing an accounting to the plaintiff of the fruits of such property. The !acts and the Case Respondent !idela ". #argas owned a five$hectare mi%ed coconut land and rice f ields in &orsogon. Petitioner 'velina . Chave had been staying in a remote portion of the land with her family, planting coconut seedlings on the land and supervising the harvest of coconut and palay. !idela and 'velina agreed to divide the gross sales of all products from the land between themselves. &ince !idela was busy with her law practice, 'velina undertoo to hold in trust for !idela her half of the profits. *ut !idela claimed that 'velina had failed to remit her share of the profits and, despite demand to turn over the administration of the property to !idela, had refused to do so. Conse+uently, !idela filed a complaint against 'velina and her daughter, Aida C. eles, who was assisting her mother, for recovery of possession, rent, and damages with prayer for the immediate appointment of a receiver before t he Regional Trial Court (RTC) of *ulan, &orsogon.- n their answer, 'velina and Aida claimed that the RTC did not have /urisdiction over the sub/ect matter of the case since it actually involved an agrarian dispute. After hearing, the RTC dismissed the complaint for lac of /urisdiction based on !idela0s admission that 'velina and Aida were tenants who helped plant coconut seedlings on the land and supervised the harvest of coconut and palay. As tenants, the defendants also shared in the gr oss sales of the harvest. The court threw out !idela0s claim that, since ' velina and her family received the land already planted with fruit$bearing trees, they could not be regarded as tenants. Cultivation, said the court, included the tending and caring of the trees. The court also regarded as relevant !idela0s pending application for a f ive$hectare retention and 'velina0s pending protest relative to her three$hectare beneficiary share.1 issatisfied, !idela appealed to the CA. &he also filed with that court a motion for the appointment of a receiver. 2n April -1, 1334 the CA granted the motion and ordained receivership of the land, noting that there appeared to be a need to preserve the property and its fruits in light of !idela0s allegation that 'velina and Aida failed to account for her share of such fruits.5 Parenthetically, !idela also filed three estafa cases with the RTC of 2longapo City and a complaint for dispossession with the epartment of Agrarian Reform Ad/udication *oard (ARA*) against 'velina and Aida. n all these cases, !idela ased for the immediate appointment of a receiver for the property. The ssues Presented Petitioners present the following issues6 -. 7hether or not respondent !idela is guilty of forum shopping considering that she had earlier filed identical applications for receivership over the sub/ect properties in the criminal cases she filed with the RTC of 2longapo City against petitioners 'velina and Aida and in the administrative case that she filed against them before the ARA*8 and 1. 7hether or not the CA erred in granting respondent !idela0s application for receivership. The Court0s Ruling 2ne. *y forum shopping, a party initiates two or more actions in separate tribunals, grounded on the same cause, trusting that one or the other tribunal would favorably dispose of the matter.9 The elements of forum shopping are the same as in litis pendentia where the final /udgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. The elements of forum shopping are6 (-) identity of parties, or at least such parties as would represent the same interest in both actions8 (1) identity of rights
asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts8 and (5) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any /udgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.: ;ere, however, the various suits !idela initiated against 'velina and Aida involved different causes of action and sought different reliefs. The present civil action that she filed with the RTC sought to recover possession of the propert y based on 'velina and Aida0s failure to account for its fruits. The estafa cases she filed with the RTC accused the two of misappropriating and converting her share in the harvests for their own benefit. ;er complaint for dispossession under Republic Act <39< with the ARA* sought to dispossess the two for allegedly cutting coconut trees without the prior authority of !idela or of the Philippine Coconut Authority. The above cases are similar only in that they involved the same parties and !idela sought the placing of the properties under receivership in all of them. *ut receivership is not an action. t is but an au%iliary remedy, a mere incident of the suit to help achieve its purpose. Conse+uently, it cannot be said that the grant of receivership in one case will amount to res judicata on the merits of the other cases. The grant or denial of this