The Belgian Catholic Missionaries Inc. v. Magallanes Press Inc.

, et al and Jose
Memije
G.R. No. L-25729, November 24, 1926

Facts:
X executed a mortgage in favor of Y in connection to a loan extended by the latter.
Subsequently, X executed another mortgage on the same property in favor of Z as the
latter extended a seperate loan. Upon failure of payment of X, Y attempted to foreclose
the mortgage. Upon knowing of such fact, Z filed for a petition for the possession of the
subject property. X treated the petition as one of replevin and objected on the ground that
he is not illegally detaining the subject property since he has the right by virtue of the
mortgage.

Question:
Is the petition filed by Y is of the nature of replevin?

Answer:
No,

The law provides that for the court to grant the prayer for the recovery of possession of
personal property (replevin), the applicant must show that the property is wrongfully
detained by the adverse party. Furthermore, the law provides that a receiver may be
appointed when it appears in an action by the mortgagee for the foreclosure of a
mortgage that the property is in danger of being wasted or dissipated or materially
injured. (Rules of Court: Rule 60 Section 2(b); Rule 59 Section 1(b))

In this case, it is not one of replevin but simply a proceeding instituted by Z for the deposit
of the property in litigation, upon the filing of a bond, said plaintiff, acting as a receiver
by authority of the court, being the person most interested in the conservation and care
of the same.
J.M. Po Pauco v. Dolores Siguenza and Wise & Co.
G.R. No. L-29295, October 22, 1928

Facts:
X obtained a final judgement in his favor against Y. Thereafter, Z obtained a judgement
in a separate suit in his favor against X. Upon the issuance of the writ of execution in the
first suit, Z intervened that A the receiver of X's property be order to satisfy the judgement
in his favor from the second suit.

Question:
Is the intervention proper?

Answer:
Yes

The Supreme Court has held that the sheriff is a court officer of a general character who
is not appointed for a certain judicial case; the sheriff is an officer who exercises or can
exercise his functions within the limits of his jurisdiction. A receiver, on the other hand,
is a special officer, appointed in relation to and within a certain case or action, and whose
duties are limited to his sphere of action, and do not extend further than the case in which
he was appointed. Hence, while the funds in the custody of a sheriff may be within the
reach of processes coming from other judicial proceedings, such is not the case with
respect to those under the custody of a depositary. From which it follows that those who
have any claim to property or sum in the possession of a receiver, must appear in the
same proceeding in which said receiver discharges his duties, and there, by motion or
petition, allege and prove their claims.

In this case, it should not be forgotten that the sum mentioned is in the custody of a
receiver and not of a sheriff. Ergo, the intervention is proper since the claim of Z is
directed to the property under the custody of a receiver and not of sheriff.
Berg v. Tues
G.R. No. L-2987, February 20, 1951

Facts:
X brought an action to foreclose the property of Y who failed to pay the amount due.
Subsequently, in light of alleged violations of the conditions of mortgage contract, X
asked the court for the appointment of a receiver on which he complied all the
requirements provided by law for such application. Pending the action, the congress
enacted a law putting moratorium on the right of the creditors to enforce all their rights
pertaining to collection and appropriate reliefs. With that, the judge dismissed the main
action.

Question:
Is the dismissal of the main action proper?

Answer:
No,

The Supreme Court has held that despite the operation of the moratorium, the alleged
violations of the conditions of the mortgage contract, if true, make it necessary if not
imperative, for the protection of the interest of the mortgagee, that the mortgaged
properties be placed in the custody of the court. The fact that the appointment of a
receiver is an ancillary remedy is precisely one powerful reason why the case should not
be dismissed. Because receivership is an auxiliary remedy dismissal of the main action
would eliminate the only basis for the appointment or receiver and thus completely bar
the door to any relief from mischiefs.

In this case, in dismissing the case, the judge is depriving X all the possible reliefs since
the main action is the foundation of the right of a party to ask the court for an
appointment of a receiver. The dismissal in effect dilutes the protective essence of the
ancillary measure.