3. ProvRem_Descallar vs CA

8/17/2019 3. ProvRem_Descallar vs CA

1/7

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 106473 July 12, 1993

ANTONIETTA O. DESCALLAR, petitioner,

vs.

TE ON. COURT O! APPEALS "#$ CAMILO !.

%ORROMEO, respondents.

!"&'()

• orro!eo, a realtor, "led a civil case a#ainst Descallar to recover $ parcels of land

and a house built thereon in the possession of Descallar and re#istered under the

na!e of the latter.

• orro!eo alle#ed that *+ u-&*"(+$ '*+ ("$ "-&+l( o/ l"#$ /-o J"-&* .

%&ustrian national and for!er lover of Descallar' ( )So, afa! d* ni Descallar c

+a!brich una #ibaan for another *o!an-ts$/.0

Descallar ans*ered that the propert belon#s to her since it is re#istered under her

na!e1 and that J"-&* &"##o' o# '*+ l"#$ (#&+ *+ ( " /o-+#+-, '*u(, #o

''l+ o- -*' o/ '*+ -o+-'y &"# + '-"#(/+--+$ 'o %o--o+o.

• orro!eo then ased the lo*er court to appoint a receiver for the propert durin# the

pendenc of the case.

• The application for receivership *as #ranted b the court despite opposition for

Descallar. The receiver appointed *as the 234R5 OF 2O6RT %*ith a bond of 789'

• Desc MFRd but denied. Filed certiorari to 2&, dis!issed. Thus, this petition for

certiorari.

I((u+) :ON trial court #ravel abused its discretion in appointin# areceiver for real propert re#istered in the na!e of Descallar in order


2/7

to transfer its possession fro! the petitioner to the court;appointed

receiver.

Rul#) er Torrens certi"cates of title are indefeasible

or incontrovertible.

There is no la* *hich declares null and void a sale *here the vendee

to *ho! the title of the thin# sold is transferred or conveed, paid the

price *ith !one obtained fro! a third person. If that *ere so, a ban

*ould be the o*ner of *hatever is purchased *ith funds borro*ed

fro! it b the vendee. The holdin# of the trial court and the 2ourt of

&ppeals that +a!brich, not*ithstandin# his le#al incapacit to ac?uirereal propert in the Philippines, is the o*ner of the house and lot *hich

his erst*hile !istress, &ntonietta, purchased *ith !one she obtained

fro! hi!, is a le#al heres.

In vie* of the above circu!stances, the appoint!ent of a receiver is

not proper *+-+ '*+ -*'( o/ '*+ "-'+( %one of *ho! is in

possession of the propert', "-+ ('ll 'o + $+'+-#+$ y '*+ '-"l

&ou-'.

Relief b *a of receivership is e?uitable in nature, and a court of e?uit ll #o'

o-$#"-ly "o#' " -+&++- *+-+ '*+ -*'( o/ '*+ "-'+( $++#$o# '*+ $+'+-#"'o# o/ "$+-(+ &l"( o/ l+"l ''l+ 'o -+"l -o+-'y

"#$ o#+ "-'y ( # o((+((o#. %2alo, et al. vs. Roldan, @A Phil., BB8'.

O#ly *+# '*+ -o+-'y ( # $"#+- o/ +# "'+-"lly #5u-+$

o- lo(', as b the prospective foreclosure of a !ort#a#e thereon for

non;pa!ent of the !ort#a#e loans despite the considerable inco!e

derived fro! the propert, or if portions thereof are bein# occupied b

third persons clai!in# adverse title thereto, "y '*+ "o#'+#' o/

" -+&++- + 5u('+$ %Motoo!ul vs. &rrieta, C S2R& @7'.

In this case, '*+-+ ( #o (*o# '*"' -"+ o- --++$"l+

$""+ "y -+(ul' 'o -+(o#$+#' %o--o+o unless a receiver is

appointed. The propert in ?uestion is real propert, hence, it is neither

perishable or consu!!able. 4ven thou#h it is !ort#a#ed to a third

person, there is no evidence that pa!ent of the !ort#a#e obli#ation

is bein# ne#lected. In an event, the private respondentEs ri#hts and

interests, !a be ade?uatel protected durin# the pendenc of the


3/7

case b causin# his adverse clai! to be annotated on the petitionerEs

certi"cates of title.