provisional remedy will still depend on the need for it in the particular action. Two. n any event, we hold that the CA erred in granting receivership over the property in dispute in this case. !or one thing, a petition for receivership under &ection -(b), Rule := of the Rules of Civil Procedure re+uires that the property or fund sub/ect of the action is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially in/ured, necessitating its protection or preservation. ts ob/ect is the prevention of imminent danger to the property. f the action does not re+uire such protection or preservation, the remedy is not receivership.4 ;ere !idela0s main gripe is that 'velina and Aida deprived her of her s hare of the land0s produce. &he does not claim that the land or its productive capacity would disappear or be wasted if not entrusted to a receiver. >or does !idela claim that the land has been materially in/ured, necessitating its protection and preservation. *ecause receivership is a harsh remedy that can be granted only in e%treme situations,? !idela must prove a clear right to its issuance. *ut she has not. ndeed, in none of the other cases she filed against 'velina and Aida has that remedy been gr anted her .< *esides, the RTC dismissed !idela0s action for lac of /urisdiction over t he case, holding that the issues it raised properly belong to the ARA*. The case before the CA is but an offshoot of that RTC case. iven that the RTC has found that it had no /urisdiction over the case, it would seem more prudent for the CA to first provisionally determine that the RTC had /urisdiction before granting receivership which is but an incident of the main action. 1 avv ph i 1
7;'R'!2R', the Court GRAN$! the petition. The Resolutions dated April -1, 1334 and @uly ?, 1334 of the Court of Appeals in CA$.R. C# <:::1, are REVER!ED and !E$ A!IDE. The receivership is LI%$ED and the Court of Appeals is directed to resolve CA$.R. C# <:::1 with ut most dispatch. !" "RDERED.
G.R. No. 2035(5
Ju)y 2*, 2013
+ILA CA"VERDE $AN$AN" and R"!ELLER CA"VERDE, Petitioners, vs. D"+INALDA E!&INACA"VERDE, EVE CA"VERDE'#, %E CA"VERDELARAD"R, and J"!E&HINE E. CA"VERDE, Respondents. Assailed in this petition for review under Rule 9: are the ecision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered on @une 1:, 13-1 and &eptember 1-, 13-1, respectively, in CA$.R. &P. >o. 35<59, which effectively affirmed the Resolutions dated !ebruary <, 13 3 and @uly -=, 13-3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of &indangan, amboanga del >orte, *ranch --, in Civil Case >o. &$?43, approving respondent ominalda 'spina$CaboverdeBs application for receivership and appointing the receivers over the disputed properties. The !acts Petitioners ila Caboverde Tantano (ila) and Roseller Caboverde (Roseller) are children of respondent ominalda 'spina$ Caboverde (ominalda) and siblings of other respondents in this case, namely6 've Caboverde$"u ('ve), !e Caboverde$ Dabrador (!e), and @osephine '. Caboverde (@osephine). Petitioners and their siblings, !erdinand, @eanny and Daluna, are the registered owners and in possession of certain parcels of land, identified as Dots 1, 5 and 9 located at *antayan, &indangan and Poblacion, &indangan in amboanga del >orte, having purchased them from their parents, a%imo and ominalda Caboverde.The present controversy started when on arch ?, 133:, respondents 've and !e filed a complaint before the RTC of &indangan, amboanga del >orte where they prayed for the annulment of the eed of &ale purportedly transferring Dots 1, 5 and 9 from their parents a%imo and ominalda in favor of petitioners ila and Roseller and their other siblings, @eanny, Daluna and !erdinand. oceted as Civil Case >o. &$?43, the case was raffled to *ranch -- of the court. n their verified Answer, the defendants therein, including a%imo and ominalda, posited the validity and due e%ecution of the contested eed of &ale. uring the pendency of Civil Case >o. &$?43, a%imo died. 2n ay 53, 133?, 've and !e filed an Amended Complaint with a%imo substituted by his eight (<) children and his wife ominalda. The Amended Complaint reproduced the allegations in the original complaint but added eight (<) more real properties of the Caboverde estate in the original list. As encouraged by the RTC, the parties e%ecuted a Partial &ettlement Agreement (P&A) where they fi%ed the sharing of the uncontroverted properties among themselves, in particular, the adverted additional eight (<) parcels of land including their respective products and improvements. Ender the P&A, ominalda0s daughter, @osephine, shall be appointed as Administrator. The P&A provided that ominalda shall be entitled to receive a share of one$half (-F1) of the net income derived from the uncontroverted properties. The P&A also provided that @osephine shall have special authority, among others, to provide for the medicine of her mother. The parties submitted the P&A to the court on or about arch -3, 133< for approval.1
