LAURO P. LEVISTE, PETITIONER VS. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS, JUDGE OF THE EIGHT JUDICIAL DISTRICT, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ORIENTAL MINDORO, T…

This is a petition under Rule 67 for writs of certiorari and mandamus to
annul an order of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro denying his
petition for appointment of a receiver in civil case No. R-802 and to compel the
court to appoint one.

In a verified complaint dated 9 July 1958 filed in the Court of First
Instance of Oriental Mindoro, Lauro P. Leviste, the petitioner, seeks to recover
from the respondents possession of a parcel of land situated at barrio
Ina-rawan, municipality of Naujan, province of Oriental Mindoro, Lot No. 5013,
Cad-200-Ext., S. A. No. 22196, containing an area of 132 hectares, 26 areas and
83 centares, covered by original certificate of title No. P-706, issued in his
name upon a patent by the Registrar of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro; to secure a
judicial declaration that he is the owner of the plants and trees sown or
planted and buildings constructed thereon in bad faith by the respondents; to
collect the sums of P12,000 as actual damages for the value of the crops that he
had failed to gather or harvest as a result of the respondents’ unlawful
occupation of the parcel of land, P35,000 as moral damages, P3,300 as expenses
of litigation including attorney’s fee, incurred by the petitioner in defending
his rights thereto in the administrative case commenced by the respondents, and
P3,500 as expenses of litigation including attorney’s fee, incurred by him in
this suit. The petitioner further prayed for the appointment of a receiver,
preferably Gabriel Fernandez of Inarawan, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, of the
“crops, plants and improvements sown and/or planted, or otherwise constructed.”
(Annex A.) The respondents an answer to the complaint with a counterclaim of
P15,000 as moral damages, P900 for attorney’s fee and for “expenses M litigation
(Annex B). On 16 August 1958 the respondent court denied the petitioner’s motion
for appointment of a receiver (Annex C). The petitioner moved for
reconsideration of the foregoing order (Annex D). On 4 November 1958 the
respondent court denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Annex
E).

The petitioner claims and contends that the respondent court graveljr abused
its discretion in denying his petition for appointment of a receiver and that he
has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.

A receiver of property in litigation may be appointed by a competent court
where the action is pending “When it appears from the complaint or answer, and
such other proof as the judge may require, that the party applying for the
appointment of receiver has an interest in the property or fund willed is the
subject of the action, and that such property or fund is in danger of being
lost, removed, or materially injured unless a receiver be appointed to guard and
preserve it,” or “Whenever in other cases it appears that the appointment of a
receiver is the most convenient and feasible means of preserving, administering,
or disposing of the property in litigation.”^[1] The appointment of a receiver largely lies
in the discretion of the court to which application is made;^[2] and should be made only when there is no
other means by which the rights of the petitioner could be protected.^[3] Just as a writ of preliminary injunction
should not be issued to put a party in possession of the property in litigation
and to deprive another party who is in possession thereof, except in a very
clear case of evident usurpation, so also a receiver should not be appointed to
deprave a party who is in possession of the property in litigation.^[4] In an action for ejectment where there is
no claim on the crops, a receiver cannot be appointed to take charge of the
crops.^[5] Conversely, where the fruits of
the land are claimed, a receiver thereof may be appointed, but such power should
be sparingly used.^[6]

Bearing in mind the foregoing rules evolved by this Court on receivership, it
is difficult to conceive how the respondent court may be held to have gravely
abused its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for appointment of a
receiver. In his complaint the petitioner avers that sometime in 1955 the
respondents entered upon the parcel of land without previous authority from him
and over the objection of his overseer, and cultivated it. One of the remedies
he prays is that he be declared owner of the crops, plants and trees sown or
planted and buildings constructed thereon in bad faith by the respondents. In
their answer, the respondents claim that since 1951 they have been in actual
possession and occupation of the parcel of land when it was still virgin forest
and that believing that it was of the public domain, they made clearings thereon
for the purpose of cultivation without molestation from no one. As the good
faith or bad faith of the respondents is yet to be determined by the respondent
court, the status of the parties in relation to the crops plants, trees and
buildings sown and erected thereon should not be disturbed until after the case
shall have been fully decided.

The writs prayed for are denied, with costs against the petitioner.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ.,
concur..

Writs denied.

---

^[1] Section 1(b) and
(e), Rule 61.

^[2] Mendoza vs. Arellano, 36 Phil.,
59; Lama vs. Apacible, 79 Phil., 68; Laeson vs. Hodges, 80
Phil., 216; Go Tecson vs. Macadaeg, 88 Phil., 604; Calderon
vs. Aquino, G. R. No. L-4118, 31 January 1952; Medel vs. de
Aquino, 92 Phil., 895; 49 Off. Gaz. (8) 3336.

^[3] Lacson vs. Hodges, supra.

^[4] Municipailty of Camiling vs. de
Aquino, 103 Phil., 128; 54 Off. Gaz. 4716; see Ylarde vs. Enwquez, 78
Phil., 527.

^[5] Valenton vs. Murciano, 3
Phil., 537.

^[6] Almarez vs. Florentine 46
Phil., 407, 408.