G.R. No.

205998

WILLIAM ANGIDAN SIY, Petitioner

vs.
ALVIN TOMLIN, Respondent

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the October 9, 2012 Decision2 and February 19, 2013 Resolution3 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) which respectively granted the respondent's Petition for Certiorari and denied petitioner1s
Motion for Reconsideration4 in CA-G.R. SP No. 124967.

Factual Antecedents

In July, 2011, petitioner William Anghian Siy filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC) a Complaint
for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Replevin 5 against Frankie Domanog Ong (Ong), Chris Centeno
(Centeno), John Co Chua (Chua), and herein respondent Alvin Tomlin. The case was docketed as Civil Case No.
Q-11-69644 and assigned to RTC Branch 224.

In his Complaint, petitioner alleged that he is the owner of a 2007 model Range Rover with Plate Number ZMG 272
which he purchased from alberto Lopez III (Lopez) on July 22, 2009; that in 2010, he entrusted the said vehicle to
Ong, a businessman who owned a second-hand car sales showroom ("Motortrend" in Katipunan, Quezon City),
after the latter claimed that he had a prospective buyer therefor; that Ong failed to remit the proceeds of the
purported sale nor return the vehicle; that petitioner later found out that the vehicle had been transferred to Chua;
that in December, 2010, petitioner filed a complaint before the Quezon City Police District's Anti-Carnapping Section;
that Ong, upon learning of the complaint, met with petitioner to arrange the return of the vehicle; that Ong still failed
to surrender the vehicle; that petitioner learned that the vehicle was being transferred to respondent; and that the
vehicle was later impounded and taken into custody by the PNP-Highway Patrol Group (HPG) at Camp Crame,
Quezon City after respondent attempted to process a PNP clearance of the vehicle with a view to transferring
ownership thereof. Petitioner thus prayed that a writ of replevin be issued for the return of the vehicle to him, and
that the defendants be ordered to pay him ₱100,000.00 atton1ey's fees and the costs of suit.

After hearing the application, the trial court issued a July 29, 2011 Order 6 decreeing as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, and with the ADMISSION of the plaintiff's Documentary Exhibits in support
of this Application, issue a Writ of Replevin in favor of the plaintiff subject to the posting of the bond in the amount of
EIGHT MILLION PESOS (Php8,000,000.00) to be executed in favor of the defendants for the return of the said
property if such return be adjudged, and for the payment to the adverse parties of such sum as they may recover
from the applicant in this action.

SO ORDERED.7

Petitioner posted the required ₱8 million bond8 which was approved by the trial court.9 A Writ of Replevin10 was then
issued.

The subject vehicle was seized by the court-appointed special sheriff who then filed the corresponding Sheriff's
Return. 11

On August 17, 2011, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion 12 seeking to quash the Writ of Replevin, dismiss the
Complaint, and turn over or return the vehicle to him. Respondent claimed that he is the lawful and registered owner
of the subject vehicle, having bought the same and caused registration thereof in his name on March 7, 2011; that
the Complaint in Civil Case No. Q-11-69644 should be dismissed for failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees;
that the Complaint is defective for failing to allege the correct and material facts as to ownership,
possession/detention by defendant, warranty against distraint/levy/seizure, and actual value of the vehicle; and that
the implementation of the writ was attended by procedural irregularities.
Particularly, respondent argued that petitioner could not prove his ownership of the vehicle as the only pieces of
evidence he presented in this regard were a manager's check and cash voucher as proof of payment, and the
affidavit of Lopez attesting to the sale between him and petitioner which are insufficient; that in fact, he is the
registered owner of the vehicle, as shown by the Official Receipt and Certificate of Registration 13 dated March 7,
2011 issued in his name by the Land Transportation Office (LTO); that it has not been shown that he wrongfully
detained the vehicle, as petitioner was never in possession thereof, since the same was already detained and
seized by the HPG at the time; that petitioner failed to allege, as required under Section 2 of Rule 60 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure 14 (1997 Rules), that the vehicle has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a
fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under
custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody; and that petitioner failed to allege the
actual market value (₱4 million) of the vehicle, and instead, he intentionally understated its value at only ₱2 million in
order to avoid paying the correct docket fees.

As for the alleged procedural defects, respondent claimed that the sheriff implemented the writ against the HPG,
which is not a party to the case; that the Complaint must be dismissed for failure to pay the correct docket foes
based on the actual value of the vehicle; and that the trial court acted with undue haste in granting the writ of
replevin.

Finally, respondent argued that he is the true owner of the subject vehicle as he was able to register the transfer in
his favor and obtain a certificate of registration in his name; and that as between petitioner's documentary evidence
and his official registration documents, the latter should pre Petitioner filed his Opposition/Comment 15 to the
omnibus motion.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On November 21, 2011, the trial court issued an Order16 denying respondent's Omnibus Motion for lack of merit. It
held that respondent's remedy is not to move to quash the writ of replevin, but to post a counterbond within the
reglementary period allowed under the 1997 Rules; that for failure to post said, counterbond, respondent's prayer for
the return of the vehicle to him is premature; that the issues of ownership and insufficiency of the allegations in the
complaint are best determined during trial; and that an allegation of undervaluation of the vehicle cannot divest the
court of jurisdiction.

Respondent moved for reconsideration, but he was rebuffed just the same.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari17 before the CA docketed as CAG. R. SP No. 124967 claiming as he did in
his Omnibus Motion that the trial court should have dismissed Civil Case No. Q-11-69644 on account of failure to
pay the correct docket fees, defective complaint, procedural irregularities in the service of the writ of replevin, the
fact that he is the registered owner of the subject vehicle, and for the reason that the trial court irregularly took
cognizance of the case during the period for inventory of its cases. Respondent sought injunctive relief as well.

On October 9, 2012, the CA rendered the assailed Decision granting the Petition. It held that the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the instant case for failure of petitioner to pay the correct docket fees, since petitioner
misdeclared the value of the subject vehicle at only ₱2 million in his Complaint, when the market value thereof was
around ₱4.5 million to ₱5 million; that this misdeclaration was undertaken with the clear intention to defraud the
government; and that petitioner failed to comply with the requirements under Section 2, Rule 60 of the 1997 Rules,
in that he gave a grossly inadequate value for the subject vehicle in the Complaint and failed to allege therein that
the vehicle has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of
execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under custodia legis.

The CA added that it was improper for the sheriff to serve a copy of the writ of replevin upon the respondent on the
day following the seizure of the subject vehicle, and not prior to the taking thereof; that the trial court is deemed to
have acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it seized and detained the vehicle on the basis of an
improperly served writ; and that respondent was correct in moving to quash the writ, as the proper remedy in case of
an improperly served writ of replevin is to file a motion to quash the same or a motion to vacate the order of seizure,
and not to file a counterbond as the trial court declared.
The CA thus decreed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari is hereby GRANTED with the following
effects:

1) [T]he Order dated 21 November 2011 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Bnmch 224 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE;

2) [T]he Order dated 13 March 2012 similarly rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE;

3) Civil Case No. Q-11-69644 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224 is hereby
DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction;

4) The subject Range Rover with plate number ZMG 272 should be RETURNED to the Philippine National
Police-Highway Patrol Group for its proper disposition and finally;

5) Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction is DENIED for being
moot and academic.

