October 1924 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
046 Phil 407:
[G.R. No. 22667. October 11, 1924. ]
GETULIO ALMAREZ and JUANITA AVILA, Petitioners, v. MARIANO FLORENTINO, justice of the peace of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, ET AL., Respondents.
Antonio Belmonte, for Petitioners.
The respondent justice of the peace in his own behalf.
B. Soliven and B. Quitoriano for the other respondents.
2. REAL PROPERTY; CIVIL PROCEDURE; ACTION IN EJECTMENT; APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER; CERTIORARI. — In an action in ejectment, not only the soil but everything thereon growing is in litigation and though the power should be sparingly used, it may sometimes be found necessary in such cases to appoint a receiver in order to prevent waste and the exercise of the court’s discretion in that respect will not be reviewed by certiorari.
The petitioners maintain: (1) That inasmuch as there was a vacation judge of the Court of First Instance designated for the district, the respondent justice of the peace had no authority to act as Judge of the Court of First Instance at the time the appointment of a receiver was made; and (2) that even considering that said respondent had authority to so act he, nevertheless, exceeded his jurisdiction in appointing a receiver of the property in question, it not appearing that it was in danger of being lost, removed or materially injured. They therefore ask that a writ of certiorari issue ordering the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur to certify the record of the aforesaid proceedings to this court and that thereupon the appointment of the receiver be declared null and void and set aside.
The petitioners’ first contention that the respondent justice of the peace had no authority to act as Judge of the Court of First Instance at the time the receiver was appointed, cannot be sustained. It appears that the vacation judge of the Court of First Instance was absent from the province at that time and that the respondent justice of the peace was exercising the functions of justice of the peace of the provincial capital and, as such he had power to exercise interlocutory jurisdiction within the province to the same extent as the Judge of the Court of First Instance. (Act No. 136, sec. 68.)
Neither can we agree with the petitioners that the respondent justice, in appointing the receiver in this case, exceeded his jurisdiction. In an action in ejectment, not only the soil but everything thereon growing is in litigation and it may sometimes be found necessary, in such cases, to appoint a receiver to conserve the fruits of the land and to prevent waste. The power to make such appointments should be sparingly used, but it is not beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and the exercise of the court’s discretion in that respect will not be reviewed by certiorari. (Napa v. Weissenhagen, 29 Phil., 180.)
The petition is denied with the costs against the petitioners. So ordered.
Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.