GR 48506; (July, 1942) (Digest)

G.R. No. 48506; July 29, 1942
HAW PIA, petitioner, vs. ROMAN A. CRUZ, Judge of First Instance of Tayabas, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

In Cadastral Case No. 63 of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, G.L.R.O. Record No. 1019, the respondent Judge appointed a receiver to take possession of Lot No. 8610 during the pendency of an appeal interposed by one of the adverse claimants. Haw Pia, one of the claimants, filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition, praying that the order of receivership be declared null and void for having been issued without jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether a Court of First Instance, acting as a cadastral court, has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in a cadastral proceeding.

RULING

No. The jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance in cadastral cases is special and limited. As such, they can exercise no powers not expressly granted by law. There is no provision of law authorizing a court to appoint a receiver in a cadastral proceeding. Cadastral courts were created for the sole purpose of settling and adjudicating titles to lands (Sections 1, 5, and 11 of Act No. 2259). Questions of possession, other than that which is merely incidental to title, or questions regarding the enjoyment of fruits, are outside their sphere of power and should be settled in a separate proceeding. Consequently, the order issued by the respondent Judge appointing a receiver is set aside.
The Court also addressed a motion for contempt filed by the petitioner against respondent Aurelia Altea and the receiver, Andres Parco, for allegedly violating a preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court. The affidavits failed to show the guilt of Aurelia Altea. As for the receiver, his acts were performed in good faith, and upon understanding the Court’s order, he immediately ceased possessing the property and delivered the fruits to the Chief of Police. Therefore, the motion for contempt was dismissed.
SEPARATE OPINION:
Justice Paras dissented, opining that in cadastral proceedings, the court has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in proper cases. He argued that under the Code of Civil Procedure (now Rule 61 of the Rules of Court), a judge may appoint a receiver of property which is the subject of the action. The answers in cadastral proceedings partake of an action to recover title, as real rights are claimed therein. Receivership is an ancillary remedy, and no legal provision expressly withholds its availability in cadastral proceedings. By analogy, its extension is reasonable as it is allowed in ordinary land cases, and in land registration, a writ of execution may be issued even before a judgment becomes final. While a receiver should be appointed with extreme caution, this does not amount to a prohibition. The appellate court should be slow in annulling such an appointment, exercising this power only when there is an excess of jurisdiction by the lower court.