SO ORDERED.18

Petitioner moved to reconsider, but in its assailed February 19, 2013 Resolution, the CA remained unconvinced.
Hence, the present Petition.

19
In a November 10, 2014 Resolution, this Court resolved to give due course to the Petition.

Issues

Petitioner pleads the following assignment of errors:

I.

WHETHER XX X THE TRIAL COURT HAS ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
COIV1PLAINT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION WITH PRAYER FOR REPLEVIN.

II.

WHETHER XXX THE PETITIONER FAILED TO ALLEGE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS IN THE COMPLAINT FOR
REPLEVIN AND AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT UNDER SECTIONS 2 & 4, RULE 60 OF THE REVISED RULES OF
COURT.

III.

WHETHER X X X TIIE SHERIFF PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED THE WRIT OF REPLEVIN BY SERVING THE SAME
TO ANY PERSON WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT THEREOF.20

Petitioner's Arguments

Praying that the assailed CA dispositions be reversed and set aside and that, instead, Civil Case No. Q-11-69644 be
reinstated, petitioner argues that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the replevin case considering the payment
of docket fees based on a valuation of the subject vehicle arrived at in good faith by petitioner, who in estimating the
vehicle's value took into consideration various factors such as depreciation, actual condition, year model, and other
circumstances; that the payment of an inadequate docket fee is not a ground for dismissal of a case, and the trial
court may simply allow the plaintiff to complete the payment of the correct docket fees within a reasonable time; 21
and that his eventual submission to the trial court's valuation of ₱4 million and his willingness to pay the bond and
corresponding docket fee proves his good faith and sincerity.

On the issue relating to his supposed defective complaint on account of insufficient allegations made therein,
petitioner contends that there is nothing in the 1997 Rules which requires him to copy the requirements in Section 2
of Rule 60 and incorporate them to the letter in his complaint, as the rule merely requires an applicant in replevin to
show the circumstances in his complaint or affidavit of merit, which he claims he did.

Finally, petitioner insists that the writ of replevin was properly served upon respondent. He did not address the issue
relating to the sheriff's service of summons, the Writ of replevin, and the responding order of the trial court on the
day following the seizure and detention of the subject vehicle, arguing rather sweepingly that it is sufficient for the
sheriff to have served respondent with a copy of the writ of replevin, together with the complaint, affidavit, and bond.
He conceded that respondent was in constructive possession of the vehicle, as he was the registered owner thereof.

In his Reply, 22 petitioner retorts that the Petition is grounded on questions of law; that even though respondent was
able to register the vehicle in his name, he is nonetheless a buyer and possessor in bad faith, and thus, the transfer
of ownership over the subject vehicle in his favor is illegal; that a criminal case for estafa relative to the vehicle is
pending against Ong, Chua, and Centeno; that Lopez's purported sale to Chua was anomalous; and that
respondent should have filed a counterbond.

Respondent's Arguments

In his Comment, 23 respondent essentially counters that the Petition should be dismissed as it raises issues of fact;
that a liberal application of the rule requiring the payment of correct docket fees cannot apply to petitioner's case
since he intentionally defrauded the court in misdeclaring the value of the subject vehicle; that while they need not
be stated verbatim, the enumeration of required allegations under Section 2 of Rule 60 must still be specifically
included in a complaint for replevin or in the accompanying affidavit of merit; that petitioner failed to show that he is
the owner of the vehicle or that he is entitled to its possession, and that the vehicle is wrongfully detained by him,
and that it has not been distrained, seized or placed under custodia legis; and that he is a buyer in good faith and for
value.

Our Ruling

The Petition must be denied.

"In a complaint for replevin, the claimant must convincingly show that he is either the owner or clearly entitled to the
possession of the object sought to be recovered, and that the defendant, who is in actual or legal possession thereof,
wrongfully detains the same."24 "Rule 60 x x x allows a plaintiff, in an action for the recovery of possession of
personal property, to apply for a writ of replevin if it can be shown that he is 'the owner of the property claimed ... or is
entitled to the possession thereof.’ The plaintiff need not be the owner so long as he is able to specify his right to the
possession of the property and his legal basis therefor." 25

In Filinvest Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals,26 this Court likewise held that-

x x x It is not only the owner who can institute a replevin suit. A person "entitled to the possession" of the property
also can, as provided in the same paragraph cited by the trial court, which reads:

Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond. - Upon applying for such order the plaintiff must show...

(a) That the plaintiff is the owner of the property claimed, particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession
thereof; xxx

As correctly cited by respondent in his Comment:27

x x x [A] party praying for the recovery of possession of personal property must show by his own affidavit or that of
some other person who personally knows the facts that he is the owner of the property claimed, particularly
describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof It must be borne in mind that replevin is a possessory action the
gist of which focuses on the right of possession that, in turn, is dependent on a legal basis that, not infrequently,
looks to the ownership of the object sought to be replevied. Wrongful detention by the defendant of the properties
sought in an action for replevin must be satisfactorily established. If only a mechanistic averment thereof is offered,
the writ should not be issued.28

Petitioner admits and claims in his pleadings that on July 22, 2009, he purchased the subject vehicle from Lopez,
who executed and signed in blank a deed of sale and sun-endered all documents of title to him;29 that he did not
register the sale in his favor, such that the vehicle remained in the name ofLopez; 30 that in September, 2010, he
delivered the subject vehicle, together with all its documents of title and the blank deed of sale, to Ong, with the
express intention of selling the vehicle through the latter as broker/second hand car dealer; that Ong appears to
have issued in his favor two guarantee checks amounting to P4.95 million; and that these checks bounced. 31
Thereafter, Ong was able to sell the vehicle using the deed of sale executed and signed in blank by Lopez to Chua,
who secured a certificate of registration in his name. 32 Chua then sold the vehicle, via a Deed of Sale of Motor
Vehicle dated December 7, 2010, to respondent, who caused registration of the vehicle in his name on March 7,
2011.33 Apparently, Ong did not remit Chua's payment to petitioner, prompting the latter to file formal
complaints/charges for 1) estafa and carna1ming on May 18, 2011 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City, and 2) camapping on June 15, 2011 before the PNP-HPG in Camp Crame, Quezon City against Ong
and Centeno.34 It appears as well that prior to the filing of these fonnal complaints, or sometime in November, 2010,
petitioner appeared before the Quezon City Anti-Carnapping Unit based in Camp Karingal, Quezon City and,
claiming that the subject vehicle was cainapped, filed a "Failed to Return Vehicle" report; that on February 23, 2011,
petitioner, respondent, Ong, and Chua appeared at Can1p Karingal to shed light on the claimed camapping; that the
parties were requested to voluntarily surrender the subject vehicle, but the request proved futile; and that petitioner
was instead advised to file appropriate charges and file a complaint with the PNP-HPG in order to include the
subject vehicle in the "hold order list".

