Incomplete Consolidated Casedigests No. 3

7/25/2019 Incomplete Consolidated Casedigests No. 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/incomplete-consolidated-casedigests-no-3 1/28

ASSIGNMENT NO.3 - CASE DIGESTS

(1) Castro

(2)

THOMAS YANG vs THE HONORABLE MARCELINO R. VALDE ET. AL.(G.R. NO. !331! A"#"st 31$ 1%&%)

'ACTS

Respondent spouses Ricardo and Milagros Morante filed an action in the RTCBranch 22 of General Santos City to recover possession of two (2) Isuu Cargo Truc!sagainst "etitioner Tho#as $ang and Manuel $aphuc!on% The truc!s were however registered in the na#e of petitioner Tho#as $angand the sa#e were in the possessionof Manuel$aphuc!on%

&n 'anuary *+,- respondent .udge issued an order of seiure directing the"rovincial Sheriff of South Cota/ato to ta!e i##ediate possession and custody of thevehicles involved%

&n 'anuary *0 *+,- Manuel $aphuc!on fileda #otion see!ing repossession of the cargo truc!s and posted a replevin counter1/ond of "-0000%00 which wasdisapproved on 'anuary *,*+,- /y the respondent .udge%

The respondent spouses a#ended their co#plaint on 'anuary *3 *+,-/ye4cluding Manuel$aphuc!onas party defendant% The trial court ordered the release anddelivery of the cargo truc!s to respondent spouses%

&n 'anuary 2-*+,- petitioner put up a counter1/ond in the a#ount of "-0000%00 which was re.ected /y the respondent .udge for having filed out of ti#e%

ISSES

*% 5hether respondent .udge erred in issuing replevin though the truc!s wereregistered in the na#e of petitioner6

2% 5hether petitioner7s counter1/ond filed out of ti#e6

RLING

The provisional re#edy of replevin is in the nature of possessory action and theapplicant who see!s i##ediate possession of the property involved need not /e the

holder of legal title to the property% It suffices if at the ti#e he applies for a writ of replevin he is in the words of Section 2 Rule 0 entitled to the possession thereof%

Section 2% Rule 0% Affidavit and Bond. 8 The applicant #ust show /y his ownaffidavit or that of so#e other person who personally !nows the facts9

(a) That the applicant is the owner of the property clai#ed particularly descri/ingit or is entitled to the possession thereof:



(/) That the property is wrongfully detained /y the adverse party alleging thecause of detention thereof according to the /est of his !nowledgeinfor#ation and /elief:

(c) That the property has not /een distrained or ta!en for a ta4 assess#ent or afine pursuant to a law or seied under a writ of e4ecution or preli#inary

attach#ent or otherwise placed under custodial egis or if so seied that it ise4e#pt fro# such seiure or custody: and(d) The actual #ar!et value of the property%

;fter defendant had /een duly represented /y counsel even at the inception of the service of su##ons and a copy of the order of replevin on 'anuary *+,-defendant Tho#as $ang had already /een duly served especially so when counsel#anifested in their co##ent to the opposition filed /y the plaintiffs that Manuel$aphuc!on has duly authorie to represent Tho#as $ang% <ro# then on defendantshould have /een on guard as to the provision of Section % Rule 0 the five (-) daysperiod within which to file the counter1replevin for the approval of the court counted

fro# the actual ta!ing of the property /y the sheriff on 'anuary *+,-%

(3) L*a+",a

() D G"/a

(0)

SS. ESTANISLAO vs% EAST EST BANING CORORATION

G%R% =o% *,-3

<e/ruary ** 200,

'ACTS

So#eti#e in 'uly *++ petitioners o/tained a loan fro# the respondent in the a#ountof "3+2-000%00 evidenced /y a pro#issory note and secured /y two deeds of chattel#ortgage dated 'uly *0 *++ one covering two du#p truc!s and a /ulldoer to securethe loan a#ount of "23-000%00 and another covering /ulldoer and a wheel loader to secure the loan a#ount of "*--0000%00% "etitioners defaulted in the a#ortiationsand the entire o/ligation /eca#e due and de#anda/le%

&n ;pril *0 2000 respondent /an! filed a suit /efore the RTC of ;ntipolo for replevinwith da#ages praying that the e>uip#ent covered /y the first deed of chattel #ortgage/e seied and delivered to it% Su/se>uently respondent #oved for suspension of theproceedings on account of an earnest atte#pt to arrive at an a#ica/le settle#ent of thecase% The trial court suspended the proceedings and during the course of negotiations



a deed of assign#ent was drafted stating that ?the ;SSIG=&R is inde/ted to the ;SSIG=@@ in the aggregate su# of "30-A-+%-2 inclusive of accrued interests andpenalties as of ;ugust * 2000 and in full pay#ent thereof the ;SSIG=&R doeshere/y ;SSIG= TR;=S<@R and C&=@$ unto the ;SSIG=@@ those #otor vehicles with all their tools and accessories% That the ;SSIG=@@ here/y accepts the

assign#ent in full pay#ent of the a/ove1#entioned de/t%

Dowever on 'une 20 200* respondent filed a #anifestation and #otion to ad#it ana#ended co#plaint for the seiure and delivery of two #ore heavy e>uip#ent which arecovered under the second deed of chattel #ortgage%

"etitioners sought to dis#iss the a#ended co#plaint% They alleged that their previous

pay#ents on loan a#ortiations the e4ecution of the deed of assign#ent on ;ugust *2000 and respondent7s acceptance of the three units of heavy e>uip#ent had theeffect of full pay#ent or satisfaction of their total outstanding o/ligation which is a /ar onrespondent /an! fro# recovering any #ore a#ounts fro# the#%

The trial court dis#issed the a#ended co#plaint for lac! of #erit% It held that the deedof assign#ent and the petitioners7 delivery of the heavy e>uip#ent effectivelye4tinguished petitioners7 total loan o/ligation%

Epon appeal to the C; /y the respondent the decision of the RTC was reversed%

Dence this petition to the SC%

ISSE

5hether or not respondent is entitled to replevin on the alleged second chattel#ortgage6

HELD



The Court held in the negative% The appellate court erroneously deno#inated thereplevin suit as a collection case% ; reading of the original and a#ended co#plaintsshow that what the respondent initiated was a pure replevin suit and not a collectioncase% Recovery of the heavy e>uip#ent was the principal ai# of the suit: pay#ent of thetotal o/ligation was #erely an alternative prayer which respondent sought in the event

#anual delivery of the heavy e>uip#ent could no longer /e #ade%

Replevin /roadly understood is /oth a for# of principal re#edy and a provisional relief%It #ay refer either to the action itself i%e% to regain the possession of personal chattels/eing wrongfully detained fro# the plaintiff /y another or to the provisional re#edy thatwould allow the plaintiff to retain the thing during the pendency of the action and holdit pendente lite%

The deed of assign#ent was a perfected agree#ent which e4tinguished petitioners7total outstanding o/ligation to the respondent% The deed e4plicitly provides that theassignor (petitioners) Fin full pay#entF of its o/ligation in the a#ount of "30-A-+%-2shall deliver the three units of heavy e>uip#ent to the assignee (respondent) whichFaccepts the assign#ent in full pay#ent of the a/ove1#entioned de/t%F This could only#ean that should petitioners co#plete the delivery of the three units of heavye>uip#ent covered /y the deed respondent7s credit would have /een satisfied in fulland petitioners7 aggregate inde/tedness of "30-A-+%-2 would then /e considered tohave /een paid in full as well%

Since there is no #ore credit to collect no principal o/ligation to spea! of then there is

no #ore second deed of chattel #ortgage that #ay su/sist% ; chattel #ortgage cannote4ist as an independent contract since its consideration is the sa#e as that of theprincipal contract% Being a #ere accessory contract its validity would depend on thevalidity of the loan secured /y it% This /eing so the a#ended co#plaint for replevinshould /e dis#issed /ecause the chattel #ortgage agree#ent upon which it is /asedhad /een rendered ineffectual%

(4) So*a,o

(!) I,#a,

(&)

G.R. No. L-&5&&. Nov67r 2%$ 1%00

ROSITA VELOSO DE OLAYVAR Plaintiff-Appellant v% ARISTOTELESOLAYVAR Defendant-Appellee%



'a+ts

Rosita eloso e &layvar instituted an action against ;ristoteles &layvar in the Court of <irst Instance of Heyte praying that support /e given her and her four children coupledwith a petition for s"88ort 8,9,t */t% But earlier defendant filed a case for legal

separation in Ce/u /etween the sa#e parties on the ground of adultery wherein theright of plaintiff to de#and support is incidentally involved%

efendant in his answer to the later case (Heyte) set up as special defense a/out theirpending case for legal separation in Ce/u%

5hile the separation case in Ce/u is pending the court dee#ed it proper to :o*9 /,a7;a,+ further action on the case for support for the reason that the case in Ce/uFshould have priority in order to ascertain the rights of the parties with particularreference to support in favor of the plaintiff%F The court however #odified later this ruling

on the pre#ise that as the legal separation case #ight ta!e a long ti#e /efore it isfinally disposed of it is i#perative that t: 6attr o< s"88ort 7 #/v, 8r<r,t/a*+o,s/9rat/o,%

