Case Summary (G.R. No. 8325)
Key Dates and Procedural History
Complaint and prayer for writ of replevin filed by respondent: February 24, 2003. Summons served on petitioner through her personal secretary at her residence in Parañaque City: April 28, 2003. Writ of replevin allegedly served and signed for by Joseph Rejumo at the Sariaya plant: April 29, 2003. Petitioner filed answer and application for approval of redelivery bond: May 8, 2003 (nine days after April 29 service). RTC disapproved redelivery bond application: May 12, 2003 (denied for filing beyond the five-day period under Rules of Court). RTC denial of bond and subsequent CA denial of certiorari were brought to the Supreme Court by the petitioner.
Applicable Law
Primary procedural provisions: Rule 60, Sections 4, 5 and 6, Rules of Court (process for writ of replevin, service, and redelivery bond/time periods). Constitutional guarantees (1987 Constitution, applicable because decision date is 2009): Article III, Sections 1 and 2 — due process and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Civil Code provisions referenced: Articles 527 and 539 (presumption of good faith of the possessor; right to be respected in possession).
Nature and Purpose of Replevin
Replevin is a possessory remedy — both an action to regain possession of personal chattels wrongfully detained and a provisional remedy that permits seizure and retention pendente lite. It is primarily possessory and determines the right to possession; ownership may be decided later in the main action. Because it authorizes the seizure of property prior to final judgment, it is strictly regulated and the steps for its lawful exercise are mandated by statute and constitutional protections.
Statutory Service Requirements and Rationale
Section 4, Rule 60 requires the sheriff, upon issuance of a writ of replevin and before taking the property, to serve a copy of the writ on the adverse party together with the application, affidavit and bond, and then to take the property if in the possession of the adverse party or his agent. The requirement is both procedural and substantive: it gives the adverse party notice and an opportunity to exercise remedies (e.g., file a counterbond, motion to quash), and it safeguards due process and protection against unreasonable seizures under the Constitution.
Effect of Improper Service
Service of the writ on a person who is neither the adverse party nor an authorized agent, or service without the required accompanying documents, is invalid. An improperly served writ transfers no lawful right to seize and detain the property; the sheriff’s act in executing such a writ is thereby unlawful and unconstitutional. When service is invalid, the mandatory five-day period for the adverse party to file a redelivery bond (or otherwise make the statutory reactions) does not commence because there is no valid reckoning point. A trial court that seizes or detains a personalty pursuant to an improperly served writ acts without or in excess of jurisdiction in respect to that ancillary seizure.
Remedies and Procedural Options
The proper immediate remedies for an adverse party faced with an improperly served writ are a motion to quash the writ of replevin or a motion to vacate the order of seizure. Filing an application for redelivery bond is not the exclusive remedy and does not waive the right to challenge the validity of service; an adverse party may both apply for redelivery and still contest the irregular service. If the writ is found invalidly served, the appropriate relief is restoration of the status quo ante: return of the seized property to the adverse party and discharge of the replevin bond filed by the applicant.
Application of Law to the Present Facts
Here, the writ of replevin was physically received and signed for by a security guard at the plant in Sariaya, with respondent’s caretaker as witness, while the sheriff’s return nonetheless recited
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 8325)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals Decision dated November 18, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 78529 and its October 20, 2004 Resolution, which denied petitioner Terlyngrace Rivera’s certiorari petition.
- Underlying action: Complaint for recovery of a 150 T/H rock crushing plant filed by respondent Florencio L. Vargas before Branch 02, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Tuguegarao City, Cagayan on February 24, 2003.
- Petitioner initially filed an answer and an application for approval of a redelivery (counter-) bond; RTC disapproved the redelivery bond application; petitioner’s motions for reconsideration at the RTC and the CA were denied; petitioner filed this Supreme Court Rule 45 petition.
- Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the CA Decision and Resolution, ordered restoration of parties to former positions, discharge of respondent’s replevin bond, and directed RTC to proceed with trial of the main action.
