Chavez vs.

CA
G.R. No. 174356 : January 20, 2010
Doctrine: Petition for receivership under Section 1(b), Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that the propert or fund sub!ect of the action is in dan"er of
bein" lost, re#oved, or #ateriall in!ured, necessitatin" its protection or preservation$
%ts ob!ect is the prevention of i##inent dan"er to the propert$ %f the action does not
require such protection or preservation, the re#ed is not receivership$
&acts:
1$ Respondent &idela '$ (ar"as o)ned a five*hectare #i+ed coconut land and rice
fields in Sorso"on$ Petitioner ,velina -$ Chave. had been stain" in a re#ote
portion of the land )ith her fa#il, plantin" coconut seedlin"s on the land$ &idela and
,velina a"reed to divide the "ross sales of all products fro# the land bet)een
the#selves$ Since &idela )as bus )ith her la) practice, ,velina undertoo/ to hold
in trust for &idela her half of the profits$
0$ 1ut &idela clai#ed that ,velina had failed to re#it her share of the profits and,
despite de#and to turn over the ad#inistration of the propert to &idela, had refused
to do so$ Consequentl, &idela filed a co#plaint a"ainst ,velina and her dau"hter,
2ida C$ Deles, )ho )as assistin" her #other, for recover of possession, rent, and
da#a"es )ith praer for the i##ediate appoint#ent of a receiver before the
R3C$ala)
4$ R3C: Dis#issed the co#plaint for lac/ of !urisdiction based on &idelas ad#ission
that ,velina and 2ida )ere tenants )ho helped plant coconut seedlin"s on the land
and supervised the harvest of coconut and pala$ 2s tenants, the defendants also
shared in the "ross sales of the harvest$
5$ &idela appealed to the C2$ She also filed )ith that court a #otion for the
appoint#ent of a receiver$ C2 "ranted the #otion and ordained receivership of the
land, notin" that there appeared to be a need to preserve the propert and its fruits
in li"ht of &idelas alle"ation that ,velina and 2ida failed to account for her share of
such fruits$
%ssue:
6hether or not the C2 erred in "rantin" respondent &idelas application for
receivership7
8eld: 'es, the C2 erred in "rantin" receivership$
5$ Petition for receivership under Section 1(b), Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that the propert or fund sub!ect of the action is in dan"er of
bein" lost, re#oved, or #ateriall in!ured, necessitatin" its protection or preservation$
%ts ob!ect is the prevention of i##inent dan"er to the propert$ %f the action does not
require such protection or preservation, the re#ed is not receivership$
9$ &idela:s #ain protest is that ,velina and 2ida deprived her of her share of the
lands produce$ She does not clai# that the land or its productive capacit )ould
disappear or be )asted if not entrusted to a receiver$ ;or does &idela clai# that the
land has been #ateriall in!ured, necessitatin" its protection and preservation$
1ecause receivership is a harsh re#ed that can be "ranted onl in e+tre#e
situations, &idela #ust prove a clear ri"ht to its issuance$ 1ut she has not$ %ndeed, in
none of the other cases she filed a"ainst ,velina and 2ida has that re#ed been
"ranted her$