G.R. No. L-9205; February 28, 1957
JACINTA ABELLA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. G. K. CO BUN KIM, and QUIRINO D. CARPIO, defendants. QUIRINO D. CARPIO, receiver-appellant.

FACTS

On February 9, 1950, Rafael Alonso leased a lot in Manila to G. K. Co Bun Kim for 15 years at a monthly rental of P400, documented in a public instrument (Exhibit A) registered on March 17, 1950. On January 9, 1953, Alonso sold the lot, including his rights under the lease, to Jacinta Abella. Alonso notified Co Bun Kim of the sale and directed him to pay rentals to Abella starting January 1953. Co Bun Kim failed to pay rentals from January 1953 onwards. Prior to this, on April 23, 1952, Co Bun Kim had filed a case (Civil Case No. 16221) against Natalio Enriques concerning a mortgage on the building he constructed on the leased lot. A receiver was appointed for the building, and Quirino D. Carpio became the receiver on January 24, 1953. Carpio collected rentals from the building’s tenants but did not pay the land rentals to Abella despite written demands. Abella sought to intervene in Civil Case No. 16221 to collect back rentals but was denied. She then filed the present action for recovery of unpaid rentals and damages. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Abella, ordering Co Bun Kim and receiver Carpio to pay jointly and severally the monthly rent from January 1953 to January 1955, plus damages. Receiver Carpio appealed.

ISSUE

The main issue is the propriety of holding receiver Quirino D. Carpio jointly and severally liable with the lessee, Co Bun Kim, for the unpaid rentals under the lease contract, without the express consent of the court that appointed him.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that the inclusion of the receiver as a defendant was proper because the court having jurisdiction over the receivership (Branch V of the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided by Judge Gregorio S. Narvasa) had impliedly given its consent by denying the receiver’s motion to dismiss and rendering judgment against him. The court ruled that the receiver’s liability is not separate from that of Co Bun Kim; the receiver merely acts as a custodian of the building and its income, which belong to Co Bun Kim. The obligation to pay rent under the lease contract (Exhibit A) remains with Co Bun Kim, and the receiver, by collecting rentals from the building’s tenants and not repudiating the lease, effectively continued the juridical relation under that contract. The constitutional mandate against impairing the obligation of contracts binds the court and its officers, including the receiver, to respect the valid lease contract. The appeal was deemed dilatory, and the order for execution pending appeal was justified.