GETULIO ALMAREZ AND JUANITA AVILA, PETITIONERS, VS. MARIANO FLORENTINO, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF VIGAN, ILOCOS SUR, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

OSTRAND, J.:

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari. It appears from the record that
in the month of March of the present year, the respondents Cipriana Alvarez,
Maria Alvarez, Vicente de Leon and Estefania Morales brought an action against
the petitioners in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Sur for
the recovery of the possession of seventeen parcels of land; that on April 5,
1924, the defendants, herein petitioners, entered a general denial to the
complaint and that on May 31, 1924, the respondent justice of the peace, acting
as Judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Sur, on motion
of the plaintiffs and over the objections of the defendants in said case,
appointed a receiver of the property in litigation on the ground that the said
defendants were committing waste on the property and were insolvent.

The petitioners maintain: (1) That inasmuch as there was a vacation judge of
the Court of First Instance designated for the district, the respondent justice
of the peace had no authority to act as Judge of the Court of First Instance at
the time the appointment of a receiver was made; and (2) that even considering
that said respondent had authority to so act he, nevertheless, exceeded his
jurisdiction in appointing a receiver of the property in question, it not
appearing that it was in danger of being lost, removed or materially injured.
They therefore ask that a writ of certiorari issue ordering the clerk of the
Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur to certify the record of the aforesaid
proceedings to this court and that thereupon the appointment of the receiver be
declared null and void and set aside.

The petitioners’ first contention that the respondent justice of the peace
had no authority to act as Judge of the Court of First Instance at the time the
receiver was appointed, cannot be sustained. It appears that the vacation judge
of the Court of First Instance was absent from the province at that time and
that the respondent justice of the peace was exercising the functions of justice
of the peace of the provincial capital and, as such, he had power to exercise
interlocutory jurisdiction within the province to the same extent as the Judge
of the Court of First Instance. (Act No. 136, sec. 68.)

Neither can we agree with the petitioners that the respondent justice, in
appointing the receiver in this case, exceeded his jurisdiction. In an action in
ejectment, not only the soil but everything thereon growing is in litigation and
it may sometimes be found necessary, in such cases, to appoint a receiver to
conserve the fruits of the land and to prevent waste. The power to make such
appointments should be sparingly used, but it is not beyond the jurisdiction of
the Court of First Instance and the exercise of the court’s discretion in that
respect will not be reviewed by certiorari. (Napa vs. Weissenhagen, 29 Phil.,
180.)

The petition is denied with the costs against the petitioners. So
ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, and Romualdez,
JJ., concur.