CALO VS ROLDAN

FACTS
Plaintif spouses, as owners and possessors of certain parcels of land in Laguna, file
d against defendants a complaint, alleging that the latter, through the use of force,
stealth, strategy and intimidation, intend or are intending to enter and work or harv
est whatever existing fruits found on the land.

Together with the complaint, they prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary inj
unction to be issued ex parte to restrain, enjoin and prohibit defendants from
entering, interfering with or harvesting the
lands belonging to plaintif spouses. An accompanying bond in the amount of P200
was also filed.

Defendants opposed the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction on the ground
that they are the owners of the lands and have been in actual possession since 192
5.

After the hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction, Judge Rilloraza denied th
e petition on the ground that the defendants were in actual possession of the lands.

MR has yet to be decided upon the writing of this decision.

Plaintifs filed an urgent petition exparte praying that their MR of the order
denying their petition for preliminary injunction
be granted and/or for the appointment of a receiver of the properties involved, on th
e ground that the plaintifs have an interest in the properties and fruits and that
the appointment of a receiver was the most convenient and feasible means
of preserving, administering and disposing of the properties in litigation.
Judge Roldan, who was then the judge appointed, replacing

Rilloraza, granted the petition for appointment of and appointed a receiver in the ca
se.

ISSUE
Whether it was proper for the Judge to grant the petition for the appointment of a re
ceiverNO

RULING
Based on the complaint filed, the plaintifs action is one of ordinary injunction for th
e they alleged that they are the owners of the lands involved and were in actual
possession thereof and that the defendants without any legal right, through
the use of FISTS,
intend or are intending to enter and work or harvest whatever existing fruits may b
e found thereon and prays that the defendants be restrained, enjoined and prohibite
d from entering in, interfering with or harvesting the lands.

The provisional remedies (attachment, preliminary injunction, receivership,

delivery of personal property) are remedies to which parties litigant may
resort for the preservation or protection of their rights or interest, and for
no other purpose, during
the pendency of the principal action. If an action, by its nature, does not require suc
h protection or preservation, said remedies cannot be applied for and granted. To ea
ch kind of action/s a proper provisional remedy is provided for by law.

Attachment: issued only in the cases specifically states in section 1, Rule 59, in orde
r that the defendant may not dispose of his attached property and thus secure the s
atisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by plaintif from defendant.

For that reason, a property subject of litigation between the parties, or claimed by pl
aintif as his, cannot be attached upon a motion of the same plaintif.

Preliminary prohibitory injunction: lies when the relief demanded in the

complaint consists in restraining the commission/continuance of the act
complained of, either perpetually or for a limited period, and the other
conditions required by sec 3 of Rule 60. Purpose is to preserve the status

quo of the things subject of the action or the relation

between the parties, in order to protect the rights of plaintif respecting the subject
of the action during the pendency of the suit.

Receiver: may be appointed to take charge of personal/real property which is the su

bject of an ordinary civil action, when it appears that the party applying for the
appointment of a receiver has an interest in the property or fund which is
the
subject of the action or litigation, and that such property or fund is in danger of bein
g lost, removed or materially injured unless a receiver is appointed to guard
and preserve it. The property or fund must be in litigation according to the
allegations of the complaint, and the object of appointing a receiver is to
secure and preserve the property or thing in
controversy pending the litigation.

Delivery of personal property: consists in the delivery, by order of court, of a person

al property by the defendant to the plaintif, who shall give a bond to assure
its return or payment of damages to the defendant in the plaintifs action
to recover posseon of the same property fails, in order to protect
the plaintifs right of possession over said property, or prevent the defendant from
damaging, destroying or disposing of the same during the pendency of the suit.
Considering these, the provisional remedy proper to plaIntifs action of injunction is
a PRELIMINARY PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION, if plaintifs theory, as set forth in the co
mplaint, that he is the owner and in actual possession of the land is correct.

However, as the lower court found during the hearing that the defendants were in p
ossession of the lands, the lower court acted in accordance with law in denying the
petition, although their MR, which was still pending at the time of the petition in this
case was heard in this court, plaintifs insist that they are in actual possession of the
lands and of its fruits.

Judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in appointing a receiver.

The appointment of a receiver is NOT proper or does not lie in an action for injunctio
n such as this case. The petition for appointment of a receiver filed by plaintifs is ba
sed on the ground that it is the most convenient and feasible means of preserving,

administering and disposing of the properties; neither the lands nor the palay harve
sted were in litigation.