Scribd
Upload
900 views2 pages

23 Calo vs. Roldan

The case involved a complaint filed by spouses alleging that they possessed and owned parcels of land that defendants intended to enter and harvest fruits from. The spouses filed for a preliminary injunction, which the respondent judge denied on the basis that defendants were in actual possession. The spouses then filed for reconsideration and appointment of a receiver. The respondent judge granted the receiver appointment. The Supreme Court ruled the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in appointing a receiver, as the issue was whether defendants intended to enter the land, not ownership or possession, and a receiver is not appropriate when the plaintiff alleges possession of the property.

Uploaded by

Gilbert Yap
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
900 views2 pages

23 Calo vs. Roldan

The case involved a complaint filed by spouses alleging that they possessed and owned parcels of land that defendants intended to enter and harvest fruits from. The spouses filed for a preliminary injunction, which the respondent judge denied on the basis that defendants were in actual possession. The spouses then filed for reconsideration and appointment of a receiver. The respondent judge granted the receiver appointment. The Supreme Court ruled the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in appointing a receiver, as the issue was whether defendants intended to enter the land, not ownership or possession, and a receiver is not appropriate when the plaintiff alleges possession of the property.

Uploaded by

Gilbert Yap
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

G.R. No.

L-252             March 30, 1946

TRANQUILINO CALO and DOROTEO SAN JOSE, petitioners,


vs.
ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, Judge of First Instance of Laguna, REGINO
RELOVA and TEODULA BARTOLOME, respondents.

FACTS: A complaint filed in the case No. 7951,plaintiffs spouses alleged that
they are the possessor and owner of the parcel of the unplanted rice land and the
coconut land which was by use of force, stealth, threats and intimidation,
Defendants intend or are intending to enter and work or harvest whatever existing
fruits may now be found in the lands, as such Plaintiff filed a writ of Preliminary
Injunction before the CFI of Laguna presided by respondent Judge Relova.
-Defendants filed an oppositions thereto, that they are the owners and possessors of
the said land and reiterate to their answer to the complaint filed ion August
14,1945.
-Respondent Judge denied the petition on the ground that the defendants were in
actual possession of said lands.
-Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and for appointment of a receiver of
the properties described in the complaint.
-Respondents Judge Roldan, decided that the court would consider the motion for
reconsideration in due time, and granted the petition for appointment of and
appointed a receiver in the case.
ISSUE: whether or not the respondent judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order appointing a receiver in the case
No. 7951 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna.
HELD: YES.
-the respondent judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in appointing a receiver in
case No. 7951 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna.
Relief by way of receivership is equitable in nature, and a court of equity will not
ordinarily appoint a receiver where the rights of the parties depend on the
determination of adverse claims of legal title to real property and one party is in
possession.

In this case,
The litigation or issue raised by plaintiffs in their complaint is not the ownership or
possession of the lands and their fruits. It is whether or not defendants intend or
were intending to enter or work or harvest whatever existing fruits could then be
found in the lands described in the complaint, alleged to be the exclusive property
and in the actual possession of the plaintiffs. It is a matter not only of law but of
plain common sense that a plaintiff will not and legally can not ask for the
appointment or receiver of property which he alleges to belong to him and to be
actually in his possession. For the owner and possessor of a property is more
interested than persons in preserving and administering it.

You might also like