Abrigo v. Kayanan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a claim of co-ownership and a petition for partition of seven parcels of land. The plaintiffs alleged that two of the defendants, Leon and Enrique Abrigo, were in possession of these lands, while the defendants asserted ownership by hereditary title based on an alleged duly approved Amended Project of Partition in the Testate Estate of Nazario Abrigo. One specific parcel, described as a large tract of coconut and pasture land, was noted to be in the possession of Leon and Enrique Abrigo. 2. Procedural History: In Civil Case No. 178-G (later No. 07) of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, the plaintiffs filed an Urgent Motion for the appointment of a receiver due to alleged squatters invading one of the properties. Despite the defendants' counsel requesting a postponement, the motion was heard, and the court appointed Atty. Pedro S. Nantes as receiver. Subsequently, the judge motu proprio appointed Mr. Benjamin M. Santiago as an assistant to the receiver. The defendants filed an opposition and a motion for reconsideration, which were denied. The court later ordered the receiver to post a bond, with expenses to be borne by the plaintiffs. An order also directed the petitioner and other parties to deposit funds to cover expenses incurred by the receiver and assistant, and to consider mortgaging properties for cultivation and improvement. The petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his offer to post a bond for the receiver's discharge, which was also denied. Additionally, an order directed the petitioner to reimburse the plaintiffs for witness expenses, issued without notice to the petitioner. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Enrique Abrigo, a defendant in the partition case, filed this petition seeking to annul and set aside several orders issued by the respondent judge, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The petition argues that the appointment of a receiver was unwarranted and that the court erred in not accepting the bond offered by the petitioner as an alternative to the receivership, citing relevant jurisprudence. Furthermore, the petition contends that the order requiring reimbursement for witness expenses was void due to lack of notice and absence of the affected party. The Supreme Court found the petition to be meritorious, annulling and setting aside the questioned orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in appointing a receiver. Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the petitioner to reimburse plaintiffs for witness expenses.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The orders issued by the respondent judge appointing a receiver and ordering reimbursement of expenses are annulled and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appointment of a receiver: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The case was similar to Paranete vs. Tan, where the Court ruled that in actions involving title to real property, the appointment of a receiver cannot be entertained except in extreme cases of necessity to prevent grave and irremediable loss. The Court found that the reason for appointing a receiver (squatters) did not warrant such an extraordinary remedy, especially since a receiver who is also the Clerk of Court is not in a better position than the actual possessors to deal with squatters. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondent judge should have accepted the bond offered by the petitioner, as Rule 59, Section 4 of the Rules of Court allows for the discharge of a receiver upon the filing of a sufficient bond by the opposing party. The refusal to accept the bond, as in Lacson vs. Hodges, constituted an abuse of discretion. On the reimbursement of witness expenses: The Supreme Court found the order for petitioner to reimburse plaintiffs for witness expenses to be void for lack of jurisdiction. The order was issued without notice to the petitioner and in his absence, violating due process.
Main Doctrine
The appointment of a receiver is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted except in extreme cases where there is clear proof of its necessity to prevent grave and irremediable loss or damage. The respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in appointing a receiver without sufficient basis and in refusing to accept a bond offered by the petitioner to prevent such appointment.