This Court is not unaware of the practice by many vehicle buyers and second-hand car traders of not transferring
registration and ownership over vehicles purchased from their original owners, and rather instructing the latter to
execute and sign in blank deeds of sale covering these vehicles, so that these buyers and dealers may freely and
readily trade or re-sell the vehicles in the second-hand car market without difficulty. This way, multiple transfers,
sales, or trades of the vehicle using these undated deeds signed in blank become possible, until the latest purchaser
decides to actually transfer the certificate of registration in his name. For many car owners-sellers, this is an easy
concession; so long as they actually receive the sale price, they will sign sale deeds in blank and surrender them to
the buyers or dealers; and for the latter, this is convenient since they can "flip'' or re-sell the vehicles to the public
many times over with ease, using these blank deeds of sale.

In many cases as well, busy vehicle owners selling their vehicles actually leave them, together with all the
documents of title, spare keys, and deeds of sale signed in blank, with second-hand car traders they know and trust,
in order for the latter to display these vehicles for actual viewing and inspection by prospective buyers at their lots,
warehouses, garages, or showrooms, and to enable the traders to facilitate sales on-the-spot, as-is-where-is,
without having to inconvenience the owners with random viewings and inspections of their vehicles. For this kind of
arrangement, an agency relationship is created between the vehicle owners, as principals, and the car traders, as
agents. The situation is akin to an owner of jewelry who sells the same through an agent, who receives the jewelry in
trust and offers it for sale to his/her regular clients; if a sale is made, the agent takes payment under the obligation to
remit the same to the jewelry owner, minus the agreed commission or other compensation.

From petitioner's own account, he constituted and appointed Ong as his agent to sell the vehicle, surrendering to the
latter the vehicle, all documents of title pertaining thereto, and a deed of sale signed in blank, with full understanding
that Ong would offer and sell the same to his clients or to the public. In return, Ong accepted the agency by his
receipt of the vehicle, the blank deed of sale, and documents of title, and when he gave bond in the form of two
guarantee checks worth ₱4.95 million. All these gave Ong the authority to act for and in behalf of petitioner. Under
the Civil Code on agency, Art. 1869. Agency may be express, or implied from the acts of the principal, from his
silence or lack of action, or his failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that another person is acting on his behalf
without authority.

Agency may be oral, unless the law requires a specific form.

Art. 1870. Acceptance by the agent may also be express or implied from his acts which carry out the agency, or
from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

"The basis of agency is representation and the same may be constituted expressly or impliedly. In an implied agency,
the principal can be bound by the acts of the implied agent. " 35 The same is true with an oral agency.

Acting for and in petitioner's behalf by virtue of the implied or oral agency, Ong was thus able to sell the vehicle to
Chua, but he failed to remit the proceeds thereof to petitioner; his guarantee checks bounced as well. This entitled
petitioner to sue for estafa through abuse of confidence. This is exactly what petitioner did: on May 18, 2011, he filed
a complaint for estafa and carnapping against Ong before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office.

Since Ong was able to sell the subject vehicle to Chua, petitioner thus ceased to be the owner thereof. Nor is he
entitled to the possession of the vehicle; together with his ownership, petitioner lost his right of possession over the
vehicle. His argument that respondent is a buyer in bad faith, when the latter nonetheless proceeded with the
purchase and registration of the vehicle on March 7, 2011, despite having been apprised of petitioner's earlier
November, 2010 "Failed to Return Vehicle" report filed with the PNP-HPG, is unavailing.1âwphi1 Petitioner had no
right to file said report, as he was no longer the owner of the vehicle at the time; indeed, his right of action is only
against Ong, for collection of the proceeds of the sale.

Considering that he was no longer the owner or rightful possessor of the subject vehicle at the time he filed Civil
Case No. Q-11-69644 in July, 2011, petitioner may not seek a return of the same through replevin. Quite the contrary,
respondent, who obtained the vehicle from Chua and registered the transfer with the Land Transportation Office, is
the rightful owner thereof, and as such, he is entitled to its possession. For this reason, the CA was correct in
decreeing the dismissal of Civil Case No. Q-11-69644, although it e1red in ordering the return of the vehicle to the
PNP-HPG, which had no further right to hold the vehicle in its custody. As the registered and rightful owner of the
subject vehicle, the trial court must return the same to respondent.

Petitioner cannot be allowed to cut his losses by ostensibly securing the recovery of the subject vehicle in lieu of its
price, which Ong failed and continues to fail to remit. On the other hand, Ong's declarations contained in his
Affidavit,36 to the effect that petitioner remains the owner of the vehicle, and that Chua came into illegal possession
and ownership of the same by unlawfully appropriating the same for himself without paying for it, are unavailing.
Faced with a possible criminal charge for estafa initiated by petitioner for failing or refusing to remit the price for the
subject vehicle, Ong's declarations are considered self-serving, that is, calculated to free himself from the criminal
charge. The premise is that by helping petitioner to actually recover his vehicle by insisting that the same was
unlawfully taken from him, instead of remitting its price to petitioner, Ong expects that he and petitioner may redeem
themselves from their bad judgment; for the petitioner, the mistake of bestowing his full faith and confidence upon
Ong, and blindly surrendering the vehicle, its documents of title, and a deed of sale executed and signed in blank, to
the latter; and for Ong, his failure to remit the proceeds of the sale to petitioner; and petitioner might then opt to
desist from pursuing the estafa and other criminal charges against him.

Having disposed of the case in the foregoing manner, there is no need to discuss the other issues raised by the
parties.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The October 9, 2012 Decision and February 19, 2013 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 124967 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION, in that the subject Land Rover
Range Rover, with Plate Number ZMG 272 and particularly described in and made subject of these proceedings, is
ORDERED RETURNED to respondent Alvin Tomlin as its registered owner.

G.R. No. 210950

MILAGROS P. ENRIQUEZ, Petitioner

vs.
THE MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondent

DECISION
LEONEN, J.:

A surety bond remains effective until the action or proceeding is finally decided, resolved, or terminated, regardless
of whether the applicant fails to renew the bond. The applicant will be liable to the surety for any payment the surety
makes on the bond, but only up to the amount of this bond.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the August 13, 2013 Decision2 and January 14, 2014
Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95955, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's finding that
Milagros P. Enriquez (Enriquez) was liable for the full amount of the replevin bond issued by The Mercantile
Insurance Company, Inc. (Mercantile Insurance).

