G.R. No. 203585 ; July 29, 2013
MILA CABOVERDE TANTANO and ROSELLER CABOVERDE, Petitioners, vs. DOMINALDA ESPINA-CABOVERDE, EVE CABOVERDE-YU, FE CABOVERDE-LABRADOR, and JOSEPHINE E. CABOVERDE, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a family dispute over three contested parcels of land (Lots 2, 3, and 4). Petitioners Mila and Roseller, along with other siblings, are the registered owners, having purchased the lots from their parents, Maximo and respondent Dominalda. Respondents Eve and Fe filed a complaint for annulment of the deed of sale. During the pendency of the case, the parties entered into a Partial Settlement Agreement for other uncontroverted properties, leaving Lots 2, 3, and 4 for litigation. Dominalda later filed a motion to intervene and an amended answer, alleging the sale was void and she never received consideration.
Subsequently, Dominalda filed a verified urgent application for receivership over the contested lots. She alleged that petitioner Mila, through a collector, was solely appropriating all income from the properties for personal use, depriving Dominalda of her legal share. She asserted she was sickly, in dire need of funds for medication and daily sustenance, and that the income was in grave danger of being dissipated unless a receiver was appointed. The Regional Trial Court granted the application and appointed receivers. Petitioners challenged this order via certiorari at the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC. Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s order granting the application for receivership and appointing receivers over the contested properties.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting the receivership. Under Section 1(b), Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, a receiver may be appointed when the applicant has an interest in the property and such property or its income is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured. Dominalda sufficiently established her legal interest as a conjugal owner and a compulsory heir of the late Maximo. Her verified application detailed that the income was being exclusively collected and appropriated by Mila, depriving Dominalda of her share needed for medical and basic needs, and that such income was in danger of dissipation. These factual allegations, deemed true for purposes of the receivership application, constituted a prima facie showing of the grounds required by the rules.
The Court emphasized that a receivership is a provisional remedy, preservative in nature. Its purpose is to safeguard the property or fund in litigation for the benefit of all parties pending final adjudication of their rights. The RTC’s finding of a necessity to preserve the income from the properties to prevent irreparable damage to Dominalda’s interests was a factual determination entitled to respect, absent a clear showing of capriciousness. The appointment was not intended to determine ownership but to administer and preserve the property’s income during the litigation. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion attended the RTC’s order.