*efore the RTC could act on t he P&A, ominalda, who, despite being impleaded in the case as defendant, filed a otion to ntervene separately in the case. ainly, she claimed that the verified Answer which she filed with her co$defendants contained several material averments which were not representative of the true events and facts of the case. This document, she added, was never e%plained to her or even read to her when it was presented to her for her signature. 2n ay -1, 133<, ominalda filed a otion for Deave to Admit Amended Answer, attaching her Amended Answer where she contradicted the contents of the aforesaid verified Answer by declaring that there never was a sale of the three (5) contested parcels of land in favor of !erdinand, ila, Daluna, @eanny and Roseller and that she and her husband never received any consideration from them. &he made it clear that they intended to divide all their properties e+ually among all their children without favor. n sum, ominalda prayed that the reliefs ased for in the Amended Complaint be granted with the modification that her con/ugal share and share as intestate heir of a%imo over the contested properties be recognied.5 The RTC would later issue a Resolution granting the otion to Admit Amended Answer.9 2n ay -5, 133<, the court approved the P&A, leaving three (5) contested properties, Dots 1, 5, and 9, for further proceedings in the main case. !earing that the contested properties would be s+uandered, ominalda filed with the RTC on @uly -:, 133< a #erified Ergent PetitionFApplication to place the controverted Dots 1, 5 and 9 under receivership. ainly, she claimed that while she had a legal interest in the controverted properties and their produce, she could not en/oy them, since the income derived was solely appropriated by petitioner ila in connivance with her selected in. &he alleged that she immediately needs her legal share in the income of these properties for her daily sustenance and medical e%penses. Also, she insisted that unless a receiver is appointed by the court, the income or produce from these properties is in grave danger of being totally dissipated, lost and entirely spent solely by ila and some of her selected in. Paragraphs :, 4, ?, and < of the #erified Ergent PetitionFApplication for Receivership:( Application for Receivership) capture ominalda0s angst and apprehensions6 :. That all the income of Dot >os. 1, 5 and 9 are collected by ila Tantano, thru her collector elinda *a/alla, and solely appropriated by ila Tantano and her selected ins, presumably with Roseller '. Caboverde, !erdinand '. Caboverde, @eanny Caboverde and Daluna Caboverde, for their personal use and benefit8 4. That defendant ominalda 'spina Caboverde, who is now sicly, in dire need of c onstant medication or medical attention, not to mention the chec$ups, vitamins and other basic needs for daily sustenance, yet despite the fact that she is the con/ugal owner of the said land, could not even en/oy the proceeds or income as these are all appropriated solely by ila Tantano in connivance with some of her selected ins8 ?. That unless a receiver is appointed by the court, the income or produce from these lands, are in grave danger of being totally dissipated, lost and entirely s pent solely by ila Tantano in connivance with some of her selected ins, to the great damage and pre/udice of defendant ominalda 'spina Caboverde, hence, there is no other most feasible, convenient, practicable and easy way to get, collect, preserve, administer and dispose of the legal share or interest of defendant ominalda 'spina Caboverde e%cept the appointment of a receiver % % %8 %%%% =. That insofar as the defendant ominalda 'spina Caboverde is concerned, time is of the utmost essence. &he immediately needs her legal share and legal interest over the income and produce of these lands so that she can provide and pay for her vitamins, medicines, constant regular medical chec$up and daily sustenance in life. To grant her share and interest after she may have passed away would render everything that she had wored for to naught and waste, ain to the saying Gaanhin pa ang damo ung patay na ang abayo.G 2n August 1?, 133=, the court heard the Application for Receivership and persuaded the parties to discuss among themselves and agree on how to address the immediate needs of their mother.4 2n 2ctober =, 133=, petitioners and their siblings filed a anifestation formally e%pressing their concurrence to the proposal for receivership on the condition, inter alia, that ila be appointed the receiver, and that, after getting the 1F-3 share of ominalda from the income of the three (5) parcels of land, the remainder shall be divided only by and among ila, Roseller, !erdinand,