;fter the failed atte#pt of the defendant to have this ruling reconsidered he filed a#otion to dis#iss predicated on the sa#e plea that there is /etween the sa#e parties acase for legal separation in the Court of <irst Instance of Ce/u invo!ing in his favor therule that a co#plaint #ay /e dis#issed where Fthere is another action pending /etweenthe sa#e parties for the sa#e cause%F Rule , section *(d)J ;nd on March 2A *+-A thecourt entered an order dis#issing the case in line with the plea of the defendant% This isthe order su/.ect of the present appeal%

Iss"

5hether the defendant7s clai# that an action (support pendente lite) #ay /e dis#issedon the ground that Fthere is another action pending (legal separation) /etween the sa#eparties for the sa#e causeF tena/le%

H*9

$es% The defendant7s clai# is tena/le thus the present action #ust /e dis#issed%

In order that an action #ay /e dis#issed on the ground that Fthere is another actionpending /etween the sa#e parties for the sa#e causeF Rule , section * (d)J thefollowing re>uisites #ust concur9 (*) identity of parties or at least such as representingthe sa#e interests in /oth actions: (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for



the relief /eing founded on the sa#e facts: and (3) the identity in the two cases should/e such that the .udg#ent that #ay /e rendered in one would regardless of which partyis successful a#ount to res ad.udicata in the other% * (Moran Co##ents on the Rulesof Court *+-2 ed% ol% I p% *+%)

o these re>uisites concur in the two cases under consideration6 ;n analysis of thefacts deduci/le fro# the pleadings would reveal an affir#ative answer% =ote that thepresent action is for support not only of plaintiff /ut of her children% The action ispredicated on the infidelity of defendant who /ecause of his propensity towards otherwo#en #ade hi# neglectful of his #arital duties% The case of legal separation on theother hand asserts adultery on the part of plaintiff which is a valid defense against anaction for support% &ur new Civil Code provides that the o/ligation to give support shallcease Fwhen the recipient /e he a forced heir or not has co##itted so#e act whichgives rise to disinheritanceF ;rticle 303 (A)J and under ;rticle +2* of the sa#e Code itshall /e sufficient cause for disinheritance Fwhen the spouse has given cause for legal

separation%F It further appears that in the separation case the wife interposed an answer wherein repudiating the charge of adultery she de#anded that she and her children /egiven the proper #aintenance and support to which they are entitled under the law%

;ll of the foregoing show that the two cases raise practically the sa#e issues% There istherefore no need of prosecuting the# separately and independently for that woulda#ount to duplicity of action% ;nd as it appears that the case of legal separation wasinstituted earlier than the one for support it is fair that the latter /e dis#issed as wascorrectly done /y the lower court%

(%)

Septe#/er *2 *+32

G%R% =o% 3-,IDONAH SLADE ERINS$ plaintiff1appelleevs%EGENE ARTHR ERINS$ defendant1appellant%

<;CTS9

The parties to this action are hus/and and wife #arried in Manila in *+*A and the wifehas entered suit for separate #aintenance% The C<I of Manila granted certain a#ountsfor #aintenance and "*000 for cost of Hitigation% "rior to the resolution of the action forseparate #aintenance filed /y the wife the court ordered for support in certain ite#s ofde/ts advances and living e4penses e4isting at the ti#e of the order fi4ing the #onthlyallowance% Such order is now the su/.ect for appeal% ;ppellee in her /rief has #ovedto dis#iss the appeal contending that the order is interlocutory%

ISSE@9



5hether the e4tent to give support includes pay#ent of certain ite#s de/ts advancesand living e4penses%

REHI=G9

;rticle *A, of the Civil Code reads in part9

?The o/ligation to give support #ay /e enforced whenever the person having a right toclai# it re>uires such assistance for his or her #aintenance: such allowance howevershall only /e paid fro# the date of the filing of the co#plaint and the character and thenature of the support is defined in ;rticle *A2% The pertinent portion thereof reads9

By support is understood all that is necessary for food, shelter, clothing and medical attendance, according to the social standing of the family.

In the opinion of the court so#e of the ite#s are clearly without the rules laiddown in the Code while others #ay /e partly within the rules% So#e in their entirety

long precede the date of the filing of this suit%

5hile the ite# !nown as the ?Manila Dotel is evidently allowa/le in part /eingfor ordinary necessities of life it covers a period /oth /efore and after the filing of thesuit% &thers such as the clai# for #oney loaned to the wife are not within the rule (*3R% C% H% *20+: Ra#ire and e Marcaida vs. Redfern A+ "hil% ,A+)% It is i#possi/lefro# the evidence of record for this court to state how #uch should /e allowed% It isalso noted that no allowance has as yet /een #ade for the period fro# the filing of suitto the date of allowance of te#porary #aintenance two #onths thereafter% It isi#possi/le fro# the evidence of record for this court to state how #uch should /eallowed% It is also noted that no allowance has as yet /een #ade for the period fro# the

filing of suit to the date of allowance of te#porary #aintenance two #onths thereafter%

It /eing i#possi/le for this court to state the a#ount that should /e allowed thecase #ust /e re#anded for further proceedings in accord with the views hereine4pressed and it is so ordered% =o pronounce#ent is #ade regarding costs%

(15)

LORENO MENDOAVs.

GORGONIA ARNGAO$ Ho,ora7* EDARDO GTIERRE DAVID$ ="9# o< '/rstI,sta,+ o< N"va E+/>a$

GABRIEL BELMONTE$ s:r/<< ?-o<</+/o o< N"va E+/>a$ a,9Ho,ora7* MANEL V. MORAN$ Va+at/o, ="9# o< '/rst I,sta,+ o< t: Co"rt o<

N"va E+/>aG.R. No. 24231@ A"#"st !$ 1%24

'ACTS



&n ;ugust *+2- the Court of <irst Instance of =ueva @ci.a rendered .udg#ent in civilcase =o% 3A- of said court in which the herein respondent Gorgonia "aruKgao wasplaintiff and the herein petitioner Horeno Mendoa defendant declaring the #arriage/etween the two null on account of the return of the first hus/and of the petitioner who

had /een though dead after an a/sence of #ore than seven years%

Said .udg#ent annulling the #arriage /eing on appeal on Septe#/er *A *+2-"aruKgao /rought an action in the Court of <irst Instance of =ueva @ci.a againstMendoa in which she alleged the e4istence of certain con.ugal property ac>uiredduring her #arriage with the said petitioner and as!ed for a settle#ent of the sa#e andthe su# of "300 as ali#ony during the pendency of the suit%

The herein respondent and defendant denied generally and specifically the facts allegedtherein%

&n =ove#/er 2 *+2- upon petition of a party the court issued an order directingMendoa during the pendency of the case and fro# the filing of the co#plaint to paythe plaintiff the su# of "-0 #onthly and in advance /y way of support%

&n 'anuary 20 *+2 upon petition of the plaintiff the court issued an order directingthe e4ecution of the order of =ove#/er 2 *+2- granting the said plaintiff support%

&n <e/ruary , *+2 the defendant Horeno Mendoa filed a #otion praying for thereconsideration of said order of =ove#/er 2 *+2-%

&n March 23 *+2 the Court of <irst Instance of =ueva @ci.a issued another order of

e4ecution of the said order of =ove#/er 2 *+2-%

&n March 2A *+2 a writ of e4ecution was issued against the property of thedefendant in order to collect the su# of "32- the total a#ount of the #onthly pay#entsdue fro# Septe#/er *A *+2-%Said writ of e4ecution not having /een co#plied with the Court of <irst Instance of=ueva @ci.a then presided over /y the Donora/le Manuel % Moran vacation .udge on'une , *+2 issued an order citing the defendant Horeno Mendoa the provincialsheriff Manuel Tecson the deputy sheriff Haureano ;>uino and the other sheriffManuel Munsayac to appear and show cause why they should not /e punished forconte#pt for not having co#plied with said writ of e4ecution%

&n 'uly *0 *+2 the Court of <irst Instance of =ueva @ci.a issued an order denying the#otion of the defendant praying that the writs of attach#ent of the dates of 'anuary20th and March 23rd of *+2 respectively /e cancelled%

In its decision of 'uly 23 *+2 this court affir#ed the .udg#ent of the Court of <irstInstance of =ueva @ci.a declaring null and of no effect the #arriage contracted /y the



petitioner Horeno Mendoa and the respondent Gorgonia "aruKgao on <e/ruary *A*+*%

Mendoa then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari against "aruKgao 'udge avid ofthe Court of <irst Instance of =ueva @ci.a e41officio sheriff Ga/riel Bel#onte and 'udge

Moran praying that a preli#inary in.unction /e issued against the respondent sheriffprohi/iting hi# fro# carrying out the sale of the property of the petitioner /y virtue of thewrit of e4ecution issued on March 2A *+2 that the respondents the Donora/leGutierre avid and the Donora/le Manuel % Moran /e ordered to forward to this courtall on the record in said civil case =o% 3+2 of the Court of <irst Instance of =ueva @ci.afor revision #eanwhile prohi/iting the# fro# ta!ing any further action relative to saidcase and in due ti#e to render .udg#ent in favor of the petitioner declaring the order of=ove#/er 2 *+2- void as well as the writ of e4ecution of March 2A *+2%

