Almarez v. Florentino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the recovery of possession of seventeen parcels of land. The plaintiffs in the original action alleged that the defendants, who are the petitioners in this Court, were committing waste on the property and were insolvent. Procedural History: An action for the recovery of possession of seventeen parcels of land was filed in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. The defendants, now petitioners, filed a general denial. Subsequently, the respondent justice of the peace, acting as Judge of the Court of First Instance, appointed a receiver for the property in litigation over the objections of the defendants. The Petition: The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to nullify and set aside the appointment of the receiver. They contend that the respondent justice of the peace lacked the authority to act as Judge of the Court of First Instance at the time of the appointment, as a vacation judge was designated for the district. Furthermore, they argue that even if he had authority, he exceeded his jurisdiction by appointing a receiver without a clear showing that the property was in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent justice of the peace had the authority to act as Judge of the Court of First Instance. Whether the respondent justice of the peace exceeded his jurisdiction in appointing a receiver.
Ruling
The petition is denied with costs against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of the respondent justice of the peace: The Court held that the first contention of the petitioners could not be sustained. It appeared that the vacation judge of the Court of First Instance was absent from the province at the time of the appointment. The respondent justice of the peace was exercising the functions of the justice of the peace of the provincial capital. As such, he had the power to exercise interlocutory jurisdiction within the province to the same extent as the Judge of the Court of First Instance, pursuant to Act No. 136, section 68. Therefore, he possessed the requisite authority to act in the capacity of a judge for interlocutory matters. On whether the respondent justice exceeded his jurisdiction in appointing a receiver: The Court disagreed with the petitioners' assertion that the respondent justice exceeded his jurisdiction. In an action for ejectment, the subject matter includes not only the soil but also everything growing thereon. It can be necessary in such cases to appoint a receiver to conserve the fruits of the land and to prevent waste. While the power to appoint a receiver should be exercised sparingly, it is not beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The exercise of the court's discretion in appointing a receiver will not be reviewed by certiorari unless it is demonstrated that such appointment was made without or in excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the grounds of waste and insolvency were presented, indicating a potential need for conservation.
Main Doctrine
A justice of the peace, when exercising the functions of a Judge of the Court of First Instance during the latter's absence, possesses interlocutory jurisdiction within the province. The appointment of a receiver by the Court of First Instance, even if the power is to be exercised sparingly, is within its jurisdiction and its exercise of discretion will not be reviewed by certiorari unless it is shown to be beyond jurisdiction.