Galedo, Abegail P.

535. CHUA VS. COURT OF APPEALS

PETITIONER : ROMEO S. CHUA

RESPONDENT : THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DENNIS CANOY AND ALEX DE LEON
DATE : May 17, 1993
PONENTE : Bidin, J. 
TOPIC : Rule 60 (Replevin)

FACTS:

 Judge Francisco of RTC issued a search warrant directing the immediate search of the premises
of R.R. Construction and seizure of Isuzu dump truck.
 A civil action for Replevin/Sum of Money for the recovery of possession of an Isuzu dump truck
was filed by petitioner against respondent Canoy and one "John Doe" in the Regional Trial Court
of Cebu City. Petitioner questioned the validity of search warrant and seizure of the vehicle
alleging ownership therein and that he has never been charged of the crime of carnapping.
 Respondent Canoy filed a motion for the dismissal of the complaint and for the quashal of the writ
of replevin which was opposed by petitioner.
 RTC denied the MTD. Private respondent filed with CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition for
nullification of the Orders of RTC.
 The case for carnapping pending before the Office of the City Fiscal was dismissed.
 CA reversed the RTC decision and ordered the dismissal of the replevin action and ordered that
the vehicle be restored to Canoy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the validity of a seizure made pursuant to a search warrant issued by a court can
be questioned in another branch of the same court, where the criminal action filed in connection with
which the search warrant was issued, had been dismissed provisionally.

HELD:

 A judge who presides in a branch of a court cannot modify or annul the orders issued by another
branch of the same court, since the two (2) courts are of the same rank, and act independently
but coordinately

 Replevin will not lie for property in custodia legis. A thing is in custodia legis when it is shown that
it has been and is subjected to the official custody of a judicial executive officer in pursuance of his
execution of a legal writ. Otherwise, there would be interference with the possession before the
function of the law had been performed as to the process under which the property was taken.
Thus, a defendant in an execution or attachment cannot replevy goods in the possession of an
officer under a valid process, although after the levy is discharged, an action to recover
possession will lie.

 Where personal property is seized under a search warrant and there is reason to believe that the
seizure will not anymore be followed by the filing of a criminal and there are conflicting claims
over the seized property, the proper remedy is the filing of an action for replevin, or an
interpleader filed by the Government in the proper court, not necessarily the same one which
issued the search warrant.

 However, where there is still a probability that the seizure will be followed by the filing of a
criminal action, as in the case at bar where the case for carnapping was "dismissed
provisionally, without prejudice to its reopening once the issue of ownership is resolved in
 Galedo, Abegail P.

favor of complainant" (emphasis supplied), or the criminal information has actually been
commenced, or filed, and actually prosecuted, and there are conflicting claims over the
property seized, the proper remedy is to question the validity of the search warrant in the
same court which issued it and not in any other branch of the said court.

 RTC erred when it ordered transfer of possession of the property seized to petitioner when
the latter filed the action for replevin. It should have dismissed the case since there was a
provisional dismissal in the carnapping case there is still a probability that a criminal case
will be filed, hence a conflict in jurisdiction could still arise. Petition is denied.