ISSE

5hether or not the re#edy of filing a petition for certiorari /y Horeno Mendoa isproper%

HELD

In the case now /efore us the order of the Court of <irst Instance of =ueva @ci.a of=ove#/er 2 *+2- #ay /e considered as an order for the pay#ent of "-0 #onthly asan advance pay#ent on account of such share of the con.ugal property as #ay /efound fro# the li>uidation to /elong to Gorgonia "aruKgao% This order however /eingof an interlocutory character and not final (sec% *23 A+t No. 1%5) no writ of e4ecution

can /e issued thereon (sec% AA3A+t No. 1%5

: 23 C% '% 3*A): /ut its un.ustifieddiso/edience #ay constitute conte#pt of court and after the proper proceedingsprescri/ed /y law in such cases #ay /e punished as such%

The issuance of the writs of e4ecution on 'anuary 20 and March 23 *+2 and theorder of 'une , *+2 to show cause in connection with the nonco#pliance of said writsof e4ecution constitutes an e4cess of .urisdiction which is the proper su/.ect1#atter ofthe e4traordinary re#edy of certiorari %

<or the foregoing and not considering it necessary to order the forwarding of the recordto this court the re#edy applied for is granted declaring void the writ of e4ecution ofMarch 23 *+2 and all the proceedings had therein and #a!ing the preli#inaryin.unction issued /y this court a/solute with the costs against the respondents%

(11)

Tr*;,#ra+ R/vra vs. '*or,+/o Var#asG%R% =o% *-,+-'une - 200+

http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act190.html






'a+ts Respondent <lorencio argas (argas) filed a co#plaint against petitioner andseveral 'ohn oes /efore Branch 02 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)in Tuguegarao City Cagayan for the recovery of a *-0 TLD roc! crushing plant locatedin Sariaya ueon% In his co#plaint and affidavit argas clai#s ownership of the said

e>uip#ent having purchased and i#ported the sa#e directly fro# Dyun ae TradingCo% in Seoul South Norea% The e>uip#ent was allegedly entrusted to petitioner7shus/and 'an T% Rivera who died as careta!er of respondents construction aggregates/usiness in Batangas% ;ccording to argas petitioner failed to return the saide>uip#ent after her hus/and7s death despite his repeated de#ands thus forcing hi# toresort to court action% The co#plaint was acco#panied /y a prayer for the issuance of awrit of replevin and the necessary /ond a#ounting to "2A00000%00%

Su##ons was served upon petitioner through her personal secretary at her residencein "araKa>ue City% Interestingly however the writ of replevin was served upon andsigned /y a certain 'oseph Re.u#o the security guard on duty in petitioners crushing

plant in Sariaya ueon contrary to the sheriffs return

stating that the writ was servedupon Rivera%

Rivera filed her answer #anifestation and #otion for the acceptance of petitionersredelivery /ond% In her answer petitioner countered that the roc!1crushing plant wasceded in favor of her hus/and as his share following the dissolution of the partnershipfor#ed /etween 'an Rivera and respondent7s wife Ilu#inada argas (Ilu#inada) whilethe partnerships second roc!1crushing plant in Cagayan was ceded in favor ofIlu#inada% She further averred that fro# the ti#e that the partnership was dissolved until'an Rivera7s death it was petitioner7s hus/and who e4ercised ownership over the saide>uip#ent without any distur/ance fro# respondent%

The RTC issued an &rder disapproving petitioner7s redelivery /ond application forfailure to co#ply with the re>uire#ents under Sections - and of Rule 0 of the Rulesof Court%5ithout directly saying so the RTC faulted petitioner for her failure to file theapplication for redelivery /ond within - days fro# the date of seiure as provided in theRules of Court% "etitioner #oved for reconsideration /ut the sa#e was also denied%

Iss" 5hether the RTC co##itted grave a/use of discretion in denying her counter1/ond on the ground that it was filed out of ti#e%

H*9 Replevin is one of the #ost ancient actions !nown to law ta!ing its na#e fro#the o/.ect of its process% It originated in co##on law as a re#edy against the wrongfule4ercise of the right of distress for rent and according to so#e authorities could only /e#aintained in such a case% But /y the weight of authority the re#edy is not and neverwas restricted to cases of wrongful distress in the a/sence of any statutes relating to thesu/.ect /ut is a proper re#edy for any unlawful ta!ing% Replevied used in its technicalsense #eans delivered to the ownerwhile the words to replevy #eans to recoverpossession /y an action of replevin%



Broadly understood in this .urisdiction replevin is /oth a for# of principal re#edy and of provisional relief% It #ay refer either to the action itself i.e., to regain the possession ofpersonal chattels /eing wrongfully detained fro# the plaintiff /y another or to theprovisional re#edy that would allow the plaintiff to retain the thing during the pendencyof the action and to hold it pendente lite%The action is pri#arily possessory in nature and

generally deter#ines nothing #ore than the right of possession%

The law presu#es that every possessor is a possessor in good faith% De is entitled to /erespected and protected in his possession as if he were the true owner thereof until aco#petent court rules otherwise% Before a final .udg#ent property cannot /e seiedunless /y virtue of so#e provision of law% The Rules of Court under Rule 0 authoriessuch seiure in cases of replevin% Dowever a person see!ing a re#edy in an action forreplevin #ust follow the course laid down in the statute since the re#edy is penal innature% 5hen no atte#pt is #ade to co#ply with the provisions of the law relating toseiure in this !ind of action the writ or order allowing the seiure is erroneous and #ay/e set aside on #otion /y the adverse party% Be it noted however that a #otion to

>uash the writ of replevin goes to the technical regularity of procedure and not to the#erits of the case in the principal action%

The process regarding the e4ecution of the writ of replevin in Section A of Rule 0 isuna#/iguous9 the sheriff upon receipt of the writ of replevin and prior to the ta!ing ofthe property #ust serve a copy thereof to the adverse party (petitioner in this case)together with the application the affidavit of #erit and the replevin /ond% The reasonsare si#ple i.e., to provide proper notice to the adverse party that his property is /eingseied in accordance with the courts order upon application /y the other party andulti#ately to allow the adverse party to ta!e the proper re#edy conse>uent thereto%

Service of the writ upon the adverse party is #andatory in line with the constitutionalguaranty on procedural due process and as safeguard against unreasona/le searchesand seiures% If the writ was not served upon the adverse party /ut was instead #erelyhanded to a person who is neither an agent of the adverse party nor a personauthoried to receive court processes on his /ehalf the service thereof is erroneousand is therefore invalid running afoul of the statutory and constitutional re>uire#ents%The service is li!ewise invalid if the writ of replevin was served without the re>uireddocu#ents% Ender these circu#stances no right to seie and to detain the propertyshall pass the act of the sheriff /eing /oth unlawful and unconstitutional%

"etitioner avers that the writ of replevin was served upon the security guard where theroc!1crushing plant to /e seied was located% The signature of the receiving partyindicates that the writ was received /y a certain 'oseph Re.u#o the guard on duty in aplant in Sariaya ueon where the property to /e seied was located and witnessed/y Claudio "alatino respondents careta!er% The sheriff7s return however pere#ptorilystates that /oth the writ of replevin and the su##ons were served upon Rivera% =ine (+)days after the writ was served on the security guard petitioner filed an answer to theco#plaint acco#panied /y a prayer for the approval of her redelivery /ond% The RTChowever denied the redelivery /ond for having /een filed /eyond the five1day



#andatory period prescri/ed in Sections - and of Rule 0%But since the writ wasinvalidly served petitioner is correct in contending that there is no rec!oning point fro#which the #andatory five1day period shall co##ence to run%

The trial court is re#inded that not only should the writ or order of replevin co#ply with

all the re>uire#ents as to #atters of for# or contents prescri/ed /y the Rules ofCourt%The writ #ust also satisfy proper service in order to /e valid and effective9 i.e. itshould /e directed to the officer who is authoried to serve it: and it should /e servedupon the person who not only has the possession or custody of the property involved/ut who is also a party or agent of a party to the action% Conse>uently a trial court isdee#ed to have acted without or in e4cess of its .urisdiction with respect to the ancillaryaction of replevin if it seies and detains a personalty on the /asis of a writ that wasi#properly served such as what happened in this case%

;t the outset petitioner7s proper re#edy should have /een to file a #otion to >uash thewrit of replevin or a #otion to vacate the order of seiure% =evertheless petitioners filing

of an application for a redelivery /ond while not necessary did not there/y waive herright to >uestion the i#proper service% It now /eco#es i#perative for the trial court torestore the parties to their for#er positions /y returning the seied property to petitionerand /y discharging the replevin /ond filed /y respondent% The trial with respect to the#ain action shall continue% Respondent #ay however file a new application forreplevin should he choose to do so%

(12)

G.R. No. 152%%& ="*; 0$ 1%%4

BA 'INANCE CORORATION$ 8t/t/o,r$vs.HON. CORT O' AEALS a,9 ROBERTO M. REYES$ rs8o,9,ts.

