GR L 5587; (April, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5587; April 17, 1953
FELIXBERTO MEDEL and PRISCO JOJUYCO, petitioners, vs. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO ETC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
On November 19, 1933, respondent Prisco Jojuyco executed an escritura de venta absoluta over two lots in favor of Jose Jojuyco and Maria Marquez. The vendees took possession and cultivated the land. On July 4, 1944, Prisco Jojuyco obtained a second owner’s duplicate of the title, claiming the original was lost, and on the same day sold the same lots to petitioner Felixberto Medel. Medel took possession and appropriated the products. On June 19, 1945, Jose Jojuyco filed Civil Case No. 7 against Medel, Prisco Jojuyco, and the Register of Deeds to establish his ownership and recover possession. The defendants claimed the 1933 deed was merely an antichresis. Pending the case, on November 7, 1951, Jose Jojuyco filed an urgent ex-parte petition for a receiver. Despite Medel’s opposition, respondent Judge Bernabe de Aquino appointed a receiver on November 26, 1951. Petitioners Medel and Prisco Jojuyco filed this certiorari to annul the appointment order.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in appointing a receiver.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The appointment of a receiver is discretionary with the trial court. The appellate court will not interfere except in a clear case of abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found that the appointment was justified. The petition for a receiver, filed years after the complaint, alleged that Medel had been enjoying the land’s products since 1945 without offering security to reimburse Jose Jojuyco if the latter prevailed, and Medel admitted having no other property. The Court held that the respondent Judge did not abuse his discretion; on the contrary, the appointment was warranted to preserve the property and ensure the effectiveness of a future judgment. Procedural defects, such as the alleged lack of verification or notification for the ex-parte application, do not affect jurisdiction and are not grounds for certiorari absent gross abuse causing substantial prejudice.