G.R. No.

153788 November 27, 2009

ROGER V. NAVARRO, Petitioner,

vs.
HON. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 37, Cagayan de Oro City, and KAREN T. GO, doing
business under the name KARGO ENTERPRISES, Respondents.

FACTS: Karen T. Go is the owner of Kargo enterprises, a sole proprietorship, and

married to Glenn O. Go who is the manager of Kargo enterprises. Roger Navarro
entered into two lease agreement with option to purchase with kargo enterprises
represented by Glenn Go as manager for the rent of two fuso with mounted crane.
In the first contract Navarro delivered 6 post dated checks each in the amount of
66,333.33Php. When the fifth and sixth checks were presented for payment the same
were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Demands, written and oral were made to
pay the amount of 132,666.66Php or to return the subject motor vehicle but said
demands were in vain.
In the second contract Navarro delivered 3 post-dated checks each for the
amount of 100,000.00Php to Karen Go in payment of the agreed rentals; however the
3rd check was dishonored when presented for payment.
Karen Go filed two complaints before the RTC for Replevin and/or sum of
money with damages against Navarro. Karen Go prayed that the RTC issue writs of
replevin for the seizure of 2 motor vehicles in Navarro’s possession. That the motor
vehicles have not been subject of any tax assessment and/or fine pursuant to law, or
seized under an execution or an attachment.
The RTC issued writs of replevin for both cases. The sheriff seized the two
vehicles and delivered them to the possession of Karen Go.
Navarro alleged as a special affirmative defense that the two complaints stated
no cause of action, since Karen Go was not a party to the Lease Agreements with
Option to purchase.
The RTC dismissed the case on the ground that the complaints did not state a
cause of action.
Karen Go filed a motion for reconsideration and the RTC issued an order setting
aside the order of dismissal. The CA affirmed the RTC’s order. Navarro maintains that
the complaints were premature because no prior demand was made on him to comply
with the provisions of the lease agreements before the complaints for replevin were
filed.

ISSUE: where or not demand is necessary before replevin may be filed.

RULING: In arguing that prior demand is required before an action for a writ of
replevin is filed, Navarro apparently likens a replevin action to an unlawful detainer.
For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the applicant must do is to file an affidavit and
bond, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules, which states:

Sec. 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 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

(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.

We see nothing in these provisions which requires the applicant to make a prior
demand on the possessor of the property before he can file an action for a writ of
replevin. Thus, prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of
replevin.
G.R. No. 182963 June 3, 2013

SPOUSES DEO AGNER and MARICON AGNER, Petitioners,

vs.
BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Respondent.

FACTS: On February 15, 2001, petitioners spouses Deo Agner and Maricon Agner
executed a Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage in favor of Citimotors, Inc. the loan
is secured by a 2001 Mitsubishi Adventure Super Sport. On the same day, Citimotors,
Inc. assigned all its rights, title and interests in the Promissory Note with Chattel
Mortgage to ABN AMRO Savings Bank, Inc. (ABN AMRO), which, on May 31, 2002,
likewise assigned the same to respondent BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.

For failure to pay four successive installments respondent, through counsel, sent
to petitioners a demand letter declaring the entire obligation as due and demandable
and requiring to pay or surrender the mortgaged vehicle immediately upon receiving
the letter. As the demand was left unheeded, respondent filed an action for Replevin
and Damages before the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC).

A writ of replevin was issued. Despite this, the subject vehicle was not seized.
The manila RTC ruled for the respondent and ordered petitioners to jointly and
severally pay plus interest. Petitioners appealed to the CA but the CA affirmed the
RTC’s decision and denied the motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE: whether or not the RTC erred in issuing and order for replevin and collection of
sum of money, which is contrary to Article 1484 of the Civil code.

RULING: The vehicle subject matter of this case was never recovered and delivered to
respondent despite the issuance of a writ of replevin. As there was no seizure that
transpired, it cannot be said that petitioners were deprived of the use and enjoyment of
the mortgaged vehicle or that respondent pursued, commenced or concluded its actual
foreclosure. The trial court, therefore, rightfully granted the alternative prayer for sum
of money, which is equivalent to the remedy of "exacting fulfillment of the obligation."
Certainly, there is no double recovery or unjust enrichment to speak of.