I.

A The Different Provisional Remedies

#### Calo vs Roldan

Facts:
Petitioners filed a writ of preliminary injunction against defendant to prevent and
stop respondents from harvesting crops on a land they supposedly owned. Petition
was denied because the defendants were in actual possession of the land.
Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration and or for the appointment of a
receiver. The respondent judge granted the petition for appointment of a receiver
in this case.

Question:
1. Was the judge correct in issuing the order appointing a receiver?
2. What are the different provisional remedies?

Answer:
1. No.

The law provides that a receiver may be appointed to take charge of personal or
real property which is the subject of an ordinary civil action.

The issue raised by plaintiffs is not the ownership of the land but rather the
stoppage of defendants from harvesting the fruits. Hence, appointing a receiver is
not proper, in this case.

2. The provisional remedies denominated attachment, preliminary injunction,

receivership, and delivery of personal property, provided in Rules 59, 60, 61, and
62 of the Rules of Court.

Attachment - in order that the defendant my not dispose of his property to secure
the satisfaction of judgment.

Preliminary prohibitory injunction - lies when the relief demanded in the complaint
consists in restraining the continuance of the act complained of.

Receiver - when the property is the subject of a civil action, when it appears that
the party applying for the appointment of a receiver has an interest in the
property

###### Lim v. Lazaro, G.R. No. 185734, July 3, 2013

Facts:
X filed a complaint for a sum of money and issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment against Y on the grounds of fraud. The parties later on entered into a
compromise agreement, and was approved by the RTC. Y seeks the lifting of the writ,
on the grounds that a writ of preliminary attachment is an ancillary remedy which
no longer has a leg to stand on due to the compromise agreement.

Question:
Can a compromise agreement between the parties cause the lifting of a writ of
attachment?

Answer:
No.

Jurisprudence dictates that the said lien continues until the debt is paid, or the
sale is had under execution issued on the judgment or until the judgment is
satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in the same manner provided by
law.

In this case, a compromise agreement cannot lift the writ for the reason that the
debt is not yet paid. The law affords the writ of attachment as a protection
especially against one who reneges on his obligation. Ruling otherwise would render
the purpose of the provisional remedy of attachment lost.

###### Ligon v RTC 717 SCRA 373

Facts:
X loaned to Y a sum of money on the promise of Y to pay easily because they are
selling their property to Ayala. Y issued checks to X as payment but were
dishonored. Checking on Y's property, X learned that the said property was sold to
Dummy Y who is a dummy company of spouses Y. X filed complaint for sum of money
with preliminary attachment against Y and Dummy Y. X won the case but upon
execution, X learned that the property was already auctioned in favor of another
but similar case on a different court. The lien X had on the title of the property
was not carried by the RD as ordered by the court because it ordered an issuance of
title free from all encumbrances.

Question:
Did the court gravely abused its discretion when it directed the RD to cancel the
lien of attachment?

Answer:
Yes.

Case law instructs that an attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is

against the particular property, enforceable against the whole world. An attachment
lien continues until the debt is paid, or sale is had under execution of judgment,
or until judgment is satisfied and discharged.

In the current case, the lien of X is still subsisting when the court ordered the
issuance of a new title free from all encumbrances. The court's action negates the
efficacy of X's attachment lien thus defying the legal characteriztion of an
attachment proceeding.

#### Ng Wee vs Tiankansee

Facts:
X loaned to Company Y money. Through machinations of Company Y, the said money was
loaned out to Company H, who then defaulted in its obligation, Company Y filed suit
against its surety.

The president of Company Y, who assumed responsibility as surety connived with

Company Y to loan from Company X by placing X's money without his consent to the
loan of Company H that virtually freed H of any liability. Upon learning of this, X
filed a case against Company Y. On the basis of the allegations in the complaint
and affidavit of petitioner, court ordered issuance writ of preliminary attachment
but was opposed by respondent with a motion to lift the writ on the basis that the
affidavit lacked factual circumstances of fraud.

Issue:
Does an affidavit lacking of factual circumstances of fraud be a calid basis for
lifting a writ of attachment?

Answer:
Yes

Sec 1(d) of Rule 57. In an action against a party who has been guilty of fraud in
contracting the debt or obligation upon which the action is brought.

For a writ to issue under this rule, the applicant
factual circumstances of the alleged fraud because
inferred from the debtor’s mere non-payment of the
his obligation. The applicant must then be able to
intended to defraud the creditor.
must sufficiently show the
fraudulent intent cannot be
debt or failure to comply with
demonstrate that the debtor has

#### Liberty Insurance Corp vs CA

Facts:
X entered into ang agreement with Y to perform an obligation. Y, being cautious
asked X to put up a performance bond in case the obligation is not fulfilled. X
took out a bond with insurance company Z but as collateral gave defective and
encumbered properties as security. X failed to comply with the obligation so Y went
after the bond. The bond company Z then filed a case and discovered the status of
the collateral thus filing a case with writ of attachment.

Issue