I. A.

CALO VS ROLDAN

TOPIC: WHEN PROVISIONAL REMEDIES CANNOT BE AVAILED OF

PRINCIPLE: When an action by its nature does not require the protection or preservation of
interest, provisional remedies cannot be availed of.

FACTS:

Y issued an order appointing a receiver in an action for preliminary injunction filed by Z against
X. The original complaint alleged that Z was the owner and possessor of a parcel of land planted
with rice and coconut and it sought to restrain X from harvesting or attempting to harvest the
fruits of the land. X filed an opposition claiming that he is the owner and in actual possession of
the properties in question. The preliminary injunction was denied and X filed for the
appointment of a receiver. But the court found at the preliminary injunction that it was X who
was in the actual possession of the land.

ISSUE:

Was Y correct in granting the petition for the appointment of a receiver?

RULING:

NO.

The law provides that in an action for receivership, the subject property in litigation must be in
the in the actual possession of the plaintiff to which he has an interest in order to prevent the
property from being lost, removed or materially injured.

Morever, the law provides that Rules 59-62 of the ROC are remedies available to which parties
in litigatant may resort for the protection of their rights or interest, during the pendency of the
principal action. If an action, by its nature, does not require such protection or preservation, said
remedies can not be applied for and granted.

In the case at bar, it is evident that the judge was in excess of jurisdiction in appointing a receiver
since the property in litigation is in the actual possession of X so there would be no reason for
such appointment of a receiver.

Therefore, y was incorrect in granting the relief by way of receivership.

IPIL, Careyssa Mae I

III. C. BPI vs HONG

TOPIC: ORIGIN OF a Preliminary Injunction

PRINCIPLE: An action for injunction is a suit which has for its purpose the enjoinment of the
defendant, perpetually or for a particular time, from the commission or continuance of a specific
act, or his compulsion to continue performance of a particular act.

FACTS:

A Corp. filed a petition for suspension of payments and rehabilitation before SEC. While the
case was pending, B bank filed a petition for extra-judicial foreclosure of real properties
mortgaged to it by A Corp. A public auction of the mortgaged properties was scheduled.
Claiming that the foreclosure was illegal, H, an unsecured creditor in one of the companies A
Corp. filed an action for injunction and damages.

ISSUE: Was the remedy availed of by H correct.

RULING: Yes, An action for injunction is a suit which has for its purpose the enjoinment of the
defendant, perpetually or for a particular time, from the commission or continuance of a specific
act, or his compulsion to continue performance of a particular act. It has an independent
existence, and is distinct from the ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist
except only as a part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding.

In the case at bar, H principally seeks to enjoin the foreclosure proceedings initiated by petitioner
over those properties on the ground that such properties are held in trust and placed under the
jurisdiction of the appointed Liquidator.

Therefore, the remedy availed of by H was correct.