'ACTS

The spouses Reynaldo and <lorencia Manahan e4ecuted on *- May *+,0 apro#issory note /inding the#selves to pay Car#asters Inc% the a#ount of ",30,0%00in thirty1si4 #onthly install#ents co##encing 0* 'uly *+,0% To secure pay#ent theManahan spouses e4ecuted a deed of chattel #ortgage over a #otor vehicle%

Car#asters later assigned the pro#issory note and the chattel #ortgage to petitioner B; <inance Corporation with the confor#ity of the Manahans% 5hen the latter failed topay the due install#ents petitioner sent de#and letters% The de#ands not having /eenheeded petitioner on 02 &cto/er *+, filed a co#plaint for replevin with da#agesagainst the spouses as well as against a 'ohn oe praying for the recovery of thevehicle with an alternative prayer for the pay#ent of a su# of #oney should the vehiclenot /e returned%



Epon petitionerOs #otion and the filing of a /ond in the a#ount of "*+**%00 the lower court issued a writ of replevin% The court however cautioned petitioner that shouldsu##ons /e not served on the defendants within thirty (30) days fro# the writOsissuance the case would /e dis#issed to failure to prosecute% The warning was /ased

on what the court perceived to /e the deplora/le practice of so#e #ortgagees of Ffreeing (the) foreclosure or replevin casesF which they would so Fconveniently utilieas a leverage for the collection of unpaid install#ents on #ortgaged chattels%F

The service of su##ons upon the spouses Manahan was caused to /e served /ypetitioner at =o% 3- Hantana St% Cu/ao ueon City% The original of the su##ons hadthe na#e and the signature of private respondent Ro/erto M% Reyes indicating that hereceived on *A &cto/er *+, a copy of the su##ons and the co#plaint%

"etitioner through its Hegal ;ssistant anilo @% Solano issued a certification to theeffect that it had received fro# &rson R% Santiago the deputy sheriff of the Regional

Trial Court of Manila Branch 20 the <ord Cortina seied fro# private respondentRo/erto M% Reyes the 'ohn oe referred to in the co#plaint in Sorsogon Sorsogon%&n 20 &cto/er *+, the lower court ca#e out with an order of seiure%

;lleging possession in good faith private respondent filed on 2 &cto/er *+, a#otion for an e4tension of ti#e within which to file his answer andLor a #otion for intervention% The court granted the #otion%

; few #onths later or on *, <e/ruary *+,, the court issued dis#issal order for failureto prosecute and further ordering the plaintiff to return the property seied with all itsaccessories to defendant 'ohn oe in the person of Ro/erto M% Reyes as there is no

showing that the principal defendants were served with su##ons inspite of the lapse of four (A) #onths%

&n 2 <e/ruary *+,, petitioner filed a notice of dis#issal of the case Fwithout pre.udiceand without pronounce#ent as to costs /efore service of Su##ons and ;nswer under Section * Rule * of the Rules of Court%F It also sought in another #otion thewithdrawal of the replevin /ond% In view of the earlier dis#issal of the case (for petitionerOs failure to prosecute) the court on 02 March *+,, #erely noted the noticeof dis#issal and denied the #otion to withdraw the replevin /ond considering that thewrit of replevin had #eanwhile /een i#ple#ented%

&n 0+ March *+,, private respondent filed a #otion praying that petitioner /e directedto co#ply with the court order re>uiring petitioner to return the vehicle to hi#% In turnpetitioner filed on *A March *+,, a #otion for the reconsideration of the orders of *,<e/ruary *+,, and 02 March *+,,

&n 20 ;pril *+,, the court granted petitionerOs #otion for reconsideration andaccordingly recalled the order directing the return of the vehicle to private respondentset aside the order dis#issing the case directed petitioner Fto cause the service of



su##ons together with a copy of the co#plaint on the principal defendants within five(-) days fro# receiptF thereof at petitionerOs e4pense and ordered private respondent toanswer the co#plaint%

; few #onths later or on 02 ;ugust *+,, petitioner filed a #otion to declare private

respondent in default% The court granted the #otion on that sa#e day and declaredprivate respondent Fin default for his failure to file the % % % answer within theregle#entary period%F The court li!ewise granted petitionerOs #otion to set the case for the presentation ex parte of evidence% "etitioner thereupon su/#itted the pro#issorynote the deed of chattel #ortgage the deed of assign#ent a state#ent of account inthe na#e of <lorencia Manahan and two de#and letters%

&n 2 <e/ruary *+,+ the trial court rendered a decision dis#issing the co#plaintagainst the Manahans for failure of petitioner to prosecute the case against the#% It alsodis#issed the case against private respondent for failure of petitioner to show any legal/asis for said respondentOs lia/ility as Ro/erto M% Reyes is #erely ancillary de/tor

"etitioner ;ppeal to the C; and contended the su/.ect #otor vehicle was ta!en fro# thepossession of said Ro/erto M% Reyes a third person with respect to the contract of chattel #ortgage /etween the appellant and the defendants spouses Manahan% The C;disagree and su/se>uently denied petitionerOs #otion for reconsideration stating that9

The Civil Code expressly provides that every possessor has a right to berespected in his possession Art. !"#, $e% Civil Code&' that good faith isal%ays presumed, and upon him %ho alleges bad faith on the part of a

possessor rests the burden of proof Art. !(), ibid.&' and that the possession of movable property ac*uired in good faith is e*uivalent to atitle' nevertheless, one %ho has lost any movable or has been unla%fully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of thesame Art. !!#, ibid.&. Thus, it has been held that a possessor in good faith is entitled to be respected and protected in his possession as if he%ere the true o%ner thereof until a competent court rules other%ise Chus+ai vs. apunan, / Phil. ' 0u, et al. vs. +on. +onrado, etc., et al., ##1C2A (")&. 3n the case at bar, the trial court did not err in holding that thecomplaint does not state any cause of action against 2oberto 4. 2eyes,and in ordering the return of the sub5ect chattel to him.

ISSE5hether a #ortgagee can #aintain an action for replevin against any possessor of theo/.ect of a chattel #ortgage even if the latter were not a party to the #ortgage%

HELD

T: Co"rt 9,/9 t: 8t/t/o,.B+a"s t: 8*a/,t/<< as ,ot a7* to sta7*/s: t: ss,t/a* +o,9/t/o,s to ta8ossss/o, t:ro<



; chattel #ortgagee unli!e a pledgee need not /e in nor entitled to the possession of the property unless and until the #ortgagor defaults and the #ortgagee thereuponsee!s to foreclose thereon% Since the #ortgageeOs right of possession is conditionedupon the actual fact of default which itself #ay /e controverted the inclusion of other

parties li!e the de/tor or the #ortgagor hi#self #ay /e re>uired in order to allow a fulland conclusive deter#ination of the case% When the mortgagee seeks a replevin inorder to effect the eventual foreclosure of the mortgage, it is not only theexistence of, but also the mortgagor's default on, the chattel mortgage that,among other things, can properly uphold the right to replevy the property. Theburden to establish a valid justification for that action lies with the plaintiff. Anadverse possessor, who is not the mortgagor, cannot just be deprived of his

possession, let alone be bound by the terms of the chattel mortgage contract,simply because the mortgagee brings up an action for replevin.

Replevin /roadly understood is /oth a for# of principal re#edy and of a provisionalrelief% It #ay refer either to the action itself i %e% to regain the possession of personalchattels /eing wrongfully detained fro# the plaintiff /y another or to the provisionalre#edy that would allow the plaintiff to retain the thing during the pendency of the actionand hold it pendente lite% The action is pri#arily possessory in nature and generallydeter#ines nothing #ore than the right of possession%

Replevin is so usually descri/ed as a #i4ed action /eing partly in rem and partly in personam P in rem insofar as the recovery of specific property is concerned and in personam as regards to da#ages involved% ;s an Faction in remF the gist of thereplevin action is the right of the plaintiff to o/tain possession of specific personal

property /y reason of his /eing the owner or of his having a special interesttherein% Conse>uently the person in possession of the property sought to /e repleviedis ordinary the proper and only necessary party defendant and the plaintiff is notre>uired to so .oin as defendants other persons clai#ing a right on the property /ut notin possession thereof% 2ule 6 of the 2ules of Court allo%s an application for theimmediate possession of the property but the plaintiff must sho% that he has a good legal basis, i.e ., a clear title thereto, for see7ing such interim possession%

*% 5here the r/#:t o< t: 8*a/,t/<< to t: 8ossss/o, o< t: s8+/</+ 8ro8rt; /sso +o,+99 or v/9,t the action need only /e #aintained against hi# who sopossesses the property%

There can /e no >uestion that persons having a special right of property in the goodsthe recovery of which is sought: such as a chattel #ortgagee #ay #aintain an actionfor replevin therefor% 5here the #ortgage authories the #ortgagee to ta!e possessionof the property on default he #ay #aintain an action to recover possession of the#ortgaged chattels fro# the #ortgagor or fro# any person in whose hands he #ay findthe#%In effect then the #ortgagee upon the #ortgagorOs default is constituted an



attorney1in1fact of the #ortgagor ena/ling such #ortgagee to act for and in /ehalf of theowner%

