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 over the partnership property based on allegations in the complaint. The complaint alleged a “sad and unfortunate disagreement and lack of harmony” between the parties regarding the management of the estates, that Gregorio Marquez was imposing his will to the prejudice of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs would suffer incalculable loss unless a receiver was appointed. The petitioners (defendants below) argue the appointment was improper because the allegations did not show mismanagement or danger of loss, the verification was only upon information and belief, and they would suffer irreparable damage. They seek a writ of certiorari to annul the appointment.

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. The writ of certiorari is only available to review whether an inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or acted without jurisdiction; it cannot be used to correct errors of law or fact committed within the court’s jurisdiction. The alleged irregularities in the receiver’s appointment—such as the sufficiency of the allegations or the verification—do not go to the jurisdiction of the court. The allegations in the complaint could be sufficient under subsection 4 of section 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows appointment when it is the most convenient means of preserving the property during litigation. The verification on information and belief was less critical since the appointment was made after notice and hearing. The petition was dismissed.