Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c272f?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[JOSE PLATON v. CLAUDIO SANDOVAL](http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c272f?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c272f}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 49031, Aug 28, 1944 ]

JOSE PLATON v. CLAUDIO SANDOVAL +

DECISION

74 Phil. 731

[ G.R. No. 49031, August 28, 1944 ]

JOSE PLATON AND ROMAN CASTILLO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. CLAUDIO SANDOVAL, IN HIS CAPACITY AS JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA, AND INES MAILOM, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

OZAETA, J.:

This is  an original petition for  certiorari and mandamus to annul an order issued  by  the respondent judge whereby the receiver appointed in civil case No. 7385 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, entitled "Ines  Mailom vs. Antonino Castillo and Roman Castillo," was discharged, and to compel the respondent judge to approve the appeal of said receiver from said order.

It appears  that said civil case was  instituted by Ines Mailom, one of the heirs of the deceased Servanda Mailom, to annul the sale of certain  parcels of land made by the spouses Roman Castillo and Servanda Mailom (previous to the  death of the latter)  in  favor of Antonino Castillo, a brother of Roman.  After the  death Servanda Mailom, her husband Roman Castillo was appointed administrator of the  estate left by her.  The  herein  petitioner  Jose Platon was appointed receiver of. the property in  litigation in said civil case No.  7385 at the instance of  the plaintiff  (now respondent) Ines Mailom.

It was also Ines Mailom who, through her attorney, moved the  court on November 11, 1942,  to discharge the receiver on the ground that there was no more necessity for the continuation  of  the receivership inasmuch  as the defendant Antonino Castillo had renounced his claim to said property in a stipulation of facts submitted to the court on November 25,1940,land the heirs of the deceased Servanda Mailom, including the administrator Roman Castillo, had submitted a  project of partition in the intestate proceedings of the deceased  Servanda Mailom, case Ho. 3148  of  said court, which project of partition had been approved by the court. Upon  such  allegations, which  the .court found  to be true, the respondent judge granted  the .motion, discharging the receiver and ordering him to deliver the properties under receivership to the persons entitled to receive the same in accordance with the project of partition aforementioned.

The receiver Jose Platon filed a motion to set aside said order on the grounds (1) that he had not been notified of the motion upon which the same was issued; (2) that the case in  which he was appointed  receiver, was  still pending decision by  Judge Proceso Sebastian; (3) that in the event Antonino Castillo wins the case, the receiver has to deliver to him the properties,, thereby  rendering  the  project of partition useless and of no value; and  (4) that irregularities were committed by Attorney Acuña for the plaintiff and the heirs  of Servanda Mailom regarding  the disposition of the properties in question after the approval of the project of partition. In a memorandum submitted by the attorney for the receiver Jose Platon in support  of said motion, said attorney,  who also represents the defendant-administrator Roman Castillo, said that the  latter  joins the  receiver in said motion and makes it his own.

After hearing both parties upon said motion to set aside the order discharging the receiver, the respondent judge reaffirmed his finding that there was no  necessity  for the continuation of the receivership and denied said  motion. Thereupon the receiver filed a notice of appeal from said order and tendered a record on appeal which the  respondent judge disapproved on the ground that the order was interlocutory and not appealable.

With regard to the order discharging  the receiver and terminating the receivership, we find  no excess of jurisdiction nor grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge.  The property in  litigation and under receivership belongs to the intestate estate of the deceased

It is immaterial to decide now whether the receiver was entitled to be heard on the original motion to discharge him, for the reason that he was actually heard in the  premises when thru his attorney he filed a motion for reconsideration.

With regard to the approval of the record on appeal, we agree with the respondent judge that the order sought to be appealed from is interlocutory, and hence mandamus does not lie to compel him to  approve and certify the record  on appeal.  As a matter of fact, certiorari to annul  an order and mandamus to approve an appeal from said order are inconsistent remedies. The first is predicated on the theory that the  second  is unavailable;  Having  decided to  pass upon the  petition for certiorari  oh the merits, we cannot consistently compel the approval of an appeal from the same order which  was the object of the certiorari proceeding. The petition is denied and the orders assailed are affirmed.

With costs against the petitioners.

Yulo, C.J., Moran, Horrilleno, and Paras, JJ., concur.

tags