Daluna and @eanny. The court, however, e%pressed its aversion to a party to the action acting as receiver and accordingly ased the parties to nominate neutral persons.? 2n !ebruary <, 13-3, the trial court issued a Resolution granting ominalda0s application for receivership over Dot >os. 1, 5 and 9. The Resolution reads6 As regards the second motion, the Court notes the urgency of placing Dot 1 situated at *antayan, c overed by TCT >o. 9453?8 Dot 5 situated at Poblacion, covered by TCT >o. T$<-93 and Dot 9 also situated at Poblacion covered by TCT >o. T$<-93, all of &indangan, amboanga del >orte under receivership as defendant ominalda 'spina Caboverde (the old and sicly mother of the rest of the parties) who claims to be the owner of the one$half portion of the properties under litigation as her con/ugal share and a portion of the estate of her deceased husband a%imo, is in dire need for her medication and daily sustenance. As agreed by the parties, ominalda 'spina Caboverde shall be given 1F-3 shares of the net monthly income and products of the said properties.< n the same Resolution, the trial court again noted that ila, the nominee of petitioners, could not discharge the duties of a receiver, she being a party in the case.= Thus, ominalda nominated her husband0s relative, Annabelle &aldia, while 've nominated a former barangay agawad, @esus Tan.-3 Petitioners thereafter moved for reconsideration raising the arguments that t he concerns raised by ominalda in her Application for Receivership are not grounds for placing the properties in the hands of a receiver and that she failed to prove her claim that the income she has been receiving is insufficient to support her medication and medical needs. * y Resolution-- of @uly -=, 13-3, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration and at the same time appointed Annabelle &aldia as the receiver for ominalda and @esus Tan as the receiver for 've. The trial court stated6 As to the issue of receivership, the Court stands by its ruling in granting the same, there being no cogent reason to over turn it. As intimated by the movant$defendant ominalda Caboverde, Dots 1, 5 and 9 sought to be under receivership are not among those lots covered by the adverted Partial Amicable &ettlement. To the mind of the Court, the fulfilment or non$fulfilment of the terms and conditions laid therein nonetheless have no bearing on these three lots. !urther, as correctly pointed out b y her, there is possibility that these Dots 1, 5, and 9, of which the applicant has interest, but are in possession of other defendants who are the ones en/oying the natural and civil fruits thereof which might be in the danger of being lost, removed or materially in/ured. Ender this precarious condition, they must be under receivership, pursuant to &ec. - (a) of Rule :=. Also, the purpose of the receivership is to procure money from the proceeds of these properties to spend for medicines and other needs of the movant defendant ominalda Caboverde who is old and sicly. This circumstance falls within the purview of &ec. -(d), that is, G7henever 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 propert y in litigation.G *oth Annabelle &aldia and @esus Tan then too their respective oaths of office and filed a motion to f i% and approve bond which was approved by the trial court over petitioners0 opposition. Endaunted, petitioners filed an Ergent Precautionary otion to &tay Assumption of Receivers dated August =, 13-3 reiterating what they stated in their motion for reconsideration and e%pressing the view that the grant of receivership is not warranted under the circumstances and is not consistent with applicable rules and /urisprudence. The RTC, on the postulate that the motion partaes of the nature of a second motion for reconsideration, thus, a prohibited pleading, denied it via a Resolution dated 2ctober ?, 13-- where it liewise fi%ed the receiver0s bond at PhP -33,333 each. The RTC stated6 H-I The appointed receivers, @'&E& A. TA> and A>>A*'DD' AA>T'$&ADA, are considered duly appointed by this Court, not only because their appointments were made upon their proper nomination from the parties in this case, but because their appointments have been duly upheld by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated 19 ay 13-- denying the herein defendants0 (petitioners therein) application for a writ of preliminary in/unction against the < !ebruary 13-3 Resolution of this Court placing the properties (Dots 1, 5 and 9) under receivership by the said @'&E& A. TA> and A>>A*'DD' AA>T'$ &ADA, and Resolution dated 1= @uly 13-- denying the herein defendants0 (petitioners therein) motion f or reconsideration of the 19 ay 13-- Resolution, both, for lac of merit. n its latter Resolution, the Court of Appeals states6 A writ of preliminary in/unction, as an ancillary or preventive remedy, may only be resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interests and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action. *ut before a writ of preliminary
