G.R. No. 165895 - Rivera vs. Vargas

Petitioner: Terlyngrace Rivera; Respondent: Florencio L. Vargas.
The dispute centers on the recovery of a 150 T/H rock crushing plant located in Sariaya, Quezon.
Respondent claimed ownership based on his purchase and importation of the equipment from Hyun Dae Trading Co., Seoul, South Korea in December 1993.

On February 24, 2003, respondent filed a complaint before Branch 02 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, seeking recovery of the equipment through replevin.
The complaint was supported by an affidavit wherein respondent asserted that the equipment was entrusted to petitioner’s late husband, Jan T. Rivera, as part of his share in a dissolved partnership with respondent’s wife, Iluminada Vargas.
The complaint included a prayer for a writ of replevin together with the submission of a replevin bond amounting to P2,400,000.00.

Summons was served upon petitioner through her personal secretary on April 28, 2003 at her residence in ParaAaque City.
The writ of replevin, however, was allegedly served on April 29, 2003 at the site of the alleged property by handing it to Joseph Rejumo, a security guard, instead of serving it directly on petitioner as required.
The sheriff’s return of service erroneously indicated that the writ was served upon Rivera herself, creating a discrepancy in the procedural record.

On May 8, 2003, petitioner filed her answer along with a motion for the approval of her redelivery bond, countering respondent’s claim by asserting that the equipment was her husband’s share from the dissolved partnership and that he had exercised ownership without interference until his death in late 2002.
The RTC subsequently issued an order on May 12, 2003 denying petitioner’s redelivery bond application for failure to comply with the five-day filing requirement mandated under Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner sought reconsideration at the RTC and then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which was likewise denied as lacking merit.
Petitioner then advanced the issue to the Supreme Court through a Rule 45 petition, contending that the improper service of the writ of replevin precluded the running of the mandatory five-day period for filing a redelivery bond.

Whether the improper service of the writ of replevin – being served on a person who was not the adverse party (i.e., served on a security guard rather than on petitioner) and without the requisite documents – renders the running of the mandatory five-day period for filing a redelivery bond invalid.
Whether the failure to properly serve the writ, in breach of Section 4 of Rule 60 and constitutional due process requirements, should lead to the nullification of the seizure and consequently require the restoration of the parties to their original positions.