ROSENDO RALLA and PABLO RALLA Petitioners, vs. HON. MATEO L.
● Whether or not the respondent judge exceeds his jurisdiction or
ALCASID as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Albay and PEDRO
RALLA, Respondents. G.R No. L-17176, October 30, 1962
Facts:
Ruling:
● On January 5, 1960, in the Court of First Instance of Albay, Pedro
Ralla filed against his father Rosendo Ralla and his brother Pablo
Ralla, an action for partition involving 212 parcels of land allegedly
valued P270,000.00. The complaint, after making proper
allegations, also prayed for the appointment of a receiver.
● Petitioners, in their answers, asserted their exclusive ownership
over the subject parcel of land.
● After hearing, the application for receivership was granted by the
trial court. The court appointed Vicente Real, as the qualified
receiver with a bond of 10,000 pesos.
● Petitioners filed for an MR but subsequently denied by the trial
court. While the MR is pending, petitioners, filed for “motion to be
allowed to file a bond for the discharge of the receiver and motion
to require accounting and increase of bond, if discharge of the
receiver is not allowed. The motions of the petitioners were also
denied.
● Hence, instant petition for certiorari seeks to annul the orders of
respondent judge appointing a receiver and refusing a bond to
dissolve the receivership.
Issue:
abused his discretion in issuing the order of receivership and
appointed a receiver in the partition of the proceedings?
● A receiver of real or personal property, which is the subject of the
action, may be appointed by the court where it appears from the
pleadings, and/or such other proof as the judge may require, that
the party applying for such appointment has an actual interest in it
and that such property is in danger of being lost, removed or
materially injured. The appointment is also proper whenever it
appears to be the most convenient and feasible means of
preserving, or administering the property in litigation.
● The appointment of a receiver depends principally upon the sound
discretion of the court; it is not a matter absolute right.
● In the case at bar, the respondent court ordered the appointment
of a receiver after hearing and presentation of evidence by both
parties. The facts and circumstances upon which the order was
based to some of the following findings.
1. It was not established that the subject property is
exclusive property of the surviving spouse.
2. The defendant- petitioners have been disposing,
conveying and transferring it to their exclusive property
with the intention to deprive the plaintiff of his right.
3. The products, rentals, income, assets and funds collected
and received from by the defendants are in danger of
being lost or removed.
● All the circumstances found by the lower court apparently justify
the constitution of the receivership of the lands in question. The
requirements of law have been more than satisfied. Even under
petitioners' theory that the granting therefor should only be "after
a clear showing of the necessity thereof", the instant appointment
of a receiver appears to be proper.
● The court finds no inclination to hold that the respondent court
abused its discretion in the issuance of its questioned orders. The
petition is denied.