GR L 36514; (December, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-36514 December 19, 1974
RUFINA DEL ROSARIO VDA. DE ROSARIO (substituted by ELINO DEL ROSARIO), as Special Administrator of the Estate of Gliceria A. del Rosario, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE JOSE B. JIMENEZ, THE ESTATE OF ALFONSO PRECILLA, et al., respondents.
FACTS
This petition for certiorari arose from Civil Case No. 82569, an action for the recovery of properties filed by the Estate of Gliceria A. del Rosario against the Estate of Alfonso Precilla. The properties were allegedly fraudulently transferred during the lifetimes of Gliceria and Alfonso Precilla. The Supreme Court, in a prior resolution (G.R. No. L-35082, July 3, 1972), had dismissed a petition for receivership over these properties, suggesting that less harsh remedies, such as requiring the defendants to post a bond to guarantee potential reimbursement of collected rentals, could protect the petitioner’s rights.
Relying on this Supreme Court resolution, the petitioner filed a motion in the trial court (respondent Judge Jose B. Jimenez presiding) to order the defendants to post a guarantee bond for past rentals and to deposit future rentals from the disputed properties. The private respondents opposed the motion, arguing they were possessors in good faith not accountable for rentals, that granting it would be an unwarranted prejudgment, and that the principal defendant was solvent. The respondent court denied the petitioner’s motion in an order dated November 25, 1972.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to require the posting of a bond and deposit of rentals, thereby allegedly disregarding the Supreme Court’s prior resolution.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that its prior resolution merely pointed out possible alternative remedies to receivership but did not predetermine the petitioner’s right to them or direct the trial court to grant such a motion. The resolution did not preempt the trial court’s authority to exercise its sound discretion based on the actual circumstances and evidence before it.
The denial was not whimsical, as the trial court considered the grounds of opposition, including the claim of possession in good faith and the defendant’s solvency. The Supreme Court noted that its own prior findings regarding the alleged fraud in the property transfers were not definitive, especially since a subsequent resolution had set aside a portion of an earlier decision that reversed the probate of Gliceria’s will. The title of the respondent estate thus still enjoyed a presumption of validity pending the trial court’s full evaluation of the evidence. Furthermore, the final outcome of the still-pending probate proceedings could affect the petitioner’s very right to prosecute the recovery action. Therefore, absent a showing of arbitrariness, the trial court’s order denying the motion was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The petition was dismissed.