GR 43482; (July, 1937) (Digest)
G.R. No. 43482 ; July 28, 1937
SERAFIN SANSON, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ISABEL ARANETA, ALFREDO SANSON, and EVA SANSON, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiff Serafin Sanson sought rescission of a partition agreement among the heirs of Roque Sanson due to lesion beyond one-fourth. The Supreme Court granted rescission and ordered defendant Isabel Araneta to submit a complete inventory of the estate and a project of partition. Due to her non-compliance and the submitted inventory being unsatisfactory, the trial court appointed a receiver (Sabas Gustilo). The defendants refused to cooperate, leading to contempt proceedings. Subsequently, the trial court replaced the receiver with the provincial sheriff, approved the defendant’s amended inventory, and terminated the receivership. Plaintiff appealed these orders.
ISSUE
1. Did the trial court err in replacing the receiver and terminating the receivership?
2. Did the trial court err in approving the defendant’s amended inventory despite alleged omissions and inaccuracies?
3. Did the trial court err in not ordering collation and sale at public auction of the properties?
RULING
1. No, the trial court did not err in replacing the receiver and terminating the receivership. The appointment of a receiver is discretionary. The court may set aside the appointment when justified by circumstances, such as the properties being in the possession of the parties, the existence of real estate not easily lost, and the availability of other remedies like recording a lis pendens.
2. Yes, the trial court erred in approving the amended inventory. The inventory was incomplete and inaccurate. It omitted properties belonging to the conjugal partnership of Roque Sanson and Isabel Araneta, excluded certain jewelry, and failed to account for the proceeds and fruits of sold properties. The Supreme Court directed the submission of a new, complete inventory.
3. The matters of collation and sale at public auction are for the trial court’s determination. The issue of collation (bringing properties into the hereditary mass) and the method of partition, including a possible public auction as agreed by the parties, should be addressed by the trial court during the partition proceedings. The Supreme Court remanded these aspects for further consideration.
The orders approving the inventory and terminating the receivership were set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court’s instructions.
AI Generated by Armztrong.