2% In +as t: r/#:t o< 8ossss/o, o, t: 8art o< t: 8*a/,t/<<$ or :/s a"t:or/t;to +*a/6 s"+: 8ossss/o, or t:at o< :/s 8r/,+/8a*$ /s 8"t to #rat 9o"7t (a

contending party #ight contest the legal /ases for plaintiffs cause of action or anadverse and independent clai# of ownership or right of possession is raised /y thatparty) it could /eco#e essential to have other persons involved and accordinglyi#pleaded for a co#plete deter#ination and resolution of the controversy

In a suit for replevin a clear right of possession #ust /e esta/lished% ; foreclosureunder a chattel #ortgage #ay properly /e co##enced only once there is default on thepart of the #ortgagor of his o/ligation secured /y the #ortgage% The replevin in theinstant case has /een sought to pave the way for the foreclosure of the o/.ect covered/y the chattel #ortgage% The conditions essential for that foreclosure would /e to showfirstly the e4istence of the chattel #ortgage and secondly the default of the #ortgagor%

These re>uire#ents #ust /e esta/lished since the validity of the plaintiffs e4ercise of the right of foreclosure are inevita/ly dependent thereon% (1ervice%ide1pecialists 3nc %vs% Court of Appeals et al % G%R% =o% *0330* 0, ece#/er *++-)

(13)

G.R. No. 1&132 =a,"ar; 2&$ 255&

SMART COMMNICATIONS$ INC.$ 8t/t/o,r$vs.REGINA M. ASTORGA$ rs8o,9,t.

'ACTS

R#/,a M. Astor#a (Astor#a) as 68*o;9 7; rs8o,9,t S6artCo66",/+at/o,s$ I,+or8orat9 (SMART) as D/str/+t Sa*s Ma,a#r o< t:Cor8orat Sa*s Mart/,# Gro"8 '/?9 Srv/+s D/v/s/o, (CSMG'SD). Astor#a,>o;9 a99/t/o,a* 7,</ts$ o, o< :/+: /s a +ar 8*a,.

SMART *a",+:9 a, or#a,/at/o,a* ra*/#,6,t to a+:/v 6or <</+/,to8rat/o,s. art o< t: ror#a,/at/o, as t: o"tso"r+/,# o< t: 6art/,# a,9sa*s <or+. T:"s$ SMART ,tr9 /,to a >o/,t v,t"r a#r6,t /t: NTT o<

=a8a,$ a,9 <or69 SMART-NTT M"*t/69/a$ I,+or8orat9 (SNMI). S/,+ SNMI as<or69 to 9o t: sa*s a,9 6art/,# or$ SMART a7o*/s:9 t: CSMG'SD$Astor#as 9/v/s/o,.

To so<t, t: 7*o o< t: ra*/#,6,t$ SNMI a#r9 to a7sor7 t: CSMG8rso,,* :o o"*9 7 r+o66,99 7; SMART. SMART t:, +o,9"+t9 a8r<or6a,+ va*"at/o, o< CSMG 8rso,,* a,9 t:os :o #ar,r9 t: :/#:strat/,#s r <avora7*; r+o66,99 to SNMI. Astor#a *a,99 *ast /, t:



8r<or6a,+ va*"at/o,$ t:"s$ s: as ,ot r+o66,99 7; SMART. SMART$,o,t:*ss$ o<<r9 :r a s"8rv/sor; 8os/t/o, /, t: C"sto6r CarD8art6,t$ 7"t s: r<"s9 t: o<<r 7+a"s t: 8os/t/o, +arr/9 *or sa*ar;ra, a,9 rat.

Ds8/t t: a7o*/t/o, o< t: CSMG'SD$ Astor#a +o,t/,"9 r8ort/,# <or or.SMART /ss"9 a 66ora,9"6 a9v/s/,# Astor#a o< t: tr6/,at/o, o< :r68*o;6,t o, #ro",9 o< r9",9a,+;$

T: tr6/,at/o, o< :r 68*o;6,t 8ro68t9 Astor#a to </* a +o68*a/,t <or/**#a* 9/s6/ssa*$ ,o,-8a;6,t o< sa*ar/s a,9 ot:r 7,</ts /t: 8ra;r <or 6ora*a,9 ?68*ar; 9a6a#s a#a/,st SMART

SMART rs8o,99 t:at t:r as va*/9 tr6/,at/o, a,9 a*so s,t a *ttr toAstor#a 96a,9/,# t:at s: 8a; t: +"rr,t 6art va*" o< t: Ho,9a C/v/+S9a, :/+: as #/v, to :r ",9r t: +o68a,;s +ar 8*a, 8ro#ra6$ or to

s"rr,9r t: sa6 to t: +o68a,; <or 8ro8r 9/s8os/t/o,.

11

Astor#a$ :ovr$<a/*9 a,9 r<"s9 to 9o /t:r$ t:"s 8ro68t/,# SMART to </* a s"/t <or r8*v/,/t: t: R#/o,a* Tr/a* Co"rt o< Maat/ (RTC).

ISSE

ON RTC as +orr+t :, /t ass"69 >"r/s9/+t/o, ovr t: a+t/o, <or R8*v/,</*9 7; SMART.

HELD

YES. eplevin /s a, a+t/o, :r7; t: o,r or 8rso, ,t/t*9 to r8ossss/o,o< #oo9s or +:att*s 6a; r+ovr t:os #oo9s or +:att*s <ro6 o, :o :asro,#<"**; 9/stra/,9 or ta,$ or :o ro,#<"**; 9ta/,s s"+: #oo9s or +:att*s.It /s 9s/#,9 to 8r6/t o, :av/,# r/#:t to 8ossss/o, to r+ovr 8ro8rt; /,s8+/ <ro6 o, :o :as ro,#<"**; ta, or 9ta/,9 t: 8ro8rt;.35 T: tr66a; r<r /t:r to t: a+t/o, /ts*<$ <or t: r+ovr; o< 8rso,a*t;$ or to t:8rov/s/o,a* r69; tra9/t/o,a**; asso+/at9 /t: /t$ 7; :/+: 8ossss/o, o< t:8ro8rt; 6a; 7 o7ta/,9 7; t: 8*a/,t/<< a,9 rta/,9 9"r/,# t: 8,9,+; o< t:a+t/o,.31

Co,trar; to t: CAs rat/o+/,at/o,$ t: RTC r/#:t<"**; ass"69 >"r/s9/+t/o, ovr

t: s"/t a,9 a+t9 ** /t:/, /ts 9/s+rt/o, /, 9,;/,# Astor#as 6ot/o, to9/s6/ss. SMARTs 96a,9 <or 8a;6,t o< t: 6art va*" o< t: +ar or$ /, t:a*tr,at/v$ t: s"rr,9r o< t: +ar$ /s ,ot a *a7or$ 7"t a +/v/*$ 9/s8"t. It /,vo*vst: r*at/o,s:/8 o< 97tor a,9 +r9/tor rat:r t:a, 68*o;-68*o;rr*at/o,s.33 As s"+:$ t: 9/s8"t <a**s /t:/, t: >"r/s9/+t/o, o< t: r#"*ar +o"rts.

I, !asaya, "r. v. #ilitante$3 t:/s Co"rt$ /, "8:o*9/,# t: >"r/s9/+t/o, o< t: RTCovr t: r8*v/, s"/t$ ?8*a/,9

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_148132_2008.html#fnt11












R8*v/, /s a 8ossssor; a+t/o,$ t: #/st o< :/+: /s t: r/#:t o<8ossss/o, /, t: 8*a/,t/<<. T: 8r/6ar; r*/< so"#:t t:r/, /s t: rt"r, o< t: 8ro8rt; /, s8+/ ro,#<"**; 9ta/,9 7; a,ot:r 8rso,. It /s a,or9/,ar; stat"tor; 8ro+9/,# to a9>"9/+at r/#:ts to t: t/t* or 8ossss/o,o< 8rso,a* 8ro8rt;. T: F"st/o, o< :t:r or ,ot a 8art; :as t: r/#:t o<

8ossss/o, ovr t: 8ro8rt; /,vo*v9 a,9 /< so$ :t:r or ,ot t:a9vrs 8art; :as ro,#<"**; ta, a,9 9ta/,9 sa/9 8ro8rt; as torF"/r /ts rt"r, to 8*a/,t/<<$ /s o"ts/9 t: 8a* o< +o68t,+ o< a *a7ortr/7",a* a,9 7;o,9 t: </*9 o< s8+/a*/at/o, o< La7or Ar7/trs.

