[G.R. NO.

165895 : June 5, 2009]

TERLYNGRACE RIVERA, Petitioner, v. FLORENCIO L. VARGAS, Respondent.

A claims ownership of an equipment, having purchased and imported the same directly from Korea in 1993.
The equipment was allegedly entrusted to B's husband, C, who died 2002, as caretaker of respondent's
construction aggregates business. According to A, B failed to return the said equipment after her husband's
death despite his repeated demands, thus forcing him to resort to court action. The complaint was
accompanied by a prayer for the issuance of a writ of replevin and the necessary bond.

Summons was served upon B through her personal secretary at her residence in Parañaque. Interestingly,
however, the writ of replevin was served upon and signed by a certain D, the security guard on duty in B's
crushing plant in Quezon, contrary to the sheriff's return stating that the writ was served upon Rivera.

Was the writ of replevin that is improperly served?

Yes

Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court provides that,

Section 4. Duty of the sheriff. — Upon receiving such order, the sheriff must serve a copy
thereof on the adverse party, together with a copy of the application, affidavit and bond, and must
forthwith take the property, if it be in the possession of the adverse party, or his agent, and retain
it in his custody. If the property or any part thereof be concealed in a building or enclosure, the
sheriff must demand its delivery, and if it be not delivered, he must cause the building or enclosure
to be broken open and take the property into his possession. After the sheriff has take possession
of the property as herein provided, he must keep it in a secure place and shall be responsible for
its delivery to the party entitled thereto upon receiving his fees and necessary expenses for taking
and keeping the same.

Replevin is one of the most ancient actions known to law, taking its name from the object of its process. It
originated in common law as a remedy against the wrongful exercise of the right of distress for rent and,
according to some authorities, could only be maintained in such a case. But by the weight of authority, the
remedy is not and never was restricted to cases of wrongful distress in the absence of any statutes relating
to the subject, but is a proper remedy for any unlawful taking. "Replevied," used in its technical sense,
means delivered to the owner, while the words "to replevy" means to recover possession by an action of
replevin.

A.M. No. P-04-1920 August 17, 2007

SPOUSES NORMANDY and RUTH BAUTISTA, Complainants,

vs. ERNESTO L. SULA, Sheriff IV, Respondent.
A borrowed huge amount of money from B over which she executed a chattel mortgage over her car. A
failed to repay her debt or surrender the vehicle. Hence, B filed a civil cause of judicial foreclosure of chattel
mortgage with prayer for the issuance of replevin. The court issued a writ of replevin directing the sheriff
to take possession of the car and keep it in his custody for 5 days.

Later on, the Court found that respondent erred when he released the vehicle to B without waiting for the
trial court’s instructions on who had a better right over the vehicle.

Did sheriff erred when he delivered the vehicle to B without waiting for the trial court’s instructions on the
matter?

Yes.

Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court provides that,

Section 4. Duty of the sheriff. — Upon receiving such order, the sheriff must serve a copy
thereof on the adverse party, together with a copy of the application, affidavit and bond, and must
forthwith take the property, if it be in the possession of the adverse party, or his agent, and retain
it in his custody. If the property or any part thereof be concealed in a building or enclosure, the
sheriff must demand its delivery, and if it be not delivered, he must cause the building or enclosure
to be broken open and take the property into his possession. After the sheriff has take possession
of the property as herein provided, he must keep it in a secure place and shall be responsible for
its delivery to the party entitled thereto upon receiving his fees and necessary expenses for taking
and keeping the same.

The property seized under a writ of replevin is not to be delivered immediately to the plaintiff. The sheriff
must retain it in his custody for five days and he shall return it to the defendant, if the latter, as in the
instant case, requires its return and files a counter-bond.

It must be stressed that the prerogatives of Sheriffs do not give them any discretion to determine who
among the parties is entitled to possession of the subject property. The appropriate course of action should
have been for respondent to wait for the instructions of the court as to whom he will release the property
since he had already asked for its guidance through his Manifestation which was submitted to the court
virtually. Yet the following morning, he suddenly decided to release the car to the plaintiff without waiting
for any court order on the matter.

G.R. No. 131283 October 7, 1999

OSCAR C. FERNANDEZ and NENITA P. FERNANDEZ, petitioners,

vs. THE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, now UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES; and PREMIERE
INSURANCE & SURETY CORP., respondents.

A purchased a car through a financing scheme of the B, the International Corporate Bank, now Union
Bank of the Philippines, and the chattel mortgage was executed in favor of the financing institution. The
cash purchase price was P492,000.00, minus the downpayment of P147,500.00, leaving the amount of
P344,500.00 to be financed. The total amount to be paid for 48 monthly installments would amount to
P553,944.00.

A added that due to the bank's "greedy desire" to unjustly enrich itself at the expense of the A, A filed an
unfounded complaint for a sum of money with replevin before the MTC, considering that the principal
amount involved was P553,944.00,

The Court of Appeals ruled that A has a period of 5 days to post a re-delivery bond, in order to secure the
return of the subject vehicle and to post a counter bond double the amount of the chattel. In this respect,
A failed to exercise his right.

Did the Court of Appeals grievously erred?

No.

A failed to comply with the requisites for the redelivery of the vehicle seized. A careful perusal of the
records shows that petitioners failed to comply with the requirements prescribed by Rule 60 of the Rules
of Court:

Sec. 5. Return of Property. — If the defendant objects to the sufficiency of the plaintiff's
bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon, he cannot require the return of the property as in this
section provided; but if he does not so object, he may, at any time before the delivery of the
property to the plaintiff, require the return thereof, by filing with the clerk or judge of the court a
bond executed to the plaintiff, in double the value of the property as stated in the plaintiff's
affidavit, for the delivery of the property to the plaintiff, if such delivery be adjudged, and for the
payment of such sum to him as may be recovered against the defendant, and by serving a copy of
such bond on the plaintiff or his attorney.

Sec. 6. Disposition of property by officer. — If within five (5) days after the taking of the
property by the officer, the defendant does not object to the sufficiency of the bond, or of the
surety or sureties thereon; or require the return of the property as provided in the last preceding
section; or if the defendant so objects, and the plaintiff's first or new bond is approved; or if the
defendant so requires, and his bond is objected to and found insufficient and he does not
forthwith file an approved bond, the property shall be delivered to the plaintiff. If for any reason
the property is not delivered to the plaintiff, the officer must return it to the defendant.

A plainly admit that they issued a check for only P69,168 for the purpose of covering the advance
payments plus the redelivery bond. Clearly, that amount was insufficient to cover even just the required
redelivery bond alone, which should be in an amount double that of the chattel. Hence, the MTC's refusal
to grant petitioners' Motion for redelivery was correct, and the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding
it.