Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1922 > March 1922 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18624 March 31, 1922 - GREGORIO MARQUEZ, ET AL. v. The Honorable BARTOLOME REVILLA

043 Phil 274:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-18624. March 31, 1922. ]

GREGORIO MARQUEZ and MARIA JURADO, Petitioners, v. The Honorable BARTOLOME REVILLA, Judge of First Instance of Tayabas, DANIEL MARQUEZ, and RICARDA JARBINA, Respondents.

Godofredo Reyes, for Petitioners.

Rccto, Casal & Ozaeta for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


CIVIL PROCEDURE; CERTIORARI. — Under the statutes of the Philippine Islands the writ of certiorari brings up for review only the question whether the inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions, has exceeded its, or his, jurisdiction and cannot be used as a writ of error for the correction of irregularities which do not go to the jurisdiction.


D E C I S I O N


OSTRAND, J. :


This is a petition for a writ of certiorari. It appears from the record that in an action pending in the Court of First Instance for the dissolution of a partnership the court, after hearing, appointed a receiver to take charge of the partnership property. The appointment was based upon the following allegations in the complaint in said case:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That due to the sad and unfortunate disagreement and lack of harmony now existing between the parties with regard to the management and administration of the enormous estates herein involved — a situation which plaintiffs exceedingly regret but cannot avoid — and in view of the fact that the defendant Gregorio Marquez insists upon imposing his will upon the plaintiff Daniel Marquez with regard to such management and administration, to the prejudice of the plaintiffs, the latter will suffer incalculable loss and damage unless the coownership or community of property existing between the parties is at once terminated and their common property partitioned and divided, and unless in the meantime, pending the final determination of this cause, a receiver is appointed by this court to take the possession, control, management, and administration of the estates and property herein involved; that plaintiffs are ready and willing to relinquish their control of said common property in favor of such receiver, for the common benefit of the parties."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioners contend that the allegations quoted do not show sufficient caused for the appointment of a receiver; that it does not appear that the property has been mis-managed by the petitioners or that it is in danger of being lost; that the petition for the appointment of a receiver was not properly verified inasmuch as the verification is only made upon information and belief; and that the petitioners will suffer irreparable damage of the receivership is maintained. The petitioners therefore ask that the respondent judge be ordered to certify the record of the case in which the receiver was appointed to this court and that, thereupon the appointment be declared illegal and the property under the receivership restored to the petitioners.

We do not think that the writ of certiorari will lie in the present case. This court has on numerous occasions consistently held that under our statutes a writ of certiorari brings up for review only the question whether the inferior tribunal, board, or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded its, or his, jurisdiction and cannot be used as a writ of error for the correction of mistakes either in law or fact, committed by the inferior tribunal within the limits of its jurisdiction. (In re Prautch, 1 Phil., 132; De los Reyes v. Roxas, 1 Phil., Araneta v. Heirs of Gustilo, 2 Phil., 60; Springer v. Odlin, 3 Phil., 344; Somes v. Crossfield, 8 Phil., 284; Artacho v. Tan Chu Chay, 11 Phil., 47; Lagahit v. Nengasca and Wislizenus, 12 Phil., 423; Banes v. Cordero 13 Phil., 466; Arzadon v. Chance and Baldueza, 14 Phil., 710; Herrera v. Barretto and Joaquin, 25 Phil., 245; Gala v. Cui and Rodriguez, 25 Phil., 522, and eight election cases; De Fiesta v. Llorente and Manila Railroad Co., 25 Phil., 544; Labiano v. McMahon, 28 Phil., 168; Napa v. Weissenhagen, 29 Phil., 180; Government of the Philippine Islands v. Judge of First Instance of Iloilo and Bantillo, 34 Phil., 157; Perlas v. Conception, 34 Phil., 559; Macasieb Sison v. Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, 34 Phil., 404; Mercader v. Wislizenus, 34 Phil., 847; Oria v. Campbell and Gutierrez Hermanos, 34 Phil., 850; Alvendia v. Moir and Dinio, 35 Phil., 356; Campos v. Wislizenus and Aldanese, 35 Phil., 373; Bustos v. Moir and Fajardo, 35 Phil., 415; De la Cruz v. Moir, 36 Phil., 213; Javier v. Nadres, 36., Phil., 226; Venturanza v. Court of First Instance of Batangas and Cabrera, 36 Phil., 545, and Leung Ben v. O’Brien, 38 Phil., 182.)

The decisions in the two cases of De Castro and Morales v. Justice of the Peace of Bocaue (33 Phil., 595), and Valdez v. Querubin (37 Phil., 774), where the writ was granted on the ground of abuse of discretion on the part of justices of the peace in requiring excessive bonds may, at first sight, seem out of harmony with the rule above stated, but on close analysis it will be found that in these cases the abuse of discretion was such as to be equivalent to a failure of jurisdiction.