in/unction may be issued, there must be a clear showing that there e%ists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right and will cause irreparable in/ury. Enfortunately, petitioners failed to show that the acts of the receivers in this case are inimical to their rights as owners of the property. They also failed to show that the non$issuance of the writ of in/unction will cause them irreparable in/ury. The court$ appointed receivers merely performed their duties as administrators of the disputed lots. t must be stressed that the trial court specifically appointed these receivers to preserve the properties and its proceeds to avoid any pre/udice to the parties until the main case is resolved, ;ence, there is no urgent need to issue the in/unction. ACC2R>D", the motion for reconsideration is '>' for lac of merit. &2 2R'R'. %%%% 7;'R'!2R', premises considered, this Court R'&2D#'&, as it is hereby R'&2D#', that6 -. The defendants0 GErgent Precautionary otion to &tay Assumption of ReceiversG be '>' for lac of merit. Accordingly, it being patently a second motion for reconsideration, a prohibited pleading, the same is hereby ordered 'JPE>' from the records8 1. The Gotion to !i% the *ond, Acceptance and Approval of the 2ath of 2ffice, and *ond of the ReceiverG of defendant ominalda 'spina Caboverde, be RA>T' with the receivers0 bond set and fi%ed at 2>' ;E>R' T;2E&A> P'&2& (PhP-33,333.33) each.-1 t should be stated at this /uncture that after filing their Ergent Precautionary otion to &tay Assumption of Receivers but before the RTC could rule on it, petitioners filed a petition for certiorar i with the CA dated &eptember 1=, 13-3 seeing to declare null and void the !ebruary <, 13-3 Resolution of the RTC granting the Application for Receivership and its @uly -=, 13-3 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners and appointing the receivers nominated by respondents. The petition was anchored on two grounds, namely6 (-) non$compliance with the substantial re+uirements under &ection 1, Rule := of the -==? Rules of Civil Procedure because the trial court appointed a receiver without re+uiring the applicant to file a bond8 and (1) lac of factual or legal basis to place the properties under receivership because the applicant presented support and medication as grounds in her application which are not valid grounds for receivership under the rules. 2n @une 1:, 13-1, the CA rendered the assailed ecision denying the petition on the s trength of the following premises and ratiocination6 Petitioners harp on the fact that the court a +uo failed to re+uire ominalda to post a bond prior to the issuance of the order appointing a receiver, in violation of &ection 1, Rule := of the Rules of court which pr ovides that6 &'C. 1. *ond on appointment of receiver.$$ *efore issuing the order appointing a receiver the court shall re+uire the applicant to file a bond e%ecuted to the party against whom the application is presented, in an amount to be fi%ed by the court, to the effect that the applicant will pay such party all damages he may sustain by reason of the appointment of such receiver in case the applicant shall have procured such appointment without sufficient cause8 and the court may, in its discretion, at an y time after the appointment, re+uire an additional bond as further security for such damages. The anifestation dated &eptember 53, 133= filed by petitioners wherein Gthey formally manifested their concurrenceG to the settlement on the application for receivership estops them from +uestioning the sufficiency of the cause for the appointment of the receiver since they themselves agreed to have the properties placed under receivership albeit on the condition that the same be placed under the administration of ila. Thus, the filing of the bond by ominalda for this purpose becomes unnecessar y. t must be emphasied that the bond filed by the applicant for receivership answers only for all damages that the adverse party may sustain by reason of the appointment of such receiver in case the applicant shall have procured such appointment without
sufficient cause8 it does not answer for damages suffered by reason of the failure of the receiver to discharge his duties faithfully or to obey the orders of the court, inasmuch as such damages are covered by the bond of the receiver. As to the second ground, petitioners insist that there is no /ustification for placing the properties under receivership since there was neither allegation nor proof that the said properties, not the fruits thereof, were in danger of being lost or materially in/ured. They believe that the public respondent went out of line when he granted the application for receivership for the purpose of procuring money for the medications and basic needs of ominalda despite the income she0s supposed to receive under the Partial &ettlement Agreement. The court a +uo has the discretion to decide whether or not the appointment of a receiver is necessary. n this case, the public respondent too into consideration that the applicant is already an octogenarian who may not live up to the day when this conflict will be finally settled. Thus, 7e find that he did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac or e%cess of /urisdiction when he granted the application for receivership based on &ection -(d) of Rule := of the Rules of Court. A final note, a petition for certiorari may be availed of only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and ade+uate remedy in the ordinary course of law. n this case, petitioners may still avail of the remedy provided in &ection 5, Rule := of the said Rule where they can see for the discharge of the receiver. !2R R'A&2>& &TAT', the petition for certiorari is '>'. &2 2R'R'.-5 Petitioners0 otion for Reconsideration was also denied by the CA on &eptember 1-, 13-1.-9 ;ence, the instant petition, petitioners effectively praying that the approval of respondent ominalda0s application for receivership and necessarily the concomitant appointment of r eceivers be revoed. The ssues Petitioners raise the following issues in their petition6 (-) 7hether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the appointment of a receiver despite c lear showing that the reasons advanced by the applicant are not any of those enumerated by the rules8 and (1) 7hether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the Resolution of the RTC and ruling that the receivership bond is not re+uired prior to appointment despite clear dictates of the rules.
The Court0s Ruling The petition is impressed with merit. 7e have repeatedly held that receivership is a harsh remedy to be granted with utmost circumspection and only in e%treme situations. The doctrinal pronouncement in #elasco K Co. v. ochico K Co is instructive6 The power to appoint a receiver is a delicate one and should be e%ercised with e%treme caution and only under circumstances re+uiring summary relief or where the court is satisfied that there is imminent danger of loss, lest the in/ury thereby caused be far greater than the in/ury sought to be averted. The court should consider the conse+uences to all of the parties and the power should not be e%ercised when it is liely to produce irreparable in/ustice or in/ury to private rights or the facts demonstrate that the appointment will in/ure the interests of others whose rights are entitled to as much consideration from the court as those of the complainant.-: To recall, the RTC approved the application for receivership on the stated rationale that receivership was the most convenient and feasible means to preserve and administer the disputed properties. As a corollary, the RTC, agreeing with the applicant
ominalda, held that placing the disputed properties under receivership would ensure that she would receive her share in the income which she supposedly needed in order to pay for her vitamins, medicines, her regular chec$ups and daily sustenance. Considering that, as the CA put it, the applicant was already an octogenarian who may not live up to the day when the conflict will be finally settled, the RTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac or e%cess of /urisdiction when it granted the application for receivership since it was /ustified under &ec. -(d), Rule := of the Rules of Court, which states6 &ection -. Appointment of a receiver. L Epon a verified application, one or more receivers of the pr operty sub/ect of the action or proceeding may be appointed by the court where the action is pending, or by the Court of Appeals or by the &upreme Court, or a member thereof, in the following cases6 %%%% (d) 7henever 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. ('mphasis supplied.) ndeed, &ec. -(d) above is couched in general terms and broad in scope, encompassing instances not covered by the other grounds enumerated under the said section.-4 ;owever, in granting applications for receivership on the basis of this section, courts must remain mindful of the basic principle that receivership may be granted only when the circumstances so demand, either because the property sought to be placed in the hands of a receiver is in danger of being lost or because they run the ris of being impaired,-? and that being a drastic and harsh remedy, receivership must be granted only when there is a clear showing of necessity for it in order to save the plaintiff from grave and immediate loss or damage.-< *efore appointing a receiver, courts should consider6 (-) whether or not the in/ury resulting from such appointment would probably be greater than the in/ury ensuing if the status +uo is left undisturbed8 and (1) whether or not the appointment will imperil the interest of others whose rights deserve as much a consideration from the court as those of the person re+uesting for receivership.