(1) Bo:o*a,o (s"8ra s ,o. 11)

(10)

ROGER V. NAVARRO vs. HON. =OSE L. ESCOBIDO

'ACTS Respondent Naren T% Go filed two co#plaints /efore the RTC for replevinandLor su# of #oney with da#ages against =avarro% In these co#plaints Naren Goprayed that the RTC issue writs of replevin for the seiure of two (2) #otor vehicles in=avarro7s possession% In his ;nswers =avarro alleged as a special affir#ative defensethat the two co#plaints stated no cause of action since Naren Go was not a party to theHease ;gree#ents with &ption to "urchase (collectively the lease agree#ents) P theactiona/le docu#ents on which the co#plaints were /ased% RTC dis#issed the case/ut set aside the dis#issal on the presu#ption that Glenn Go7s (hus/and) leasing/usiness is a con.ugal property and thus ordered Naren Go to file a #otion for theinclusion of Glenn Go as co1plaintiff as per Rule A Section 3 of the Rules of Court%

=avarro filed a petition for certiorari with the C;% ;ccording to =avarro a co#plaintwhich failed to state a cause of action could not /e converted into one with a cause ofaction /y #ere a#end#ent or supple#ental pleading% C; denied petition%

ISSE 5hether or not Naren Go is a real party in interest%

RLING $@S% Naren Go is the registered owner of the /usiness na#e Nargo@nterprises as the registered owner of Nargo @nterprises Naren Go is the party whowill directly /enefit fro# or /e in.ured /y a .udg#ent in this case% Thus contrary to=avarro7s contention Naren Go is the real party1in1interest and it is legally incorrect tosay that her Co#plaint does not state a cause of action /ecause her na#e did not

appear in the Hease ;gree#ent that her hus/and signed in /ehalf of Nargo @nterprises%Glenn and Naren Go are effectively co1owners of Nargo @nterprises and the propertiesregistered under this na#e: hence /oth have an e>ual right to see! possession ofthese properties% Therefore only one of the co1owners na#ely the co1owner who filedthe suit for the recovery of the co1owned property is an indispensa/le party thereto% Theother co1owners are not indispensa/le parties% They are not even necessary parties fora co#plete relief can /e accorded in the suit even without their participation since thesuit is presu#ed to have /een filed for the /enefit of all co1owners%



5e hold that since Glenn Go is not strictly an indispensa/le party in the action torecover possession of the leased vehicles he only needs to /e i#pleaded as a pro1for#a party to the suit /ased on Section A Rule A of the Rules which states9Section A%Spouses as parties% P Dus/and and wife shall sue or /e sued .ointly e4ceptas provided /y law%

@ven assu#ing that Glenn Go is an indispensa/le party to the action #is.oinder or non1 .oinder of indispensa/le parties in a co#plaint is not a ground for dis#issal of action asper Rule 3 Section ** of the Rules of Court%

(14)

;@=T C;"IT;H ;= <I=;=C@ C&R"&R;TI&= vs R&H;= $&E=G G%R% =o% *,30*, ;ugust 3 20**

<acts9The present controversy ste##ed fro# a replevin suit instituted /y petitioner ;dventagainst respondent $oung to recover the possession of a *++ Mercedes Ben @230

which is registered in ;dvents na#e% "rior to the replevin case ;dvent filed for corporate reha/ilitation with the reha/ilitation court% The court issued an &rder (stayorder) which states that the enforce#ent of all clai#s whether for #oney or otherwiseand whether such enforce#ent is /y court action or otherwise against ;dvent itsguarantors and sureties not solidarily lia/le with it is stayed%

$oung clai#ed a#ong others several e#ployee /enefits allegedly due hi# as ;dventsfor#er president and chief e4ecutive officer% ;dventOs reha/ilitation plan was approvedwhich included in its assets the su/.ect car which re#ained in $oungOs possession at theti#e% The trial court issued a 5rit of Seiure directing the Sheriff to seie the su/.ect car fro# $oung% $oung filed an ;nswer alleging that as a for#er e#ployee of ;dvent he

had the option to purchase the su/.ect car% The trial court dis#issed the replevin caseand $oungOs counterclai#% The C; ruled in favor of $oung and directed the returning thecar to hi#%

Issue95&= the C; co##itted reversi/le error in directing the return of the seied car to$oung

Ruling9The petition is partially #eritorious%

5e agree with the Court of ;ppeals in directing the trial court to return the seied car to$oung since this is the necessary conse>uence of the dis#issal of the replevin case forfailure to prosecute without pre.udice% Epon the dis#issal of the replevin case for failureto prosecute the writ of seiure which is #erely ancillary in nature /eca#e functusofficio and should have /een lifted% There was no ad.udication on the #erits which#eans that there was no deter#ination of the issue who has the /etter right to possessthe su/.ect car% ;dvent cannot therefore retain possession of the su/.ect car consideringthat it was not ad.udged as the prevailing party entitled to the re#edy of replevin%



The dis#issal of the replevin case for failure to prosecute results in the restoration ofthe parties status prior to litigation as if no co#plaint was filed at all% To let the writ ofseiure stand after the dis#issal of the co#plaint would /e ad.udging ;dvent as theprevailing party when precisely no decision on the #erits had /een rendered%

;ccordingly the parties #ust /e reverted to their status >uo ante% Since $oungpossessed the su/.ect car /efore the filing of the replevin case the sa#e #ust /ereturned to hi# as if no co#plaint was filed at all%

(1!)

E'EMIA ALMEDA vs. BATHALA MARETING INDSTRIES

'a+ts Respondent Bathala Mar!eting Industries Inc% as lessee represented /y itspresident renewed its Contract of Hease with ;l#eda as lessor hus/and of petitioner @ufe#ia and father of petitioner Ro#el ;l#eda% Ender the said contract "oncianoagreed to lease a portion of the ;l#eda Co#pound% The contract of lease stated that incase of e4traordinary inflation the value of "hilippine peso at the ti#e of theesta/lish#ent of the o/ligation shall /e the /asis of pay#ent%

uring the effectivity of the contract "onciano died% Thereafter respondent dealt withpetitioners% "etitioners advised respondent that the for#er shall assess and collect ;Ton its #onthly rentals% Respondent opposed petitionersO de#and and insisted that therewas no e4traordinary inflation to warrant the application of ;rticle *2-0 in light of thepronounce#ent of this Court in various cases% Respondent refused to pay the ;T andad.usted rentals as de#anded /y petitioners /ut continued to pay the stipulated a#ountset forth in their contract%

Respondent instituted an action for declaratory relief for purposes of deter#ining thecorrect interpretation of conditions of the lease contract to prevent da#age andpre.udice% "etitioners in turn filed an action for e.ect#ent rescission and da#agesagainst respondent for failure of the latter to vacate the pre#ises after the de#and#ade /y the for#er% "etitioners later #oved for the dis#issal of the declaratory relief case for /eing an i#proper re#edy considering that respondent was already in /reachof the o/ligation and that the case would not end the litigation and settle the rights of theparties% The trial court however was not persuaded and conse>uently denied the#otion%

Iss" 5&= the action for declaratory relief is proper

H*9 $es% eclaratory relief is defined as an action /y any person interested in a deedwill contract or other written instru#ent e4ecutive order or resolution to deter#ine any>uestion of construction or validity arising fro# the instru#ent e4ecutive order or regulation or statute and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder%

;fter petitioners de#anded pay#ent of ad.usted rentals and in the #onths that followedrespondent co#plied with the ter#s and conditions set forth in their contract of lease /ypaying the rentals stipulated therein% Respondent religiously fulfilled its o/ligations to



petitioners even during the pendency of the present suit% There is no showing thatrespondent co##itted an act constituting a /reach of the su/.ect contract of lease%Thus respondent is not /arred fro# instituting /efore the trial court the petition for declaratory relief% Given all these attendant circu#stances the Court is disposed toentertain the instant declaratory relief action instead of dis#issing it notwithstanding the

pendency of the e.ect#entLrescission case /efore the trial court%5ith pre#isesconsidered the petition is @=I@% The ecision of the C; is affir#ed%

(1&)

G.R. No. 1&1353 S8t67r 1!$ 255%

CARMEN DANAO MALANA$ MARIA DANAO ACORDA$ EVELYN DANAO$ 'ERMINADANAO$ LETICIA DANAO a,9 LEONORA DANAO$ t: *ast to ar r8rs,t9:r/, 7; t:/r Attor,;-/,-'a+t$ MARIA DANAO ACORDA$ "etitionersvs%BENIGNO TAA$ =ERRY REYNA$ SATRNINO CAMBRI a,9 SOSES'RANCISCO AND MARIA LIGTAN$Respondents%

CHICO-NAARIO$ ".$

'ACTS "etitioners Car#en anao Malana et al% alleged to /e the owners of a land inTugegarao which they inherited fro# ;nastacio anao% uring the lifeti#e of anao heallowed Consuelo "auig to /uild on and occupy the southern portion of the su/.ectproperty% anao and Consuelo agreed that the latter would vacate the said land at anyti#e that anao and his heirs #ight need it% anao7s heirs clai#ed that respondentsBenigno Tappa et al% continued to occupy the su/.ect property even after ConsueloQs

death /uilding their residences thereon using per#anent #aterials% anao7s heirs alsolearned that Tappa et al% were clai#ing ownership over the su/.ect property% ;verringthat they already needed it anao7s heirs de#anded that respondents vacate thesa#e% The call was unheeded% Meanwhile anao7s heirs referred their land dispute tothe Hupong Tagapa#ayapa% uring the conciliation proceedings respondents assertedthat they owned the su/.ect property and presented docu#ents ostensi/ly supportingtheir clai# of ownership% The heirs opposed this saying that the docu#ents werefalsified and highly du/ious% This notwithstanding Tappa et al% created a cloud upon theheirsQ title to the property% Thus the heirs filed a case for Reivindicacion uieting ofTitle and a#ages in the RTC%