Facts
- Respondent Vargas claims ownership of a 150 T/H rock crushing plant, allegedly purchased and imported directly from Hyun Dae Trading Co., Seoul, South Korea, in December 1993.
- The equipment was allegedly entrusted to petitioner’s husband, Jan T. Rivera, as caretaker of respondent’s construction aggregates business in Batangas; Jan T. Rivera died sometime in late 2002.
- Respondent alleges petitioner failed to return the equipment after her husband’s death despite repeated demands, prompting the filing of the complaint and a prayer for issuance of a writ of replevin accompanied by a bond in the amount of P2,400,000.00.
- Summons dated February 24, 2003 was served upon petitioner through her personal secretary on April 28, 2003 at her residence in Parañaque City.
- The writ of replevin was served and signed for on April 29, 2003 by Joseph Rejumo, the security guard on duty at petitioner’s crushing plant in Sariaya, Quezon; the sheriff’s return, however, stated that the writ was served upon Rivera, creating a factual contradiction.
- On May 8, 2003, nine days after the writ’s purported receipt by the security guard, petitioner filed her answer, manifestation, and motion for acceptance/approval of a redelivery bond.
- Petitioner’s factual averments included that the rock-crushing plant was ceded in favor of her husband as his share following dissolution of a partnership between Jan Rivera and respondent’s wife Iluminada Vargas on May 28, 1998; the other partnership plant in Cagayan was ceded to Iluminada.
- Petitioner averred that from the dissolution (sometime in 2000) until Jan Rivera’s death in late 2002, her husband exercised ownership over the equipment without disturbance from respondent.
Issue Presented
- What is the effect of a writ of replevin that has been improperly served?
- Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s counterbond/redelivery bond application on the ground that it was filed beyond the mandatory five (5) day period of Sections 5 and 6, Rule 60, when the writ of replevin was allegedly not properly served.
Relevant Statutory Provisions and Constitutional Text (as cited)
- Section 4, Rule 60, Rules of Court: duty of the sheriff to serve a copy of the writ of replevin on the adverse party together with application, affidavit and bond, and to take possession of the property if in the possession of the adverse party or his agent; provisions regarding taking property concealed in a building and sheriff’s custody and responsibility.
- Sections 5 and 6, Rule 60, Rules of Court: procedures for return of property, filing of redelivery bond by adverse party in double the value, and disposition of property by sheriff if five (5) days elapse after seizure without sufficient objections or approved counterbond.
- Sections 1 and 2, Article III of the Constitution (quoted): guarantees of due process and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures — cited to underline the constitutional basis for mandatory service and procedural due process.
Procedural Chronology of Service, Filings, and Trial Court Action
- February 24, 2003: Vargas files complaint with accompanying prayer for writ of replevin and bond of P2,400,000.00.
- April 28, 2003: Summons allegedly served on petitioner through her personal secretary at residence in Parañaque City.
- April 29, 2003: Writ of replevin signed for by Joseph Rejumo (security guard) at crushing plant in Sariaya, Quezon; sheriff’s return nevertheless states writ was served on Rivera.
- May 8, 2003: Petitioner files answer, manifestation, and application for acceptance/approval of redelivery bond (filed nine days after alleged service on security guard).
- May 12, 2003: RTC issues Order disapproving petitioner’s redelivery bond application for failure to comply with Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 60; RTC implicitly faults petitioner for not filing within five (5) days from seizure.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration at the RTC denied.
- Petitioner files certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals; CA denies petition and petitioner’s motion for reconsideration; petitioner files Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court.
Trial Court’s Ruling and Reasoning (as described)
- RTC disapproved petitioner’s redelivery bond for failure to satisfy requirements of Sections 5 and 6, Rule 60, effectively treating petitioner’s application as untimely for not being filed within five (5) days from date of seizure.
- RTC’s disposition indicates it treated the five-day period as having