Sometime in 2003, Enriquez filed a Complaint for Replevin 4 against Wilfred Asuten (Asuten) before the Regional
Trial Court of Angeles City, Pampanga. This Complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 10846, 5 was for the recovery of
her Toyota Hi-Ace van valued at ₱300,000.00.6 Asuten allegedly refused to return her van, claiming that it was given
by Enriquez's son as a consequence of a gambling deal. 7

Enriquez applied for a replevin bond from Mercantile Insurance. On February 24, 2003, Mercantile Insurance issued
Bond No. 138 for ₱600,000.00,8 which had a period of one (1) year or until February 24, 2004. Enriquez also
executed an indemnity agreement with Mercantile Insurance, where she agreed to indemnify the latter "for all
damages, payments, advances, losses, costs, taxes, penalties, charges, attorney's fees and expenses of whatever
kind and nature"9 that it would incur as surety of the replevin bond.10

On May 24, 2004, the Regional Trial Court issued an Order 11 dismissing the Complaint without prejudice due to
Enriquez's continued failure to present evidence.

The Regional Trial Court found that Enriquez surrendered the van to the Bank of the Philippine Islands, San
Fernando Branch but did not comply when ordered to return it to the sheriff within 24 hours from receipt of the
Regional Trial Court March 15, 2004 Order.12 She also did not comply with prior court orders to prove payment of her
premiums on the replevin bond or to post a new bond. Thus, the Regional Trial Court declared Bond No. 138
forfeited. Mercantile Insurance was given l 0 days to produce the van or to show cause why judgment should not be
rendered against it for the amount of the bond. 13

On July 12, 2004, the Regional Trial Court held a hearing on the final forfeiture of the bond where it was found that
Mercantile Insurance failed to produce the van, and that Bond No. 138 had already expired.14 In an Order15 issued
on the same day, the Regional Trial Court directed Mercantile Insurance to pay Asuten the amount of ₱600,000.00.

Mercantile Insurance wrote to Enriquez requesting the remittance of ₱600,000.00 to be paid on the replevin bond. 16
Due to Enriquez's failure to remit the amount, Mercantile Insurance paid Asuten ₱600,000.00 on September 3, 2004,
in compliance with the Regional Trial Court July 12, 2004 Order. 17 It was also constrained to file a collection suit
against Enriquez with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. 18

In her defense, Enriquez claimed that her daughter-in-law, Asela, filed the Complaint for Replevin in her name and
that Asela forged her signature in the indemnity agreement. She also argued that she could not be held liable since
the replevin bond had already expired. 19

In its July 23, 2010 Decision,20 the Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Mercantile Insurance. It found that
non-payment of the premiums did not cause the replevin bond to expire. Thus, Enriquez was still liable for the
reimbursement made by the surety on the bond. The Regional Trial Court likewise pointed out that Enriquez made
"conflicting claims" of having applied for the bond and then later claiming that her daughter-in-law was the one who
applied for it.21 The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court July 23, 2010 Decision read:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff The Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. and against
defendant Milagros P. Enriquez, as follows:

(i) Ordering defendant Milagros P. Enriquez to pay plaintiff the claim of ₱600,000.00 enforced under the Indemnity
Agreement plus legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of judicial demand on October 22, 2004, until
fully paid;
(ii) Ordering defendant Milagros P. Enriquez to pay attorney's fees fixed in the reasonable amount of ₱50,000.00;

(iii) Ordering defendant Milagros P. Enriquez to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.22

Enriquez appealed23 with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the replevin bond had already expired; therefore, she
could not have been liable under the indemnity agreement. She also averred that even assuming that she was still
liable under the indemnity agreement, she should not pay the full amount considering that the value of the van was
only ₱300,000.00.24

On August 13, 2013, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision25 affirming the Regional Trial Court's July 23, 2010
Decision.

The Court of Appeals held that under the Guidelines on Corporate Surety Bonds, 26 the lifetime of any bond issued in
any court proceeding shall be from court approval until the case is finally terminated. Thus, it found that the replevin
bond and indemnity agreement were still in force and effect when Mercantile Insurance paid ₱600,000.00 to
Asuten.27

The Court of Appeals likewise found that Enriquez was "bound by the incontestability of payments clause" in the
indemnity agreement, which stated that she would be held liable for any payment made by the surety under the
bond, regardless of the actual cost of the van. 28 It held that the issue of whether Enriquez was liable for the full
amount of the replevin bond should have been raised before the Regional Trial Court in the Complaint for Replevin,
and not in her appeal.29

Enriquez moved for reconsideration30 but was denied by the Court of Appeals in its January 14, 2014 Resolution.31
Hence, this Petition32 was filed before this Court.

Petitioner argues that when respondent paid Asuten on September 3, 2004, the indemnity agreement was no longer
in force and effect since the bond expired on February 24, 2004. 33 She claims that the indemnity agreement was a
contract of adhesion, and that respondent "intended the agreement to be so comprehensive and all-encompassing
to the point of being ambiguous."34

Petitioner contends that even assuming that the indemnity agreement could be enforced, she should not have been
held liable for the full amount of the bond. Citing Rule 60, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, she argues that a
judgment on replevin is only "either for the delivery of the property or for its value in case delivery cannot be made
and for such damages as either party may prove, with costs." 35

Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the present action has already prescribed, considering that Rule 60,
Section 10, in relation to Rule 57, Section 20 of the Rules of Court, mandates that any objection on the award should
be raised in the trial court where the complaint for replevin is filed. It argues that since petitioner only raised the
objection before the Court of Appeals, her action should have been barred. 36

Respondent likewise points out that the forfeiture of the bond was due to petitioner's own negligence. It asserts that
in the proceedings before the Regional Trial Court, Enriquez failed to present her evidence, and it was only when
she filed an appeal that she raised her objections.37 It argues that the Guidelines on Corporate Surety Bonds specify
that the expiry of the bond shall be after the court proceeding is finally decided; hence, the bond was still in effect
when respondent paid Asuten.38

The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not petitioner Milagros P. Enriquez should be made liable for
the full amount of the bond paid by respondent The Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. as surety, in relation to a previous
case for replevin filed by petitioner.

Replevin is an action for the recovery of personal property. 39 It is both a principal remedy and a provisional relief.
When utilized as a principal remedy, the objective is to recover possession of personal property that may have been
wrongfully detained by another. When sought as a provisional relief, it allows a plaintiff to retain the contested
property duringthe pendency of the action. In Tillson v. Court of Appeals :40

The term replevin is popularly understood as "the return to or recovery by a person of goods or chattels claimed to
be wrongfully taken or detained upon the person's giving security to try the matter in court and return the goods if
defeated in the action;" "the writ by or the common-law action in which goods and chattels are replevied," i.e., taken
or gotten back by a writ for replevin;" and to replevy, means to recover possession by an action of replevin; to take
possession of goods or chattels under a replevin order. Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines replevin as "a form of
action which lies to regain the possession of personal chattels which have been taken from the plaintiff unlawfully ... ,
(or as) the writ by virtue of which the sheriff proceeds at once to take possession of the property therein described
and transfer it to the plaintiff upon his giving pledges which are satisfactory to the sheriff to prove his title, or return
the chattels taken if he fail so to do;" the same authority states that the term, "to replevy" means "to re-deliver goods
which have been distrained to the original possessor of them, on his giving pledges in an action of replevin." The
term therefore may refer either to the action itself, for the recovery of personality, or the provisional remedy
traditionally associated with it, by which possession of the property may be obtained by the plaintiff and retained
during the pendency of the action. In this jurisdiction, the provisional remedy is identified in Rule 60 of the Rules of
Court as an order for delivery of personal property. 41

