G.R. No. L-1315. September 25, 1947.
MARIA CARMEN V. DE LA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. ROSENDO GUINTO y BONIFACIO and YSIP, Judge of First Instance of Bulacan, respondents.

FACTS

On December 3, 1946, petitioner Maria Carmen V. de la Cruz filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 145) against respondent Rosendo Guinto in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. She alleged she was the legitimate daughter and assignee of the leasehold rights of Ramon de la Cruz over two parcels of land since 1937. She claimed that in May 1945, Guinto, taking advantage of the chaotic conditions, forcibly detained the lands, ejected her tenants and workers, and appropriated the harvests. She sought damages, a permanent prohibitory injunction, and initially requested a preliminary prohibitory injunction, which she later withdrew. On December 10, 1946, she instead moved for the appointment of a receiver (depositario). Without opposition, the respondent judge granted the motion on December 24, 1946, appointing Joaquin Pariñas as receiver under a P500 bond, and the receiver took possession. On December 30, 1946, Guinto moved for reconsideration. On January 14, 1947, the respondent judge revoked the appointment and ordered the receiver to return possession of the lands to Guinto. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of this order was denied on February 5, 1947. The petitioner then filed this original certiorari action, alleging the judge gravely abused his discretion in revoking the receivership order.
In his sworn answer, Guinto contested the petitioner’s legitimacy as a child of Ramon de la Cruz. He claimed the lands were part of the estate of his grandmother, Melencia Cruz, and that in the 1939-1940 agricultural year, his uncle Ramon de la Cruz delivered possession of the lands to him as an advance on his inheritance, with the consent of the other legitimate heirs, and he had been in possession since.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in revoking the order appointing a receiver (depositario) pendente lite.

RULING

No, the respondent judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court denied the petition.
The power to appoint a receiver pendente lite rests upon the sound discretion of the Court of First Instance. The Supreme Court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless there has been a grave abuse thereof. The appointment of a receiver for real property in detainer cases before final judgment must be made with great caution and granted only in extreme cases where it is shown that the damages to be incurred, if receivership is not ordered, would be grave and irreparable. In this case, there was no proof that the lands were in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured as required by Rule 61, Section 1(b). The initial appointment was made without opposition, treated as a routine matter. Upon Guinto’s motion for reconsideration, both parties were fully heard. After considering their arguments, the judge revoked the appointment. In doing so, he did not abuse his discretion but rather corrected an earlier error. The revocation order was issued in the proper exercise of his sound discretion and should not be annulled.
SEPARATE OPINION:
Justice Paras dissented. He noted that the lands were actually registered under the Torrens system in the name of the San Juan de Dios Hospital. Given this, he was inclined to believe the petitioner’s allegations as lessee and held that the receivership should not have been dissolved without at least requiring Guinto to post a bond to secure the petitioner against damages.