-= oreover, this Court has consistently ruled that where the effect of the appointment of a receiver is to tae real estate out of the possession of the defendant before the final ad/udication of the rights of the parties, the appointment should be made only in e%treme cases.13 After carefully considering the foregoing principles and the facts and circumstances of this case, 7e find that the grant of ominalda0s Application for Receivership has no leg to stand on for reasons discussed below. !irst, ominalda0s alleged need for income to defray her medical e%penses and support is not a valid /ustification for the appointment of a receiver. The approval of an application for receivership merely on this ground is not only unwarranted but also an arbitrary e%ercise of discretion because financial need and lie reasons are not found in &ec. - of Rule := which prescribes specific grounds or reasons for granting receivership. The RTC0s insistence that the approval of the receivership is /ustified under &ec. -(d) of Rule :=, which seems to be a catch$all provision, is far from convincing. To be clear, even in cases falling under such provision, it is essential that there is a clear showing that there is imminent danger that the properties sought to be placed under receivership will be lost, wasted or in/ured. &econd, there is no clear showing that the disputed properties are in danger of being lost or materially impaired and that placing them under receivership is most convenient and feasible means to preserve, administer or dispose of them. *ased on the allegations in her application, it appears that ominalda sought receivership mainly because she considers this the best remedy to ensure that she would receive her share in the income of the disputed properties. uch emphasis has been placed on the fact that she needed this income for her medical e%penses and daily sustenance. *ut it can be gleaned from her application that, aside from her bare assertion that petitioner ila solely appropriated the fruits and rentals earned from the disputed properties in connivance with some of her siblings, ominalda has not presented or alleged anything else to prove that the disputed properties were in danger of being wasted or materially in/ured and that the appointment of a receiver was the most convenient and feasible means to preserve their integrity. !urther, there is nothing in the RTC0s !ebruary < and @uly -=, 13-3 Resolutions that says why the disputed properties might be in danger of being lost, r emoved or materially in/ured while in the hands of the defendants a +uo. >either did the RTC e%plain the reasons which compelled it to have them placed under receivership. The RTC simply declared that placing the disputed
properties under receivership was urgent and merely anchored its approval on the fact that ominalda was an elderly in need of funds for her medication and sustenance. The RTC plainly concluded that since the purpose of the receivership is to procure money from the proceeds of these properties to spend f or medicines and other needs of the ominalda, who is old and sicly, this circumstance falls within the purview of &ec. -(d), that is, G7henever 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.G #erily, the RTC0s purported determination that the appointment of a receiver is the most convenient and feasible means of preserving, administering or disposing of the proper ties is nothing but a hollow conclusion drawn from ine%istent factual considerations. Third, placing the disputed properties under receivership is not necessary to save ominalda from grave and immediate loss or irremediable damage. Contrary to her assertions, ominalda is assured of receiving income under the P&A approved by the RTC providing that she was entitled to receive a share of one$half (-F1) of the net income derived from the uncontroverted properties. Pursuant to the P&A, @osephine, the daughter of ominalda, was appointed by the court as administrator of the eight (<) uncontested lots with special authorit y to provide for the medicine of her mother. Thus, it was patently erroneous for the RTC to grant the Application for Receivership in order to ensure ominalda of income to support herself because precisely, the P&A already provided for that. t cannot be over$emphasied that the parties in Civil Case >o. &$?43 were willing to mae arrangements to ensure that ominalda was pr ovided with sufficient income. n fact, the RTC, in its !ebruary <, 13-3 Resolution granting the Application for Receivership, noted the agreement of the parties that Gominalda 'spina Caboverde shall be given 1F-3 shares of the net monthly income and products of said properties.G1!inally, it must be noted t hat the defendants in Civil Case >o. &$?43 are the registered o wners of the disputed properties that were in their possession. n