While the case is pending in the respondent court, it appointed a receiver for the land as well as for the palay harvested therein. The plaintiff in the ejectment suit has been in possession of the land since November, 1944. Who is the owner or the one entitled to possession of the land involved in the ejectment suit is yet to be determined by the respondent court. Held: In the meantime, the possession of the actual occupant of the land should not be disturbed. A possessor of property should not be deprived of his possession by the appointment of a receiver, which may "be made only in extreme cases and on clear showing of necessity therefor in order to save the plaintiff from grave and irreparable loss or damage" (Mendoza vs. Arellano, 36 Phil., 59). This is a salutary rule, for a possessor of property should not be deprived of such possession but only after trial or hearing and by virtue of a final judgment. Hence the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the land involved in the ejectment suit constitutes a grave abuse of discretion. There is no adequate process to correct it except by an extra-ordinary legal remedy.