Similarly, in BA Finance Corporation v. Court of Appeals:42

Replevin, broadly understood, is both a form of principal remedy and of a provisional relief. It may refer either to the
action itself, i.e., to regain the possession of personal chattels being wrongfully detained from the plaintiff by another,
or to the provisional remedy that would allow the plaintiff to retain the thing during the pendency of the action and
hold it pendente lite. The action is primarily possessory in nature and generally determines nothing more than the
right of possession. Replevin is so usually described as a mixed action, being partly in rem and partly in personam-in
rem insofar as the recovery of specific property is concerned, and in personam as regards to damages involved. As
an "action in rem," the gist of the replevin action is the right of the plaintiff to obtain possession of specific personal
property by reason of his being the owner or of his having a special interest therein. Consequently, the person in
possession of the property sought to be replevied is ordinarily the proper and only necessary party defendant, and
the plaintiff is not required to so join as defendants other persons claiming a right on the property but not in
possession thereof. Rule 60 of the Rules of Court allows an application for the immediate possession of the property
but the plaintiff must show that he has a good legal basis, i.e., a clear title thereto, for seeking such interim
possession.43

As a provisional remedy, a party may apply for an order for the delivery of the property before the commencement of
the action or at any time before an answer is filed. 44 Rule 60 of the Rules of Court outlines the procedure for the
application of a writ of replevin. Rule 60, Section 2 requires that the party seeking the issuance of the writ must first
file the required affidavit and a bond in an amount that is double the value of the property:

Section 2. Affidavit and bond. - The applicant must show by his own affidavit or that of some other person who
personally knows the facts:

(a) That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed, particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession
thereof;

(b) That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party, alleging the cause of detention thereof according to
the best of his knowledge, information, and belief;

(c) That the property has not been di strained or taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized
under a writ of execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is
exempt from such seizure or custody; and

(d) The actual market value of the property.

The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the adverse party in double the value of the property as stated in
the affidavit aforementioned, for the return of the property to the adverse party if such return be adjudged, and for
the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he may recover from the applicant in the action. 45

Once the affidavit is filed and the bond is approved by the court, the court issues an order and a writ of seizure
requiring the sheriff to take the property into his or her custody. 46 If there is no further objection to the bond filed
within five (5) days from the taking of the property, the sheriff shall deliver it to the applicant. 47 The contested
property remains in the applicant's custody until the court determines, after a trial on the issues, which among the
parties has the right of possession.48

In Civil Case No. 10846, petitioner Enriquez filed a replevin case against Asuten for the recovery of the Toyota
Hi-Ace van valued at ₱300,000.00.49 She applied for a bond in the amount of ₱600,000.00 with respondent in
Asuten's favor. The Regional Trial Court approved the bond and ordered the sheriff to recover the van from Asuten
and to deliver it to petitioner. While the van was in petitioner's custody, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the case
without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Thus, it ordered the sheriff to restore the van to Asuten. When petitioner
failed to produce the van, the Regional Trial Court directed respondent to pay Asuten the amount of the bond.

There was no trial on the merits. The Regional Trial Court's dismissal for failure to prosecute was a dismissal without
prejudice to re-filing. In this particular instance, any writ of seizure, being merely ancillary to the main action,
becomes functus oficio. The parties returned to the status quo as if no case for replevin had been filed. Thus, upon
the dismissal of the case, it was imperative for petitioner to return the van to Asuten. In Advent Capital and Finance
Corporation v. Young:50

We agree with the Court of Appeals in directing the trial com1 to return the seized car to Young since this is the
necessary consequence of the dismissal of the replevin case for failure to prosecute without prejudice. Upon the
dismissal of the replevin case for failure to prosecute, the writ of seizure, which is merely ancillary in nature, became
functus officio and should have been lifted. There was no adjudication on the merits, which means that there was no
determination of the issue who has the better right to possess the subject car. Advent cannot therefore retain
possession of the subject car considering that it was not adjudged as the prevailing party entitled to the remedy of
replevin.

Contrary to Advent's view, Olympia International Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies to this case. The dismissal of the
replevin case for failure to prosecute results in the restoration of the parties' status prior to litigation, as if no
complaint was filed at all. To let the writ of seizure stand after the dismissal of the complaint would be adjudging
Advent as the prevailing party, when precisely no decision on the merits had been rendered. Accordingly, the parties
must be reverted to their status quo ante. Since Young possessed the subject car before the filing of the replevin
case, the same must be returned to him, as if no complaint was filed at all. 51

Petitioner argues that she should not have been made liable for the bond despite her failure to return the van,
considering that it was effective only until February 24, 2004, and that she did not renew or post another bond.

De Guia v. Alto Surety & Insurance, Co.52 requires that any application on the bond be made after hearing but before
the entry of judgment. Otherwise, the surety can no longer be made liable under thebond:

Construing and applying these provisions of the Rules, we have held in a long line of cases that said provisions are
mandatory and require the application upon the bond against the surety or bondsmen and the award thereof to be
made after hearing and before the entry of final judgment in the case; that if the judgment under execution contains
no directive for the surety to pay, and the proper party fails to make any claim for such directive before such
judgment had become final and executory, the surety or bondsman cannot be later made liable under the bond. The
purpose of the aforementioned rules is to avoid multiplicity of suits.53

For this reason, a surety bond remains effective until the action or proceeding is finally decided, resolved, or
terminated. This condition is deemed incorporated in the contract between the applicant and the surety, regardless
of whether they failed to expressly state it. Under the Guidelines on Corporate Surety Bonds: 54

VII. LIFETIME OF BONDS IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ACTIONS/SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Unless and until the Supreme Court directs otherwise, 55 the lifetime or duration of the effectivity of any bond issued
in criminal and civil actions/special proceedings, or in any proceeding or incident therein shall be from its approval by
the court, until the action or proceeding is finally decided, resolved or terminated. This condition must be
incorporated in the terms and condition of the bonding contract and shall bind the parties notwithstanding their
failure to expressly state the same in the said contract or agreement. (Emphasis supplied)

Civil Case No. 10846 is a rare instance where the writ of seizure is dissolved due to the dismissal without prejudice,
but the bond stands because the case has yet to be finally terminated by the Regional Trial Court.

The peculiar circumstances in this case arose when petitioner failed to return the van to Asuten, despite the
dismissal of her action. This is an instance not covered by the Rules of Court or jurisprudence. In its discretion, the
Regional Trial Court proceeded to rule on the forfeiture of the bond. As a result, respondent paid Asuten twice the
value of the van withheld by petitioner. Respondent, thus, seeks to recover this amount from petitioner, despite the
van only being worth half the amount of the bond.