cases such as this, it is settled /urisprudence that the appointment should be made only in e%treme cases and on a clear showing of necessity in order to save the plaintiff from grave and irremediable loss or damage.11 This Court has held that a receiver should not be appointed to deprive a party who is in possession of the property in litigation, /ust as a writ of preliminary in/unction should not be issued to transfer property in litigation from the possession of one party to another where the legal title is in dispute and the party having possession asserts ownership in himself, e%cept in a very clear case of evident usurpation.15 !urthermore, this Court has declared that the appointment of a receiver is not proper when the rights of the parties, one of whom is in possession of the property, depend on the determination of their respective claims to the title of such property19 unless such property is in danger of being materially in/ured or lost, as by the prospective foreclosure of a mortgage on it or its portions are being occupied by third persons claiming adverse title. 1: t must be underscored that in this case, ominalda0s claim to the disputed properties and her share in the properties0 income and produce is at best speculative precisely because the ownership of the disputed properties is yet to be determined in Civil Case >o. &$?43. Also, e%cept for ominalda0s claim that she has an interest in the disputed properties, ominalda has no relation to their produce or income. 1âwphi1
*y placing the disputed properties and their income under receivership, it is as if the applicant has obtained indirectly what she could not obtain directly, which is to deprive the other parties of the possession of the property until the controversy between them in the main case is finally settled. 14 This Court cannot countenance this arrangement. To reiterate, the RTC0s approval of the application for receivership and the deprivation of petitioners of possession over the disputed properties would be /ustified only if compelling reasons e%ist. Enfortunately, no such reasons were alleged, much less proved in this case. n any event, ominalda0s rights may be amply protected during the pendency of Civil Case >o. &$?43 by causing her adverse claim to be annotated on the certificates of title covering the disputed properties.1? As regards the issue of whether or not the CA was correct in ruling that a bond was not re+uired prior to the appointment of the receivers in this case, 7e rule in the negative. Respondents 've and !e claim that there are sufficient grounds for the appointment of receivers in this case and that in fact, petitioners agreed with them on the e%istence of these grounds when the y ac+uiesced to ominalda0s Application for
Receivership. Thus, respondents insist that where there is sufficient cause to appoint a receiver, there is no need for an applicant0s bond because under &ec. 1 of Rule :=, the very purpose of the bond is to answer for all damages that may be sustained by a party by reason of the appointment of a receiver in case the applicant shall have procured such appointment without sufficient cause. Thus, they further argue that what is needed is the receiver0s bond which was already fi%ed and approved by the RTC.1< Also, the CA found that there was no need for ominalda to f ile a bond considering that petitioners filed a anifestation where they formally consented to the receivership. ;ence, it was as if petitioners agreed that there was sufficient cause to place the disputed pr operties under receivership8 thus, the CA declared that petitioners were estopped from challenging the sufficiency of such cause. The foregoing arguments are misplaced. &ec. 1 of Rule := is very clear in that before issuing the order appointing a receiver the court shall re+uire the applicant to file a bond e%ecuted to the party against whom the application is presented. The use of the word GshallG denotes its mandatory nature8 thus, the consent of the other party, or as in this case, the consent of petitioners, is of no moment. ;ence, the filing of an applicant0s bond is re+uired at all times. 2n the other hand, the re+uirement of a receiver0s bond rests upon the discretion of the court. &ec. 1 of Rule := clearly states that the court may, in its discretion, at any time after the appointment, re+uire an additional bond as further security for such damages. 7;'R'!2R', upon the foregoing considerations, this petition is RA>T'. The assailed CA @une 1:, 13-1 ecision and &eptember 1-, 13-1 Resolution in CA$.R. &P >o. 35<59 are hereby R'#'R&' and &'T A&'. The Resolutions dated !ebruary <, 13-3 and @uly -=, 13-3 of the RTC, *ranch -- in &indangan, amboanga del >orte, in Civil Case >o. &$?43, approving respondent ominalda 'spina$Caboverde0s application for receivership and appointing the receivers over t he disputed properties are liewise &'T A&'. &2 2R'R'.
