GR 106473; (July, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 106473 July 12, 1993
ANTONIETTA O. DESCALLAR, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and CAMILO F. BORROMEO, respondents.
FACTS
On August 9, 1991, respondent Camilo Borromeo filed a civil complaint against petitioner Antonietta O. Descallar for the recovery of three parcels of land and a house registered in her name under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 24790, 24791 and 24792. Borromeo alleged he purchased the property on July 11, 1991 from Wilhelm Jambrich, an Austrian national and former lover of Descallar. In her answer, Descallar asserted she is the registered owner and that Jambrich, as an alien, is disqualified from owning Philippine real property and thus had no title to transfer. On March 5, 1992, Borromeo applied for the appointment of a receiver. The trial court granted the application and appointed its clerk of court as receiver. Descallar’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for certiorari, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in appointing a receiver for real property registered in the name of the petitioner.
RULING
Yes, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner is both the registered owner and actual possessor of the disputed property. Her Torrens certificates of title are indefeasible. The circumstance that her Austrian lover may have provided the purchase money does not make him the owner, as he is legally disqualified from owning real property in the Philippines, and there is no allegation or proof that she acted as a trustee or dummy. The source of the purchase money is immaterial. The appointment of a receiver is improper where the rights of the parties are still to be determined and one party is in possession. Relief by receivership is equitable and will not ordinarily be granted when adverse claims of legal title to real property are pending and the property is in one party’s possession. No showing existed that grave or irremediable damage would result without a receiver, as the property is neither perishable nor consumable. Furthermore, the appointment of the trial judge’s own clerk of court as receiver was improper. The subsequent decision by the trial court in the main case upholding Borromeo’s claim does not retroactively validate the receivership order. The petition is GRANTED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of the trial court are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.