G.R. No. L-1719; February 28, 1948
CANUTO VALIENTE, LIBERATO BAESA y TEODORO SUMAOANG, petitioners, vs. JUEZ DEL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE TARLAC, SIMEON REBOLLIDO y RUFINO GRANIL, respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 187 of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, the plaintiffs (Rufino Granil, et al.) sought the appointment of a receiver over certain properties. The defendants (now petitioners) did not oppose the petition. On July 2, 1947, the respondent judge issued an order appointing a receiver under a bond of P6,000. The defendants later filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on October 2, 1947. The petitioners now allege that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in issuing these orders. The plaintiffs based their petition on their ownership evidenced by Torrens titles and the alleged insolvency of the defendants. The defendants, while claiming possession under homestead applications and tax payments, did not oppose the initial petition nor offer a sufficient counter-bond.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in appointing a receiver pendente lite.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The power to appoint a receiver pendente lite rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. The Supreme Court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless there is a grave abuse thereof. Under the circumstances, no such abuse was found. The plaintiffs’ Torrens titles create a presumption of a better right to possession, including the fruits of the property, which could easily disappear pending litigation. The defendants’ claim of possession based on homestead applications and tax payments is insufficient to overcome the force of a Torrens title, which is imprescriptible under the Land Registration Act. Furthermore, the defendants did not oppose the initial petition nor offer an adequate counter-bond to answer for damages, making the appointment of a receiver necessary to preserve the property.

AI Generated by Armztrong.