G.R. No. L-10736; April 30, 1957
EMILIANO ACUÑA and NIEVES B. ACUÑA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE HERMOGENES CALUAG, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV; GUILLERMO ROMERO; and REYNALDO T. SANTOS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Emiliano Acuña and Nieves B. Acuña executed a real estate mortgage on April 21, 1950, in favor of respondent Reynaldo T. Santos to secure a P25,000 loan. Upon the mortgagors’ failure to pay, Santos filed a foreclosure complaint (Civil Case No. 1433). The parties submitted a written agreement on August 1, 1951, which the court embodied in a judgment ordering the Acuñas to pay the amounts due within ninety days. The judgment became final, a writ of execution was issued, the properties were sold to Santos at auction, and the sale was confirmed. A writ of possession was subsequently issued. On June 9, 1953, the parties entered into a new “Agreement and Petition” wherein the Acuñas offered to repurchase the properties for P40,000 by December 31, 1953, with monthly payments of P500 for use and occupation, and agreed that failure to pay would render the agreement void and they would voluntarily surrender possession. The agreement stipulated it was not a lease and did not waive Santos’s rights under the judgment. Upon the Acuñas’ alleged default, the court issued an alias writ of possession on September 23, 1953. Later, on May 8, 1954, the Acuñas filed to quash this writ, arguing the judgment had been novated by the June 9 agreement and the writ had lapsed after sixty days. The court initially restrained the writ’s enforcement. However, on July 8, 1954, it ordered the issuance of another alias writ. The Acuñas appealed this order (docketed as G.R. No. L-8881). Pending that appeal, on October 28, 1955, respondent Judge appointed Guillermo Romero as receiver over the properties. The court later ordered the Acuñas to surrender possession to the receiver, threatening contempt. The Acuñas filed the present certiorari petition, arguing the trial court lost jurisdiction to issue orders affecting possession once their appeal was perfected.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or without jurisdiction in issuing the orders appointing a receiver and directing the petitioners to deliver possession of the properties to said receiver, despite the perfection of the petitioners’ appeal in the main case.

RULING

The petition for certiorari is denied. The Supreme Court held that while the perfection of an appeal generally deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the case, the court retains jurisdiction over matters concerning the preservation of the property involved in the litigation pending appeal. This includes the authority to appoint a receiver who may take and keep possession of the property in controversy under Rule 61, Sections 1(d) and 7 of the Rules of Court. The appointment of the receiver and the orders to deliver possession to him did not decide the question of who has a better right to possession, which is the subject of the appeal. Instead, these orders were merely for the preservation of the property and the collection of rents during the appeal’s pendency. The Court noted that the petitioners did not timely contest the legality of the receiver’s appointment and that their insolvency and failure to pay rents justified the appointment to prevent impairment of the property. Therefore, the respondent Judge’s orders were valid and within his jurisdiction.