A( -+"-$( '*+ "o#'+#' o/ '*+ CLER O! COURT"( RECEI8ER)

&nother a* in the order of receivership is that the person *ho! the

trial Gud#e appointed as receiver is her o*n cler of court. T*(

-"&'&+ *"( ++# /-o#+$ uo# b this 2ourtH

The respondent Gud#e co!!itted #rave abuse of discretion in connection *ith

the appoint!ent of a receiver. . . . The instant case is si!ilar to Paranete vs.

Tan, C@ Phil. A@C %89' so that *hat *as there said can *ell appl to the

actuations of the respondent Gud#e. . . . J:e hold that the respondent Gud#e

has acted in e/cess of his Gurisdiction *hen he issued the order aboveadverted to. That order, in eKect, !ade the cler of court a sort of a receiver

char#ed *ith the dut of receivin# the proceeds of sale and the harvest of

ever ear durin# the pendenc of the case *ith the disadvanta#e that the

cler of court has not "led an bond to #uarantee the faithful dischar#e of his

duties as depositar1 and considerin# that in actions involving title real

property, the appointment of a receiver cannot be entertained

because its eect would be to take the property out of the

possession of the defendant, except in extreme cases when

there is clear proof of its necessity to save the plainti from

grave and irremediable loss of damage, it is evident that the actionof the respondent Gud#e is un*arranted and unfair to the defendants.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLPOO3

T&54SLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

L


4/7

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 106473 July 12, 1993

ANTONIETTA O. DESCALLAR, petitioner,

vs.

TE ON. COURT O! APPEALS "#$ CAMILO !.

%ORROMEO, respondents.

Gilberto C. Alfafara for petitioner.

Bernadito A. Florido for private respondent.

GRI&O'A(UINO, J.:

ssailed in this petition for revie! on certiorari is the decision dated "ul# $%,

&%%$ of the 'ourt of ppeals in '().R. SP No. $*%**, affir+in the orders

dated March &*, &%%$ and pril $*, &%%$ of the trial court in 'ivil 'ase No.

MN(&&-, rantin respondent/s petition for receivership and den#in

petitioner/s +otion for reconsideration thereof.

On uust %, &%%&, respondent 'a+ilo 0orro+eo, a realtor, filed aainst

petitioner a civil co+plaint for the recover# of three 123 parcels of land and the

house built thereon in the possession of the petitioner and reistered in her

na+e under Transfer 'ertificates of Title Nos. $-*%4, $-*%& and $-*%$ of

the Reistr# of Deeds for the 'it# of Mandaue. The case !as doc5eted as

'ivil 'ase No. MN(&&- of the Reional Trial 'ourt, 0ranch $, Mandaue

'it#.

In his co+plaint, 0orro+eo alleed that he purchased the propert# on "ul#&&, &%%& fro+ 6ilhel+ "a+brich, an ustrian national and for+er lover of the

petitioner for +an# #ears until he deserted her in &%%& for the favors of

another !o+an. 0ased on the deed of sale !hich the ustrian +ade in his

favor, 0orro+eo filed an action to recover the o!nership and possession of

the house and lots fro+ Descallar and as5ed for the issuance of ne! transfer

certificates of title in his na+e.


5/7

In her ans!er to the co+plaint, Descallar alleed that the propert# belons to

her as the reistered o!ner thereof7 that 0orro+eo/s vendor, 6ilhel+

"a+brich, is an ustrian, hence, not 8ualified to ac8uire or o!n real propert#

in the Philippines. 9e has no title, riht or interest !hatsoever in the propert#

!hich he +a# transfer to 0orro+eo.

On March :, &%%$, 0orro+eo as5ed the trial court to appoint a receiver for

the propert# durin the pendenc# of the case. Despite the petitioner/s

opposition, "ude Mercedes )olo(Dadole ranted the application for

receivership and appointed her cler5 of court as receiver !ith a bond of

P$:4,444.44.

Petitioner filed a +otion for reconsideration of the court/s order, but it !as

denied.

Petitioner souht relief in the 'ourt of ppeals b# a petition for certiorari 1'(

).R. SP No. $*%** ;ntonietta O. Descallar vs. 9on. Mercedes ). Dadole,

as "ude, RT' of Mandaue 'it#, 0ranch $, and 'a+ilo F. 0orro+eo;3.

On "ul# $%, &%%$, the 'ourt of ppeals dis+issed the petition for certiorari .

