G.R. No. L-14769; November 29, 1960
LAURO P. LEVISTE, petitioner, vs. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS, Judge of the Eighth Judicial District, in his Capacity as presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro, TEODORA BANAYO and FELIX ORTEGA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Lauro P. Leviste filed a verified complaint in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro to recover possession of a parcel of land (Lot No. 5013) covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-706 issued in his name. He sought a judicial declaration that he is the owner of the plants, trees, and buildings constructed thereon by respondents Teodora Banayo and Felix Ortega in bad faith, and to collect various sums as actual damages, moral damages, and litigation expenses. The petitioner also prayed for the appointment of a receiver for the “crops, plants and improvements sown and/or planted, or otherwise constructed.” The respondents filed an answer with a counterclaim, asserting they had been in actual possession and occupation of the land since 1951 when it was still virgin forest, believing it to be public domain. The respondent court denied the petitioner’s motion for appointment of a receiver and subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration. The petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus, claiming the respondent court gravely abused its discretion in denying the receivership and that he had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court gravely abused its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for the appointment of a receiver over the crops, plants, trees, and buildings on the disputed land.

RULING

No, the respondent court did not gravely abuse its discretion. The Supreme Court denied the writs prayed for. The appointment of a receiver lies largely in the discretion of the court and should be made only when there is no other means to protect the petitioner’s rights. A receiver should not be appointed to deprive a party in possession of the property in litigation. In this case, the petitioner’s complaint avers the respondents entered the land in 1955 and cultivated it, while the respondents claim possession since 1951 in the belief the land was public domain. As the issue of the respondents’ good or bad faith is yet to be determined by the trial court, the status of the parties in relation to the crops, plants, trees, and buildings should not be disturbed by a receivership until after the case is fully decided. The respondent court’s denial of the motion was within its sound discretion.