G.R. No. L-2120; March 9, 1949
JOSE ALVAREZ ET AL., petitioner, vs. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna and COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Jose Alvarez et al. sought to annul the orders of the Court of First Instance of Laguna in Civil Case No. 9039, entitled “Colegio de San Jose versus Jose H. Guevara et al.” The lower court appointed a receiver on December 10, 1947, who, with military assistance, took possession of petitioners’ palay crops. Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration of the receivership and to dismiss the complaint, but these were denied. They argued the lower court lacked jurisdiction because, among other grounds, the money claim was covered by the moratorium law, the judgment sought to be revived had prescribed, and the plaintiff Colegio de San Jose was a non-existent entity. Respondents countered that the court had jurisdiction, the receivership was proper due to petitioners’ insolvency and refusal to satisfy the judgment, and the ownership of Colegio de San Jose was recognized by law and courts.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition to annul the lower court’s orders for lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Following the majority decision in Ramirez vs. Ibañez (83 Phil., 97), the Court held that the lower court should first be given the opportunity to decide the pending motions (specifically the motion for reconsideration of the receivership order) before petitioners could seek relief from the Supreme Court. Regarding the orders denying the motion to dismiss the complaint, the proper remedy for petitioners is an ordinary appeal in due time. The dismissal of the petition made it unnecessary to rule on the incidental matters raised. (Justice Perfecto dissented, advocating that the status quo of petitioners’ possession be maintained pending the merits of the case.)

AI Generated by Armztrong.