Of all the provisional remedies provided in the Rules of Court, only Rule 60, Section 256 requires that the amount of
the bond be double the value of the property. The other provisional remedies provide that the amount be fixed by
court or be merely equal to the value of the property:

Provisional Remedies

Rule 57

Preliminary Attachment

....

Section 4. Condition of applicant's bond. - The party applying for the order must thereafter give a bond executed to
the adverse party in the amount fixed by the court in its order granting the issuance of the writ, conditioned that the
latter will pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and all damages which he may sustain by
reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that the applicant was not entitled thereto.

....

Section 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving counter-bond. - After a writ of attachment has been enforced, the
party whose property has been attached, or the person appearing on his behalf, may move for the discharge of the
attachment wholly or in part on the security given. The court shall, after due notice and hearing, order the discharge
of the attachment if the movant makes a cash deposit, or files a counter-bond executed to the attaching party with
the clerk of the court where the application is made, in an amount equal to that fixed by the court in the order of
attachment, exclusive of costs. But if the attachment is sought to be discharged with respect to a particular property,
the counter-bond shall be equal to the value of that property as determined by the court. In either case, the cash
deposit or the counter-bond shall secure the payment of any judgment that the attaching party may recover in the
action. A notice of the deposit shall forthwith be served on the attaching party. Upon the discharge of an attachment
in accordance with the provisions of this section, the property attached, or the proceeds of any sale thereof, shall be
delivered to the party making the deposit or giving the counter-bond, or to the person appearing on his behalf, the
deposit or counter-bond aforesaid standing in place of the property so released. Should such counter-bond for any
reason be found to be or become insufficient, and the party furnishing the same fail to file an additional counter-bond,
the attaching party may apply for a new order of attachment.

....

Section 14. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. - If the property attached is claimed by any person
other than the party against whom attachment had been issued or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of
his title thereto, or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves such affidavit
upon the sheriff while the latter has possession of the attached property, and a copy thereof upon the attaching party,
the sheriff shall not be bound to keep the property under attachment, unless the attaching party or his agent, on
demand of the sheriff, shall file a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less
than the value of the property levied upon. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be decided by
the court issuing the writ of attachment. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be
enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of
the filing of the bond.

....

Rule 58

Preliminary Injunction

....

Section 4. Verified application and bond for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. - A preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order may be granted only when:

....

(b) Unless exempted by the court, the applicant files with the court where the action or proceeding is pending, a
bond executed to the party or person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant
will pay to such party or person all damages which he may sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary
restraining order if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Upon approval of the
requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued.

....

Section 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of, injunction or restraining order. - The application
for injunction or restraining order may be denied, upon a showing of its insufficiency. The injunction or restraining
order may also be denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved, on other grounds upon affidavits of the party or person
enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant also by affidavits. It may further be denied, or, if granted, may be
dissolved, if it appears after hearing that although the applicant is entitled to the injunction or restraining order, the
issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be, would cause irreparable damage to the party or person
enjoined while the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer, and the former files a
bond in an amount fixed by the court conditioned that he will pay all damages which the applicant may suffer by the
denial or the dissolution of the injunction or restraining order. If it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction
or restraining order granted is too great, it may be modified.

....

Rule 59

Receivership

....

Section 2. Bond on appointment of receiver. - Before issuing the order appointing a receiver the court shall require
the applicant to file a bond executed to the party against whom the application is presented, in an amount to be fixed
by the court, to the effect that the applicant will pay such party all damages he may sustain by reason of the
appointment of such receiver in case the applicant shall have procured such appointment without sufficient cause;
and the court may, in its discretion, at any time after the appointment, require an additional bond as further security
for such damages.

Section 3. Denial of application or discharge of receiver. - The application may be denied, or the receiver discharged,
when the adverse party files a bond executed to the applicant, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that
such party will pay the applicant all damages he may suffer by reason of the acts, omissions, or other matters
specified in the application as ground for such appointment. The receiver may also be discharged if it is shown that
his appointment was obtained without sufficient cause.
....

Rule 60

Replevin

....

Section 7. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. - If the property taken is claimed by any person
other than the party against whom the writ of replevin had been issued or his agent, and such person makes an
affidavit of his title thereto, or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds therefor, and serves such affidavit
upon the sheriff while the latter has possession of the property and a copy thereof upon the applicant, the sheriff
shall not be bound to keep the property under replevin or deliver it to the applicant unless the applicant or his agent,
on demand of said sheriff, shall file a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not
less than the value of the property under replevin as provided in section 2 hereof. In case of disagreement as to
such value, the court shall determine the same. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may
be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date
of the filing of the bond.57 (Emphasis supplied)

However, there is a rationale to the requirement that the bond for a writ of seizure in a replevin be double the value
of the property. The bond functions not only to indemnify the defendant in case the property is lost, but also to
answer for any damages that may be awarded by the court if the judgment is rendered in defendant's favor. In
Citibank, N.A. v. Court of Appeals:58

It should be noted that a replevin bond is intended to indemnify the defendant against any loss that he may suffer by
reason of its being compelled to surrender the possession of the disputed property pending trial of the action. The
same may also be answerable for damages if any when judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant or the party
against whom a writ of replevin was issued and such judgment includes the return of the property to him. Thus, the
requirement that the bond be double the actual value of the properties litigated upon. Such is the case because the
bond will answer for the actual loss to the plaintiff, which corresponds to the value of the properties sought to be
recovered and for damages, if any.59

Any application of the bond in a replevin case, therefore, is premised on the judgment rendered in favor of the
defendant. Thus, the Rules of Court imply that there must be a prior judgment on the merits before there can be any
application on the bond:

Rule 60

Replevin

....

Section 9. Judgment. - After trial of the issues, the court shall determine who has the right of possession to and the
value of the property and shall render judgment in the alternative for the delivery thereof to the party entitled to the
same, or for its value in case delivery cannot be made, and also for such damages as either party may prove, with
costs.

Section 10. Judgment to include recovery against sureties. - The amount, if any, to be awarded to any party upon
any bond filed in accordance with the provisions of this Rule, shall be claimed, ascertained, and granted under the
same procedure as prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57.

The Rules of Court likewise require that for the defendant to be granted the full amount of the bond, he or she must
first apply to the court for damages. These damages will be awarded only after a proper hearing:

Rule 57
 Preliminary Attachment

....

Section 20. Claim for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment. - An application for
damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment must be filed before the trial or before appeal is
perfected or before the judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the attaching party and his surety or
sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the amount thereof. Such damages may be
awarded only after proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment on the main case.

If the judgment on the appellate court be favorable to the party against whom the attachment was issued, he must
claim damages sustained during the pendency of the appeal by filing an application in the appellate court, with
notice to the party in whose favor the attachment was issued or his surety or sureties, before the judgment of the
appellate court becomes executory. The appellate court may allow the application to be heard and decided by the
trial court.

Nothing herein contained shall prevent the party against whom the attachment was issued from recovering in the
same action the damages awarded to him from any property of the attaching party not exempt from execution
should the bond or deposit given by the latter be insufficient or fail to fully satisfy the award.