ISSE 5hether the .udge co##it grave a/use of discretion in #otu proprio dis#issingthe co#plaint for lac! of .urisdiction6

RLING =o% "etition is dis#issed% RTC should re#and the records to the MTC%

;n action for declaratory relief should /e filed /y a person interested under a deed awill a contract or other written instru#ent and whose rights are affected /y a statutean e4ecutive order a regulation or an ordinance% The relief sought under this re#edyincludes the interpretation and deter#ination of the validity of the written instru#ent and



the .udicial declaration of the partiesQ rights or duties thereunder% "etitions fordeclaratory relief are governed /y Rule 3% Section * states that an action for therefor#ation of an instru#ent to >uiet title and to consolidate ownership in a sale with aright to repurchase #ay /e /rought under the RTC% These re#edies are consideredsi#ilar to declaratory relief /ecause they result in the ad.udication of the legal rights of

the litigants often without the need of e4ecution% 5hereas the Rules of Court uses#ay the a#ended 'udicial Reorganiation ;ct uses the word shall in deter#ining .urisdiction% 'R; e4plicitly re>uires the MTC to e4ercise e4clusive original .urisdictionover all civil actions which involve title to or possession of real property where theassessed value does not e4ceed "20000 (&MM) or "-0000 (MM)%

In this case the assessed value of the su/.ect property is only "A*0%00: therefore the .urisdiction is with the MTC not the RTC% <urther an action for declaratory reliefpresupposes that there has /een no actual /reach of the instru#ents involved or ofrights arising thereunder% The purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to secure anauthoritative state#ent of the rights and o/ligations of the parties under a statute deedor contract for their guidance in the enforce#ent thereof and not to settle issues arising

fro# an alleged /reach thereof% 5here the law or contract has already /eencontravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief the courts can no longer assu#e .urisdiction over the action% In the present case the case for >uieting of title wasfiled after anao heirs already de#anded and Tappa refused to vacate the su/.ectproperty% Since the heirs had already /een deprived of the possession of their propertythe proper re#edy for the# is the filing of an accion pu/liciana or an accionreivindicatoria not a case for declaratory relief% ;n accion pu/liciana is a suit for therecovery of possession filed one year after the occurrence of the cause of action orfro# the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty% 'urisdiction over such anaction would depend on the value of the property involved% Given that the property isonly at "A*0%00 then the MTC not the RTC has .urisdiction over an action to recover

the sa#e%

(1%) A7a7a

(25) Castro

(21)

GAMBOA vs TEVES(G.R. NO. 1!40!% =", 2&$ 2511)

'ACTS

"HT was granted a franchise to engage in the teleco##unications /usiness in*+2, through ;ct =o% 3A3% uring the Martial Haw 2 percent of the outstandingco##on shares were sold /y General Telephone and @lectronics Corporation (GT@ an

;#erican Co#pany) to "hilippine Teleco##unications Invest#ent Corporation ("TIC)who in turn assigned ***A*- shares os atoc! of "TIC (A percent of outstanding capital



stoc!) to "ri#e Doldings Inc% ("DI)% These shares of "TIC were later se>uestered /y"CGG and ad.udged /y the court to /elong to the Repu/lic%

<ifity four (-A) percent shares were sold to Dong Nong1/ased fir# <irst "acificand the re#aining A percent was sold through pu/lic /idding /y the Inter1agency

"rivatiation Council and eventually ended up /eing /ought /y <irst "acific su/sidiaryMetro "acific ;ssets Doldings Inc% (M";D) after the corporation e4ercise its first refusal%The transaction was an indirect sale of *2 #illion shares or %3 percent of theoutstanding co##on shares of "HT #a!ing <irst "acific7s co##on shareholdings of "HT to 3 percent and the total co##on shareholdings of foreigners in "HT to ,*%Apercent% 'apanese =TT oCoMo owns -*%- percent of the other foreignshareholdingsLe>uty%

"etitioner ga#/oa alleged that the sale of ***A*- shares to M";D violates Sec%** of ;rt% II of the Constitution which li#its foreign ownership of the capital of a pu/licutility to not #ore than A0 percent%

ISSE

5hether petitioner7s choice of re#edy was proper6

RLING

=&% Dowever since the threshold and purely legal issue on the definition of theter# Qcapital7 in Section ** ;rticle II of the Constitution has far1reaching i#plications tothe national econo#y the Court treats the petition for declaratory relief as one for #anda#us% It is well settled that this Court #ay treat a petition for declaratory relief as

one for #anda#us if the issue involved has far1reaching i#plications%

(22) L*a+",a

(23)

LCIANO VELOSO$ ABRAHAM CABOCHAN$ =OCELYN DAIS-ASNCION ANDMARLON M. LACSON$ P8T3T39$821

S%COMMISSION ON ADIT

281P9$D8$T

'ACTS &n ece#/er 2000 the City Council of Manila enacted &rdinance =o%,0A0 entitled An 9rdinance Authori:ing the Conferment of 8xemplary Public 1ervice

A%ard to 8lective ;ocal 9fficials of 4anila <ho +ave Been 8lected for Three "&Consecutive Terms in the 1ame Position% Section 2 thereof provides9

18C. (. The 8P1A shall consist of a Pla*ue of Appreciation, retirement andgratuity pay remuneration e%uivalent to the actual time served in the position forthree &( consecutive terms, sub5ect to the availability of funds as certified by the City



Treasurer. P29=3D8D, That >it? shall be accorded to *ualified elected City 9fficials onor before the first day of service in an appropriated public ceremony to be conducted for the purpose. P29=3D8D @2T+82, That this 9rdinance shall only cover the Positionof 4ayor, =ice-4ayor and Councilor P29=3D8D @2T+824928, That those %ho%ere elected for this term and run for higher elective position thereafter, after being

elected shall still be eligible for this a%ard for the actual time served P29=3D8D@3$A;;0 That the necessary and incidental expenses needed to implement the provisions of this 9rdinance shall be appropriated and be included in the executivebudget for the year %hen any city official %ill *ualify for the A%ard.>/?

;tty% Ga/riel '% @spina (;tty% @spina) Supervising ;uditor of the City of Manila issued ;udit &/servation Me#orandu# (;&M) =o% 200-1*00(0-)0(0-)J with the followingo/servations9

*% The initial pay#ent of #onetary reward as part of @4e#plary "u/lic Service ;ward (@"S;) a#ounting to "++232-%00 to for#er councilors of the City

Govern#ent of Manila who have /een elected for three (3) consecutive ter#s tothe sa#e position as authoried /y City &rdinance =o% ,0A0 /s /t:o"t *#a*7as/s.

2% The a6o",t #ra,t9 as #onetary reward is ?+ss/v a,9 ta,ta6o",t to9o"7* +o68,sat/o, in contravention to ;rticle *0 (c) of the IRR of R; *0which provides that no elective or appointive local official shall receive additionaldou/le or indirect co#pensation unless specifically authoried /y law%

3% The appropriations for retire#ent gratuity to i#ple#ent @"S; ordinance as+*ass/</9 as Ma/,t,a,+ a,9 Ot:r O8rat/,# E?8,ss /,sta9 o<rso,a* Srv/+s contrary to Section olu#e III of the Manual on the =ewGovern#ent ;ccounting Syste# (=G;S) for local govern#ent units and C&;

Circular =o% 200A100, dated Septe#/er 20 200A which provide the updateddescription of accounts under the =G;S% J

;fter evaluation of the ;&M the irector Hegal and ;d.udication &ffice C&; /ss"9 =otice of disallowance =o% 010*01*0010-,J dated May 2A 200%

The for#er councilors filed a Motion to Hift the =otice of isallowance which wasfavored /y the Hegal and ;d.udication &ffice the pertinent portion of the decision9

Citing Article ) of the 3mplementing 2ules and 2egulations 322& the ;egal and Ad5udication 9ffice held that the monetary re%ard given to the former councilors can be

one of gratuity and, therefore, cannot be considered as additional, double or indirectcompensation. iving importance to the principle of local autonomy, the ;A9-localupheld the po%er of local government units ;s& to grant allo%ances. 4oreimportantly, it emphasi:ed that the Department of Budget and 4anagement DB4& didnot disapprove the appropriation for the 8P1A of the City %hich indicate that the sameis valid.> *2J

Epon review the C&; rendered the assailed ecision =o% 200,10,, s"sta/,/,# Not/+o< D/sa**oa,+ =o% 010*01*0010- 1 The #otion for reconsideration was li!ewise



denied% The C&; opined that the #onetary reward under the @"S; is covered /y theter# Fco#pensation%F Though it recognies the local autono#y of HGEs it e#phasiedthe li#itations thereof set forth in the Salary Standardiation Haw (SSH)% It e4plainedthat the SSH does not authorie the grant of such #onetary reward or gratuity% It alsostressed the a/sence of a specific law passed /y Congress which ordains the

confer#ent of such #onetary reward or gratuity to the for#er councilors% In response tothe >uestion on its .urisdiction to rule on the legality of the dis/urse#ent the C&; heldthat it is vested /y the Constitution the power to deter#ine whether govern#ent entitiesco#ply with laws and regulations in dis/ursing govern#ent funds and to disallowirregular dis/urse#ents% J