In due ti+e, she appealed the ppellate 'ourt/s decision to this 'ourt b# a

petition for certiorari under Rule -: of the Rules of 'ourt.

In a nutshell, the issue in this appeal is !hether the trial court ravel# abused

its discretion in appointin a receiver for real propert# reistered in the na+e

of the petitioner in order to transfer its possession fro+ the petitioner to the

court(appointed receiver. The ans!er to that 8uestion is #es.

The 'ourt is a+a


6/7

real propert# in this countr# 1Sec. *, rt. @II, &%* 'onstitution3. The deed of

sale !as dul# reistered in the Reistr# of Deeds and ne! titles !ere issued

in her na+e. The source of the purchase +one# is i++aterial for there is no

alleation, nor proof, that she bouht the propert# as trustee or du++# for

the +onied ustrian, and not for her o!n benefit and enAo#+ent.

There is no la! !hich declares null and void a sale !here the vendee to

!ho+ the title of the thin sold is transferred or conve#ed, paid the price !ith

+one# obtained fro+ a third person. If that !ere so, a ban5 !ould be the

o!ner of !hatever is purchased !ith funds borro!ed fro+ it b# the vendee.

The holdin of the trial court and the 'ourt of ppeals that "a+brich,

not!ithstandin his leal incapacit# to ac8uire real propert# in the

Philippines, is the o!ner of the house and lot !hich his erst!hile +istress,

ntonietta, purchased !ith +one# she obtained fro+ hi+, is a leal heres#.

In vie! of the above circu+stances, !e find the order of receivership tainted

!ith rave abuse of discretion. The appoint+ent of a receiver is not proper

!here the rihts of the parties 1one of !ho+ is in possession of the propert#3,

are still to be deter+ined b# the trial court.

Relief b# !a# of receivership is e8uitable in nature, and a court of e8uit# !ill not

ordinaril# appoint a receiver !here the rihts of the parties depend on the

deter+ination of adverse clai+s of leal title to real propert# and one part# is in

possession. 1'alo, et al. vs. Roldan, *> Phil., --:3.

Onl# !hen the propert# is in daner of bein +ateriall# inAured or lost, as b#

the prospective foreclosure of a +ortae thereon for non(pa#+ent of the+ortae loans despite the considerable inco+e derived fro+ the propert#,

or if portions thereof are bein occupied b# third persons clai+in adverse

title thereto, +a# the appoint+ent of a receiver be Austified 1Motoo+ul vs.

rrieta, S'R &*$3.

In this case, there is no sho!in that rave or irre+ediable da+ae +a#

result to respondent 0orro+eo unless a receiver is appointed. The propert#

in 8uestion is real propert#, hence, it is neither perishable or consu++able.

?ven thouh it is +ortaed to a third person, there is no evidence that

pa#+ent of the +ortae obliation is bein nelected. In an# event, the

private respondent/s rihts and interests, +a# be ade8uatel# protected durinthe pendenc# of the case b# causin his adverse clai+ to be annotated on

the petitioner/s certificates of title.

nother fla! in the order of receivership is that the person !ho+ the trial

Aude appointed as receiver is her o!n cler5 of court. This practice has been

fro!ned upon b# this 'ourtB


7/7

The respondent Aude co++itted rave abuse of discretion in connection !ith the

appoint+ent of a receiver. . . . The instant case is si+ilar to Paranete vs. Tan, *

Phil. >* 1&%:43 so that !hat !as there said can !ell appl# to the actuations of the

respondent Aude. . . . ;6e hold that the respondent Aude has acted in eCcess of his

Aurisdiction !hen he issued the order above adverted to. That order, in effect, +ade

the cler5 of court a sort of a receiver chared !ith the dut# of receivin the proceedsof sale and the harvest of ever# #ear durin the pendenc# of the case !ith the

disadvantae that the cler5 of court has not filed an# bond to uarantee the faithful

dischare of his duties as depositar#7 and considerin that in actions involving title

real property, the appointment of a receiver cannot be entertained because its effect

would be to tae the property out of the possession of the defendant, e!cept in

e!treme cases when there is clear proof of its necessity to save the plaintiff from

grave and irremediable loss of damage, it is evident that the action of the respondent

Aude is un!arranted and unfair to the defendants. 1Mendo Phil.

:%7 ono# vs. Rui

Documents

3. ProvRem_Descallar vs CA