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 there was 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 unless a receiver was appointed, the plaintiffs would suffer incalculable loss. The petitioners (Gregorio Marquez and Maria Jurado) contend the allegations are insufficient for a receivership, as they do not show mismanagement or danger of loss, the verification was only upon information and belief, and they will suffer irreparable damage.

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 for certiorari. The Court consistently held that a writ of certiorari only reviews whether an inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction, and cannot correct errors of law or fact committed within its jurisdiction. The alleged irregularities (sufficiency of allegations, verification on information and belief) did not go to the jurisdiction of the lower court. The allegations could be sufficient under subsection 4 of section 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes appointment when it appears “the most convenient and feasible means of preserving and administering the property.” A showing of past mismanagement is not essential. The verification issue was less imperative as the appointment was made upon notice and hearing, not ex parte. The writ was dismissed.