Forfeiture of the replevin bond, therefore, requires first, a judgment on the merits in the defendant's favor, and
second, an application by the defendant for damages. Neither circumstance appears in this case. When petitioner
failed to produce the van, equity demanded that Asuten be awarded only an amount equal to the value of the van.
The Regional Trial Court would have erred in ordering the forfeiture of the entire bond in Asuten's favor, considering
that there was no trial on the merits or an application by Asuten for damages. This judgment could have been
reversed had petitioner appealed the Regional Trial Court's May 24, 2004 Order in Civil Case No. 10846.
Unfortunately, she did not. Respondent was, thus, constrained to follow the Regional Trial Court's directive to pay
Asuten the full amount of the bond.

II

This is a simple case for collection of a sum of money. Petitioner cannot substitute this case for her lost appeal in
Civil Case No. 10846.

In applying for the replevin bond, petitioner voluntarily undertook with respondent an Indemnity Agreement, which
provided:

INDEMNIFICATION - to indemnify the SURETY for all damages, payments, advances, losses, costs, taxes,
penalties, charges, attorney's fees and expenses of whatever kind and nature that the SURETY may at any time
sustain or incur as a consequence of having become a surety upon the above-mentioned bond, and to pay,
reimburse and make good to the SURETY, its successors and assigns, all sums or all money which it shall pay or
become liable to pay by virtue of said bond even if said payment/s or liability exceeds the amount of the bond ....

INCONTESTABILITY OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE SURETY - any payment or disbursement made by the surety
on account of the abovementioned bond, either in the belief that the SURETY was obligated to make such payment
or in the belief that said payment was necessary in order to avoid a greater loss or obligation for which the SURETY
might be liable by virtue of the . . . above-mentioned bond, shall be final, and will not be contested by the
undersigned, who jointly and severally bind themselves to indemnify the SURETY for any of such payment or
disbursement.60

Basic is the principle that "a contract is law between the parties" 61 for as long as it is "not contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order, or public policy." 62 Under their Indemnity Agreement, petitioner held herself liable for any
payment made by respondent by virtue of the replevin bond.

Petitioner contends that the Indemnity Agreement was a contract of adhesion since respondent made the extent of
liability "so comprehensive and all-encompassing to the point of being ambiguous." 63
A contract of insurance is, by default, a contract of adhesion. It is prepared by the insurance company and might
contain terms and conditions too vague for a layperson to understand; hence, they are construed liberally in favor of
the insured. In Verendia v. Court of Appeals:64

Basically a contract of indemnity, an insurance contract is the law between the parties. Its terms and conditions
constitute the measure of the insurer's liability and compliance therewith is a condition precedent to the insured's
right to recovery from the insurer. As it is also a contract of adhesion, an insurance contract should be liberally
construed in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer company which usually prepares it.65

Respondent, however, does not seek to recover an amount which exceeds the amount of the bond or any "damages,
payments, advances, losses, costs, taxes, penalties, charges, attorney's fees and expenses of whatever kind and
nature,"66 all of which it could have sought under the Indemnity Agreement. It only seeks to recover from petitioner
the amount of the bond, or ₱600,000.00.

Respondent paid ₱600,000.00 to Asuten pursuant to a lawful order of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No.
10846. If there were any errors in the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, as discussed above, petitioner could
have appealed this. Petitioner, however, chose to let Civil Case No. 10846 lapse into finality. This case cannot now
be used as a substitute for her lost appeal.

It is clear from the antecedents that any losses which petitioner has suffered were due to the consequences of her
actions, or more accurately, her inactions.1âwphi1 Civil Case No. 10846, which she filed, was dismissed due to her
failure to prosecute. The Regional Trial Court forfeited the replevin bond which she had filed because she refused to
return the property. She is now made liable for the replevin bond because she failed to appeal its forfeiture.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The August 13, 2013 Decision and January 14, 2014 Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CAG. R. CV No. 95955 are AFFIRMED.

RULE 61

G.R. No. L-48219 February 28, 1979

MANUEL J. C. REYES, petitioner,

vs.
HON. LEONOR INES-LUCIANO, as Judge of the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, Quezon City, COURT
OF APPEALS and CELIA ILUSTRE-REYES, respondents.

Eriberto D. Ignacio for petitioner.

Gonzalo D. David for private respondent.

FERNANDEZ, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 06928-SP entitled
"Manuel J. C. Reyes, petitioner, versus, The Hon. Leonor Ines-Luciano as Judge of the Juvenile & Domestic
Relations Court (Quezon City) and Celia Ilustre-Reyes, Respondents", dismissing the petition to annul the order of
the respondent Judge directing the petitioner to give support pendente lite to his wife, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, private
respondent herein, in the amount of P40,000.00 a month. 1

The private petitioner, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City a
complaint dated June 3, 1976 against her husband, Manuel J. C. Reyes, for legal separation on the ground that the
defendant had attempted to kill plaintiff. The pertinent allegations of the complaint are:

6.8 On March 10, 1976, defendant went to V. Ilustre and attacked plaintiff. He pummeled her with fist blows
that floored her, then held her head and, with intent to kill, bumped it several times against the cement floor.
When she ran upstairs to her father for protection, he pushed her at the stairway of 13 flights and she fell
 sliding to the ground floor. Determined to finish her off, he again gave her a strong swing at her abdomen
which floored her half unconscious. Were it not for plaintiff's father, he would have succeeded killing her;

6.9. On May 26, 1976, although on May 11 previous she ceased holding office with defendant at Bel-Air
Apartments elsewhere adverted to, she went thereto to get her overnight bag. Upon seeing her, defendant
yelled at her to get out of the office. When he did not mind him, he suddenly doused her with a glass of
grape juice, kicked her several times that landed at her back and nape, and was going to hit her with a
steel tray as her driver, Ricardo Mancera, came due to her screams for help. For fear of further injury and
for life, she rushed to Precinct 5 at united Nations Avenue, Manila Metropolitan Police, for assistance and
protection;2

The plaintiff asked for support pendente lite for her and her three children. The defendant, petitioner herein, opposed
the application for support pendente lite on the ground that his wife had committed adultery with her physician.

The application for support pendente lite was set for hearing and submitted for resolution on the basis of the
pleadings and the documents attached thereto by the parties.