The irregularities alleged by the petitioners do not, as far as we can see, go to the jurisdiction of the court below. The allegations quoted from the complaint and on the strength of which the receiver was appointed, may well have been sufficient, under subsection 4 of section 174 of the Code Civil Procedure which authorizes the appointment "whenever . . . it shall be made to appear to the court that the appointment of a receiver is the most convenient and feasible means of preserving and administering the property which is the subject of litigation during the pendency of the action," and a showing as to past mis-management of the property by the adverse party is not essential. Neither does the fact that the complaint was verified merely on information and belief affect the jurisdiction of the court; this might have been of some importance if the receiver had been appointed ex parte, but in the present case the appointment was made upon notice and hearing where necessity for positive verification is less imperative.

The writ is denied and the proceeding dismissed, with the costs against the petitioners. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Malcolm, Avancena, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1922 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17226 March 1, 1922 - L. S. MOON & CO. v. Honorable FRANCIS BURTON HARRISON

    043 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. L-17775 March 1, 1922 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO VEGA ET AL.

    043 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-18081 March 3, 1922 - IN RE: OF MORA ADONG v. CHEONG SENG GEE

    043 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-17493 March 4, 1922 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO PERFECTO, ET AL.

    043 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-17748 March 4, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GRACIANO L. CABRERA ET AL.

    043 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-17855 March 4, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GRACIANO L. CABRERA ET AL.

    043 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-17283 March 7, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SIXTO HERNANDEZ

    043 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 17729 March 7, 1922 - L. P. FIEGE, ET AL. v. SMITH

    043 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-17584 March 8, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GREGORIO SANTIAGO

    043 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-17603 March 8, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ROSALIO PANALIGAN, ET AL.

    043 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-18699 March 8, 1922 - TAN CHICO v. Honorable PEDRO CONCEPCION

    043 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-15950 March 9, 1922 - CARLOS PALANCA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    043 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-16492 March 9, 1922 - E. MACIAS & Co. v. Warner

    043 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-16878 March 9, 1922 - SERAPIO BANAAD v. ALEJANDRA CASTANEDA

    043 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-17436 March 9, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SERGIO MANZANILLA ET AL.

    043 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-18432 March 9, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. ISLANDS v. NICOLAS ENCARNACION

    043 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 18600 March 9, 1922 - B.E. JOHANNES v. Honorable GEORGE R. HARVEY

    043 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 16570 March 9, 1922 - SMITH, BELL & CO., LTD. v. VICENTE SOTELO MATTI

    044 Phil 874

  • G.R. No. 16869 March 13, 1922 - HEIRS OF ANTONIO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    044 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-17633 March 14, 1922 - CLARA W. GILMER v. L. HILLIARD

    043 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. L-17865 March 15, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CIPRIANA BUCSIT, ET AL.

    043 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-18056 March 16, 1922 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL R SEVILLA

    043 Phil 186

  • IN RE Attorney EUSEBIO TIONKO : March 17, 1922 - 043 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-17230 March 17, 1922 - JOSE VELASCO v. TAN LIUAN & CO.

    043 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-18054 March 18, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ARSENIO SUNGA Y REYES (alias) ARSENIO LOPEZ

    043 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 18240 March 18, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ENGRACIA CAPACIA

    043 Phil 207

  • IN RE: ANTONIO HORRILLENO : March 20, 1922 - 043 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-17866 March 20, 1922 - ANDREE C. CHEREAU v. ASUNCION FUENTEBELLA ET AL.

    043 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-18402 March 22, 1922 - CALIXTO BERBARI v. Honorable Carlos A. Honorable CARLOS A. IMPERIAL

    043 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-16924 March 23, 1922 - UNITED STATES v. Gregorio Perfecto

    043 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-17933 March 23, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ATANASIO NANQUIL

    043 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 17024 March 24, 1922 - DOMINGO BEARNEZA v. BALBINO DEQUILLA

    043 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. L-18203 March 27, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. TELESFORO DORADO, ET AL.

    043 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-17925 March 28, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EVARISTO ABAYA

    043 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-17254 March 29, 1922 - CRISPULO VILLARUEL v. TAN KING

    043 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-18740 March 29, 1922 - WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. VICENTE ALDANESE

    043 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. L-16530 March 31, 1922 - MAMERTO LAUDICO, ET AL. v. MANUEL ARIAS RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

    043 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-18624 March 31, 1922 - GREGORIO MARQUEZ, ET AL. v. The Honorable BARTOLOME REVILLA

    043 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. L-18664 March 31, 1922 - MARIA GONZALEZ v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    043 Phil 277