G.R. No. L-252; March 30, 1946
TRANQUILINO CALO and DOROTEO SAN JOSE, petitioners, vs. ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, Judge of First Instance of Laguna, REGINO RELOVA and TEODULA BARTOLOME, respondents.

FACTS

The respondents, spouses Regino Relova and Teodula Bartolome, filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 7951) in the Court of First Instance of Laguna against the petitioners, Tranquilino Calo and Doroteo San Jose. The complaint alleged that the respondents were the owners and actual possessors of two parcels of land. It further alleged that the petitioners, without any legal right and through force, stealth, threats, and intimidation, intended to enter, work on, and harvest the fruits of said lands. The complaint prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the petitioners from entering or harvesting the lands, and for damages. The petitioners opposed the application for a preliminary injunction, asserting that they were the owners and had been in actual possession of the lands since 1925. After a hearing, Judge Rilloraza denied the petition for a preliminary injunction on the ground that the defendants (petitioners) were in actual possession. The plaintiffs (respondents) filed a motion for reconsideration, which remained unresolved. Subsequently, the respondents filed an urgent ex-parte petition praying for the grant of their motion for reconsideration and/or for the appointment of a receiver over the properties and their fruits, alleging an interest in the properties and that the fruits were in danger of being lost. The respondent Judge, Arsenio C. Roldan, on December 17, 1945, issued an order appointing a receiver. The petitioners then filed this special civil action for certiorari, contending that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction or acted with grave abuse of discretion in appointing the receiver.

ISSUE

Whether or not the respondent judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order appointing a receiver in Civil Case No. 7951.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in appointing a receiver. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari.
The Court held that the nature of the action filed by the respondents, as determined solely by the allegations in their complaint, was one for ordinary (prohibitory) injunction. The complaint alleged ownership and actual possession by the plaintiffs (respondents) and sought to restrain the defendants (petitioners) from interfering with that possession and harvesting the fruits. The fact that the defendants, in their answer, claimed ownership and possession did not change the nature of the plaintiffs’ action. Furthermore, the allegations in the plaintiffs’ reply to the answer, which prayed for a declaration of ownership, could not amend or add a new cause of action to the complaint without leave of court.
Since the action was essentially one for injunction where the plaintiffs claimed to be in actual possession, the appointment of a receiver was improper. A receiver should not be appointed to transfer possession of the property in litigation from one party to another, especially when the ownership and possession are disputed. The proper remedy for the plaintiffs, who claimed to be in possession, was an action for injunction, not the appointment of a receiver which would disturb the status quo. The Court concluded that the respondent judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in issuing the receivership order. Consequently, the order appointing a receiver, and all related orders and proceedings, were declared null and void. The petitioners’ ancillary petition to punish the respondents for contempt was denied, as the evidence showed the palay was harvested by the receiver, not by the respondents themselves.