The respondent Judge issued an order dated March 15, 1977 granting plaintiff's prayer for alimony pendente lite in
the amount of P5,000.00 a month commencing from June 1976. 3

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration reiterating that his wife is not entitled to support during the pendency
of the case, and, alleging that even if she entitled, the amount awarded was excessive. The respondent Judge
reduced the amount from P5,000.00 to P44,00.00 a month in an order dated June 17, 1977. 4

Manuel J. C. Reyes filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals dated July 25, 1977 asking that the order
granting support pendente lite to private respondent. Celia Ilustre-Reyes, be annulled on the ground that the
respondent Judge, Leonor Ines-Luciano, had committed a grave abuse of discretion or that said order be modified
inasmuch as the amount awarded as support pendente lite is excessive.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because:

Considering the plight of the wife during the pendency of the case for legal separation and that the
husband appears to be financially capable of giving the support, We believe that the petitioner has not
presented a clear case of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent in issuing the questioned
orders. We see no compelling reason to give it due course. 5

The petitioner contends that the Court of Appeal committed the following error:

THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN A MANNER AMOUNTING IT CAN ERROR
OF LAW AND A DEPARTURE FROM THE ACCEPTED NORMS LAID DOWN BY THIS HON. COURT IN
THE CASES WE SHALL LATER ON DISCUSS, IN REFUSING TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO THE
ORIGINAL PETITION FOR certiorari HEREIN AGAINST RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES, AND IN
AFFIRMING THE ORDERS FOR SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE ANNEXES "F" AND "H" OF THIS
PETITION WHEN HELD THAT RESPONDENT-APPELLEE JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT ANY ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN ISSUING SAID ORDERS, FOR THE REASONS THAT:

A. IN ACTIONS FOR LEGAL SEPARATION THE WIFE IS ENTITLED TO SUPPORT FROM THE
HUSBAND DESPITE THE FACT THAT A CASE FOR ADULTERY HAD BEEN FILED BY THE HUSBAND
AGAINST HER; AND

B. IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE

COURT ASCERTAIN THE KIND AND AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE EVEN BY AFFIDAVITS ONLY OR
OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE APPEARING IN THE RECORDS.6

It is true that the adultery of the wife is a defense in an action for support however, the alleged adultery of wife must
be established by competent evidence. The allegation that the wife has committed adultery will not bar her from the
right receive support pendente lite. Adultery is a good defense and if properly proved and sustained wig defeat the
action.7

In the instant case, at the hearing of the application for support pendente lite before the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court presided by the respondent Judge, Hon. Leonor Ines-Luciano the petitioner did not present any
evidence to prove the allegation that his wife, private respondent Celia Ilustre-Reyes, had committed adultery with
any person.

The petitioner has still the opportunity to adduce evidence on the alleged adultery of his wife when the action for
legal separation is heard on the merits before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City. It is to be
noted however, that as pointed out by the respondents in their comment, the "private respondent was not asking
support to be taken from petitioner's personal funds or wherewithal, but from the conjugal property—which, was her
documentary evidence ...". 8 It is, therefore, doubtful whether adultery will affect her right to alimony pendente lite. In
Quintana vs. Lerma,9 the action for support was based on the obligation of the husband to support his wife.

The contention of the petitioner that the order of the respondent Judge granting the private respondent support
pendente lite in the amount of P4,000.00 a month is not supported by the allegations of the complaint for legal
separation and by competent evidence has no merit.

The complaint or legal separation contains allegations showing that on at least two occasions the defendant,
petitioner herein, had made attempts to kill the private respondent. Thus it is alleged that on March 10, 1976, the
defendant attacked plaintiff, pummeled her with fist blows that floored her, held her head and with intent to kill,
bumped it several times against the cement floor and when she ran upstairs to her father for protection, the
petitioner pushed her at the stairway of thirteen (13) flights and she fell sliding to the ground floor and defendant
gave her a strong swing at her abdomen which floored her half unconscious and were it not for plaintiff's father,
defendant would have succeeded in killing her. 10 It is also alleged that on May 26, 1976, the defendant doused
Celia Ilustre-Reyes with a glass of grape juice, kicked her several times at her back and nape and was going to hit
her with a steel tray if it were not for her driver who came due to her creams for help." 11

In fixing the amount of monthly support pendente lite of P4,000,00, the respondent judge did not act capriciously and
whimsically. When she originally fixed the amount of P5,000.00 a month, the respondent Judge considered the
following:

On record for plaintiff's cause are the following: that she and defendant were married on January 18, 1958;
that she is presently unemployed and without funds, thus, she is being supported by her father with whom
she resides: that defendant had been maltreating her and Cried to kill her; that all their conjugal properties
are in the possession of defendant who is also president, Manager and Treasurer of their corporation
namely:

1. Standard Mineral Products, which was incorporated on February 9, 1959: presently with paid-in capital
of P295,670.00; assets and liabilities of P757,108.52; Retained Earnings of P85,654.61: and majority
stockholder is defendant;

2. Development and Technology Consultant Inc. incorporated on July 12, 1971, with paid-in capital of
P200,000.00; Assets and liabilities of P831,669.34; defendant owns 99% of the stocks; and last Retained
Earnings is P98,879.84.

3. The Contra-Prop Marine Philippines, Inc. which was incorporated on October 3, 1975, with paid-in
capital of P100,000 defendant owns 99% of the stocks.

To secure some of the of said Agreement of Counter-Guaranty Mortgage with Real Estate, and Real Estate
Mortgage were undertaken by plaintiff of their properties outside of other accommodations; and that she
needs of P5,000.00 a month for her support in accordance with their station in life. 12

The amount of support pendente lite was reduced to P4,000.00 inasmuch as the children are in the custody of the
petitioner and are being supported by him.

It is thus seen that the respondent judge acted with due deliberation before fixing the amount of support pendente
lite in the amount of P4,000.00 a month.

In determining the amount to be awarded as support pendente lite it is not necessary to go fully into the merits of the
case, it being sufficient that the court ascertain the kind and amount of evidence which it may deem sufficient to
enable it to justly resolve the application, one way or the other, in view of the merely provisional character of the
resolution to be entered. Mere affidavits may satisfy the court to pass upon the application for support pendente lite.
13
It is enough the the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence appearing in the record. 14

The private respondent has submitted documents showing that the corporations controlled by the petitioner have
entered into multi-million contracts in projects of the Ministry of Public Highways.

Considering the high cost of living due to inflation and the financial ability of the petitioner as shown by the
documents of record, We find that the amount of P4,000.00 a month granted by the respondent Judge as alimony
pendente lite to the private respondent is not excessive. There is no showing that the respondent Judge has
committed a grave abuse of discretion in granting said support.

In a resolution dated July 31, 1978, this Court issued a temporary restraining order effective immediately against the
enforcement of the lower court's order giving support pendente lite to private respondent in the sum of P4,000.00
monthly commencing June 1976 and in lieu thereof to allow such support only to the extent of P1,000.00 a month. 15

Later the petitioner was required to pay the support at the rate of P1,000.00 a month which had accumulated since
June 1976 within ten (10) days from notice of the resolution: 16

The private respondent acknowledged on November 20, 1978 having received from the petitioner, through his
counsel a check in the amount of P30,000.00 as payment of support for the period from June 1976 to November
1978 or thirty (30) months at P1,000.00 a month in compliance with the resolution of this Court dated October 9,
1978.

In view of the foregoing, the support of P4,000.00 should be made to commence or, March 1, 1979.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby denied and the decision of the Council of Appeals sought to be
reviewed is affirmed with the modification that the support pendente lite at the rate of Four Thousand Pesos
(P4.000.00) a month should commence from March 1, 1979 without pronouncement as to costs.