G.R. No. L-3791; November 29, 1950
AGUSTINA PARANETE, ET AL. vs. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, JUDGE, ET AL.

FACTS

Petitioners (defendants below) were sued for recovery of five parcels of land. The respondent judge initially granted the plaintiffs’ ex parte petition for a writ of preliminary injunction to oust defendants and place plaintiffs in possession. Upon defendants’ motion for reconsideration, the judge set aside the injunction but issued a new order requiring defendants to account for and deposit with the clerk of court the proceeds from the harvests during the pendency of the case, with plaintiffs allowed to be present during harvests. Defendants moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this petition for prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order of March 4, 1950, which required defendants to account for and deposit harvest proceeds with the clerk of court.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction. The order effectively appointed the clerk of court as a receiver without the requisite bond and without the extreme necessity required by law for appointing a receiver in actions involving title to real property. Such appointment would take the property out of the defendant’s possession prematurely. The defendant Agustina Paranete had been in possession since 1943 as owner, made improvements at her own expense, and the order would deprive defendants of their livelihood before a decision on the merits. The order is declared null and void, and the respondent judge is enjoined from enforcing it.

AI Generated by Armztrong.