G.R. No. 18624; March 31, 1922
Gregorio Marquez and Maria Jurado, petitioners, vs. The Honorable Bartolome Revilla, Judge of First Instance of Tayabas, Daniel Marquez, and Ricarda Jarbina, respondents.

FACTS

In an action for the dissolution of a partnership pending in the Court of First Instance, the court appointed a receiver to take charge of the partnership property. The appointment was based on allegations in the complaint stating that due to a serious disagreement and lack of harmony between the parties regarding the management of the estates, and because the defendant Gregorio Marquez insisted on imposing his will to the prejudice of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs would suffer incalculable loss unless a receiver was appointed pending the final determination of the case. The petitioners (Gregorio Marquez and Maria Jurado) contend that these allegations are insufficient for the appointment of a receiver, as they do not show mismanagement or danger of loss, that the petition for a receiver was not properly verified (being only on information and belief), and that they will suffer irreparable damage from the receivership. They filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to have the appointment declared illegal and the property restored to them.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the appointment of a receiver by the Court of First Instance.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The Court held that a writ of certiorari only brings up for review the question of whether an inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction; it cannot be used as a writ of error to correct mistakes of law or fact committed within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The alleged irregularities (insufficiency of allegations, verification on information and belief) did not go to the jurisdiction of the court below. The allegations in the complaint could be sufficient under subsection 4 of section 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes appointment when it appears to be the most convenient and feasible means of preserving the property during litigation, without requiring a showing of past mismanagement. The verification issue was less imperative since the appointment was made upon notice and hearing, not ex parte. Therefore, certiorari did not lie.