This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-08-17 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Here, respondents submit that they have satisfactorily established their legal right over the Marsman Building. They alleged that the building and the income and rentals thereof are in danger of being lost, removed or materially injured by the apathy, neglect and fraudulent design of petitioners thereby rendering the appointment of a receiver both urgent and imperative.[32] However, they failed to show how the building as well as the income thereof would disappear or be wasted if not entrusted to a receiver. They were not able to prove that the property has been materially injured, necessitating its protection and preservation. Because receivership is a harsh remedy that can be granted only in extreme situations,[33] respondents must prove a clear right to its issuance. This they failed to do. | |||||
|
2010-01-20 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Here Fidela's main gripe is that Evelina and Aida deprived her of her share of the land's produce. She does not claim that the land or its productive capacity would disappear or be wasted if not entrusted to a receiver. Nor does Fidela claim that the land has been materially injured, necessitating its protection and preservation. Because receivership is a harsh remedy that can be granted only in extreme situations,[7] Fidela must prove a clear right to its issuance. But she has not. Indeed, in none of the other cases she filed against Evelina and Aida has that remedy been granted her.[8] | |||||