"etitioners insist that the power and authority of the C&; to audit govern#ent funds andaccounts does not carry with it in all instances the power to disallow a particulardis/urse#ent%20J (Citing uevara v. imene: & and that that the C&; has no discretionor authority to disapprove pay#ents on the ground that the sa#e was unwise or that thea#ount is unreasona/le% The C&;Os re#edy according to petitioners is to /ring to theattention of the proper ad#inistrative officer such e4penditures that in its opinion are

irregular unnecessary e4cessive or e4travagant

;ggrieved petitioners through s8+/a* +/v/* a+t/o, <or certiorari a**#/,# #rav a7"so< 9/s+rt/o, on the part of the C&; clai#ing that The respondent Co##ission on

;udit did not only co##it a reversi/le error /ut was in fact guilty of grave a/use ofdiscretion a#ounting to lac! or e4cess of .urisdiction when it ruled that the #onetaryaward given under the @"S; parta!es of the nature of an additional co#pensationprohi/ited under the Salary Standardiation Haw and other e4isting laws rules andregulations and not a GR;TEIT$ Fvoluntarily given in return for a favor or servicesrendered purely out of generosity of the giver or grantor% ;part fro# /eing totallyo/livious of the fact that the #onetary award given under the @"S; was intended or

given in return for the e4e#plary service rendered /y its recipient(s) the respondentC&; further co##itted grave a/use of discretion :, /t <<+t/v*; ,"**/</9 a 9"*;-,a+t9 or9/,a,+ :/+: /s ss,t/a**; a >"9/+/a* <",+t/o,%

ISSE whether the C&; co##itted grave a/use of discretion in affir#ing thedisallowance of "++232-%00

HELD9 It is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions ofad#inistrative authorities especially one which is constitutionally1created not only onthe /asis of the doctrine of separation of powers /ut also for their presu#ed e4pertise inthe laws they are entrusted to enforce%

<indings of ad#inistrative agencies are accorded not only respect /ut also finality whenthe decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or ar/itrariness that would a#ountto grave a/use of discretion%

It is only when the C&; has acted without or in e4cess of .urisdiction or with gravea/use of discretion a#ounting to lac! or e4cess of .urisdiction that this Court entertainsa petition >uestioning its rulings%



T:r /s #rav a7"s o< 9/s+rt/o, :, t:r /s a, vas/o, o< a 8os/t/v 9"t; or av/rt"a* r<"sa* to 8r<or6 a 9"t; ,>o/,9 7; *a or to a+t /, +o,t68*at/o, o< *aas :, t: >"9#6,t r,9r9 /s ,ot 7as9 o, *a a,9 v/9,+ 7"t o, +a8r/+$:/6 a,9 9s8ot/s6 In this case we find no grave a/use of discretion on the part ofthe C&; in issuing the assailed decisions

(2)

Br,9a L. Naart: vs% Ho,. R;,a*9o A. V/**ar G%R% =o% *,,3-'anuary 2+ 20*3

'ACTS=o #oney shall /e paid out of the Treasury e4cept in pursuance of an appropriation#ade /y law% ; violation of this constitutional edict warrants the disallowance of thepay#ent% Dowever the refund of the disallowed pay#ent of a /enefit granted /y law toa covered person agency or office of the Govern#ent #ay /e /arred /y the good faithof the approving official and of the recipient%

Being assailed /y petition for certiorari on the ground of its /eing issued with gravea/use of discretion a#ounting to lac! or e4cess of .urisdiction is the decision renderedon 'une A 200+ /y the Co##ission on ;udit (C&;) in C&; Case =o% 200+10A- entitled"etition of Ms% Brenda H% =aareth Regional irector epart#ent of Science andTechnology Regional &ffice =o% I a#/oanga City for review of Hegal and

;d.udication &ffice (H;&)1=ational ecision =o% 200-130, dated Septe#/er *- 200-and H;&1=ational Resolution =o% 200130,; dated May *2 200 on disallowances of su/sistence laundry haard and other /enefits in the total a#ount of "3-+**30%3

affir#ing the issuance of notices of disallowance (=s) /y the ;udit Tea# Header of C&; Regional &ffice =o% I in a#/oanga City against the pay#ent of /enefits tocovered officials and e#ployees of the epart#ent of Science and Technology (&ST)for calendar year (C$) 200* out of the savings of the &ST%

The petitioner &ST Regional irector here/y see!s to declare the decision dated 'uneA 200+ Fnull and voidF and prays for the lifting of the disallowance of the pay#ent of the /enefits for C$200* for /eing within the a#/it of Repu/lic ;ct =o% ,A3+ (R%;% =o%,A3+) otherwise !nown as the Magna Carta for Scientists @ngineers Researchersand other Science and Technology "ersonnel in the Govern#ent (Magna Carta for short) and on the strength of the Me#orandu# of @4ecutive Secretary Ronaldo B%

a#ora dated ;pril *2 2000 authoriing the use of the savings for the purpose%

Dence this special civil action for certiorari with the petitioner insisting that the C&;gravely a/used its discretion a#ounting to lac! or e4cess of .urisdiction in affir#ing thedisallowance of the Magna Carta /enefits for C$ 200* despite the provisions of R%;%=o% ,A3+ and in ruling that the Me#orandu# of ;pril *2 2000 did not cover thepay#ent of the Magna Carta /enefits for C$ 200*%



ISSE5hether the special civil action for certiorari is #eritorious6

HELD

The Court held in the negative% The C&; is endowed with sufficient latitude todeter#ine prevent and disallow the irregular unnecessary e4cessive e4travagant or unconsciona/le e4penditures of govern#ent funds% It has the power to ascertainwhether pu/lic funds were utilied for the purposes for which they had /een intended /ylaw% The FConstitution has #ade the C&; the guardian of pu/lic funds vesting it with/road powers over all accounts pertaining to govern#ent revenue and e4penditures andthe uses of pu/lic funds and property including the e4clusive authority to define thescope of its audit and e4a#ination to esta/lish the techni>ues and #ethods for suchreview and to pro#ulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulationsF

&nly when the C&; has acted without or in e4cess of .urisdiction or with grave a/use of discretion a#ounting to lac! or e4cess of .urisdiction #ay the Court entertain and granta petition for certiorari /rought to assail its actions% Section * of Rule - Rules of Courtde#ands that the petitioner #ust show that one the tri/unal /oard or officer e4ercising

.udicial or >uasi1.udicial functions acted without or in e4cess of .urisdiction or with gravea/use of discretion a#ounting to lac! or e4cess of .urisdiction and two there is neither an appeal nor any plain speedy and ade>uate re#edy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of a#ending or nullifying the proceeding% Inas#uch as the sole office of thewrit of certiorari is the correction of errors of .urisdiction which includes the co##ission

of grave a/use of discretion a#ounting to lac! of .urisdiction the petitioner shouldesta/lish that the C&; gravely a/used its discretion% The a/use of discretion #ust /egrave which #eans either that the .udicial or >uasi1.udicial power was e4ercised in anar/itrary or despotic #anner /y reason of passion or personal hostility or that therespondent .udge tri/unal or /oard evaded a positive duty or virtually refused toperfor# the duty en.oined or to act in conte#plation of law such as when such .udgetri/unal or /oard e4ercising .udicial or >uasi1.udicial powers acted in a capricious or whi#sical #anner as to /e e>uivalent to lac! of .urisdiction% Mere a/use of discretion isnot enough to warrant the issuance of the writ%

Section of R% ;% =o% ,A3+ confers the Magna Carta /enefits consisting of additionalallowances and /enefits to &ST officers and e#ployees such as honorariu# share inroyalties haard su/sistence laundry and housing and >uarter allowances longevitypay and #edical e4a#ination% But the Magna Carta /enefits will re#ain #erely paper /enefits without the corresponding allocation of funds in the G;;%



;s we see it the C&; correctly ruled on the #atter at hand% ;rticle I Section 2+ (*) of the *+, Constitution fir#ly declares that9 F=o #oney shall /e paid out of the Treasurye4cept in pursuance of an appropriation #ade /y law%F This constitutional edict re>uiresthat the G;; /e purposeful deli/erate and precise in its provisions and stipulations% ;ssuch the re>uire#ent under Section 20 of R%;% =o% ,A3+ that the a#ounts needed to

fund the Magna Carta /enefits were to /e appropriated /y the G;; only #eant thatsuch funding #ust /e purposefully deli/erately and precisely included in the G;;% Thefunding for the Magna Carta /enefits would not #aterialie as a #atter of course si#ply/y fiat of R%;% =o% ,A3+ /ut #ust initially /e proposed /y the officials of the &ST asthe concerned agency for su/#ission to and consideration /y Congress% That processis what co#plies with the constitutional edict% R%;% =o% ,A3+ alone could not fund thepay#ent of the /enefits /ecause the G;; did not #irror every provision of law thatreferred to it as the source of funding%

The petitioner dis#ally failed to discharge her /urden% 5e conclude and declaretherefore that the C&;7s assailed decision was issued in steadfast co#pliance of its

duty under the Constitution and in the .udicious e4ercise of its general audit power conferred to it /y the Constitution%

Date post:	26-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	karen-abella
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Incomplete Consolidated Casedigests No. 3

Documents