GR L 11476; (February, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-11476; February 28, 1958
THE MUNICIPALITY OF CAMILING, petitioner, vs. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, and HILARIO SIMBRE, respondents.
FACTS
On August 30, 1952, Hilario Simbre filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac (Civil Case No. 732) to recover sums of money and damages from Candido Cruz and Felipe Domingo, and prayed for a preliminary injunction to restrain them from disturbing his possession of certain fishponds and from installing fishtraps. The writ was granted on September 6, 1952. The defendants claimed the Municipality of Camiling leased them the fishponds after a public bidding. The Municipality of Camiling intervened, asserting ownership of the fishponds under provisions of the Revised Administrative Code and seeking dissolution of the injunction, a mandatory injunction against Simbre, and damages. The Director of Lands also intervened. On February 5, 1953, the court dissolved the preliminary injunction. On March 15, 1955, Simbre filed an unverified petition for appointment of a receiver, alleging the defendants were appropriating proceeds from the fishponds which were in danger of being wasted. The Director of Lands objected, calling it a subterfuge to recover possession. On March 23, 1955, the court granted the petition and appointed a receiver upon filing a bond. The Municipality moved for reconsideration and to file a counterbond to discharge the receivership, but these were denied. The Municipality then filed this certiorari petition, arguing the court exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the receivership orders.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Court exceeded its jurisdiction or committed a grave abuse of discretion in appointing a receiver over the fishponds and in denying the petitioner Municipality’s motions to file a counterbond to discharge the receivership.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and annulled the orders appointing a receiver. The Court ruled that a receiver should not be appointed to deprive a party in possession of the property in litigation, just as a preliminary injunction should not be issued for that purpose except in a clear case of evident usurpation. It found that the Municipality of Camiling was in possession of the fishponds when the preliminary injunction was issued (which was later dissolved), as this possession had been previously determined in its favor by the Justice of the Peace Court of Camiling in a detainer case (Civil Case No. 35, Hilario Simbre vs. The Municipality of Camiling) involving the same properties, from which Simbre did not appeal. This was the same ground the respondent Court used to dissolve the earlier preliminary injunction. Therefore, the appointment of a receiver was improper. The orders complained of were annulled, with costs against respondent Hilario Simbre.