G.R.
No. 203585 July 29, 2013
MILA
CABOVERDE TANTANO and ROSELLER CABOVERDE, Petitioners,
vs.
DOMINALDA ESPINA-CABOVERDE, EVE CABOVERDE-YU, FE CABOVERDE-LABRADOR, and JOSEPHINE E. CABOVERDE, Respondents.
vs.
DOMINALDA ESPINA-CABOVERDE, EVE CABOVERDE-YU, FE CABOVERDE-LABRADOR, and JOSEPHINE E. CABOVERDE, Respondents.
Facts:
Petitioners files a complaint of annulment of the Deed of
Sale purportedly transferring lots from their parents Maximo and Dominalda.
During the pendency of the case the parties
executed a Partial Settlement Agreement (PSA) where they fixed the sharing of the
uncontroverted properties among themselves, in particular, the adverted
additional eight (8) parcels of land including their respective products and
improvements. Under the PSA, Dominalda’s daughter, Josephine, shall be
appointed as Administrator. The PSA provided that Dominalda shall be entitled
to receive a share of one-half (1/2) of the net income derived from the
uncontroverted properties. The PSA also provided that Josephine shall have
special authority, among others, to provide for the medicine of her mother.
Both Annabelle Saldia and Jesus Tan then
took their respective oaths of office and filed a motion to fix and approve
bond which was approved by the trial court over petitioners’ opposition.
Petitioners harp on the fact that the
court a quo failed to require Dominalda to post a bond prior to the issuance of
the order appointing a receiver, in violation of Section 2, Rule 59 of the
Rules of court
Respondents insist that where there is
sufficient cause to appoint a receiver, there is no need for an applicant’s
bond because under Sec. 2 of Rule 59, the very purpose of the bond is to answer
for all damages that may be sustained by a party by reason of the appointment
of a receiver in case the applicant shall have procured such appointment
without sufficient cause.
Issue:
WON posting bond is required in receivership?
Held:
Sec. 2 of Rule 59 is very clear in that
before issuing the order appointing a receiver the court shall require the
applicant to file a bond executed to the party against whom the application is
presented. The use of the word "shall" denotes its mandatory nature;
thus, the consent of the other party, or as in this case, the consent of
petitioners, is of no moment. Hence, the filing of an applicant’s bond is
required at all times. On the other hand, the requirement of a receiver’s bond
rests upon the discretion of the court. Sec. 2 of Rule 59 clearly states that
the court may, in its discretion, at any time after the appointment, require an
additional bond as further security for such damages.
