Digest Provisional Remedies

8/10/2019 Digest Provisional Remedies

1/13

PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

ANITA MANGILA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LORETAGUINA, respondents.

Facts: Mangila contracted the freight forwarding services of Guina forshipment of petitioners products. Petitioner agreed to pay privaterespondent cash on delivery. On the first shipment, petitioner requested forseven days within which to pay private respondent. owever, for the ne!tthree shipments petitioner failed to pay private respondent. "espite severaldemands, petitioner never paid private respondent. Guina sued Mangila#efore the $%& of Pasay. %he sheriff filed his 'heriffs $eturn showing that

summons was not served on petitioner. %he writ of preliminary attachmentwas issued in favor of Guina since the a#sence of Mangila in the countrywas construed as done with fraud. Mangila filed motion to "ischarge(ttachment without su#mitting herself to the )urisdiction of the trial court.'he pointed out that up to then, she had not #een served a copy of the&omplaint and the summons. ence, petitioner claimed the court had notacquired )urisdiction over her person. %he said motion was granted. Guinaapplied for alias summons on "ecem#er *+, -, which the trial courtissued on /anuary -, --. 0t was only on /anuary *+, -- that summonswas finally served on petitioner.

0ssue: 1hether the writ of attachment was improperly issued.

eld: (s a preliminary note, a distinction should #e made #etween issuanceand implementation of the writ of attachment. 0t is necessary to distinguish#etween the two to determine when )urisdiction over the person of thedefendant should #e acquired to validly implement the writ. %his &ourt has

long settled the issue of when )urisdiction over the person of the defendantshould #e acquired in cases where a party resorts to provisional remedies.( party to a suit may, at any time after filing the complaint, avail of theprovisional remedies under the $ules of &ourt. 'pecifically, $ule 23 onpreliminary attachment spea4s of the grant of the remedy 5at thecommencement of the action or at any time thereafter.67*8 %his phraserefers to the date of filing of the complaint which is the moment that mar4s5the commencement of the action.6 %he reference plainly is to a time #eforesummons is served on the defendant, or even #efore summons issues. %hegrant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves three stages: first,the court issues the order granting the application9 second, the writ ofattachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ9 and third, the writis implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that )urisdictionover the person of the defendant #e first o#tained. owever, once theimplementation of the writ commences, the court must have acquired)urisdiction over the defendant for without such )urisdiction, the court has no

power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. (ny orderissuing from the &ourt will not #ind the defendant. 0n the instant case, the1rit of Preliminary (ttachment was issued on 'eptem#er *3, - andimplemented on Octo#er *, -. owever, the alias summons wasserved only on /anuary *+, -- or almost three months after theimplementation of the writ of attachment. 0n conclusion, we hold that thealias summons #elatedly served on petitioner cannot #e deemed to havecured the fatal defect in the enforcement of the writ. %he trial court cannotenforce such a coercive process on petitioner without first o#taining)urisdiction over her person. %he preliminary writ of attachment must #eserved after or simultaneous with the service of summons on the defendantwhether #y personal service, su#stituted service or #y pu#lication aswarranted #y the circumstances of the case. %he su#sequent service ofsummons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of )urisdiction over herperson #ecause the law does not allow for retroactivity of a #elated service.

ICENTE !. CHUI"IAN, petitioner, vs. SAN"IGAN!AYAN #Fi$t%

"ivision& and t%e REPU!LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts: &huidian a favored #usinessman of Marcoses, used false pretensesto induce Philguarantee in facilitating loan in favor of ($&0 which wasallegedly owned #y &huidian. %he loan was approved and ($&0 defaultedpayments. Philguarantee sued &huidian and alleged that he misused theloan proceeds for his personal #enefit. Philguarantee, however, entered withcompromise agreement with &huidian. Pursuant to such agreement,&huidian will assign all of its interest to all his companies in favor of thePhilippine Government which in turn Philguarantee will a#solve him from allcivil and criminal lia#ility. Further, the Phil. Govt. shall pay &huidian throughthe letters of credit which were issued #y P; in favor of him. %he (quinogovernment, however, through P&GG made efforts on the Marcosesproperties which were illegally acquired. %he assets included in

sequestration were that of &huidian. %he complaint was filed #eforesandigan#ayan against &huidian for having in conspiracy with the Marcosesspouses. P&GG averred that &huidian and other defendants committedunlawful concert such as violation of pu#lic trust and fiduciary o#ligations%he writ of attachment was issued while the case was pending over theletter of credit for violation for violation of $uled 23 sec. #,c,d,e. 0ndefense, &huidian averred that he has no fiduciary relationship with theplaintiff, fraud must #e present at the time the contract was entered into, andhas not disposed of his property with no intention to defraud privaterespondent. Further, he is a non of the same $ule. &huidian assailed 'ec. >. %herule , however, contemplates that the defect must #e in the very issuance ofthe attachment writ. %he attachment may #e discharged under 'ec. > o$ule 23 when it is proven that the allegations of the complaint weredeceptively framed, or when the complaint fails to state a cause of action%he issue of fraud, however, touches on the very merits of the main casewhich accuses petitioner of committing fraudulent acts in his dealings withthe government. 0n fine, fraud was not only one of the grounds for theissuance of the preliminary attachment, it was at the same time thegovernments cause of action in the main case. when the preliminary

attachment is issued upon a ground which is at the same time theapplicants cause of action9 e.g., 5an action for money or propertyem#e??led or fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use #y apu#lic officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an attorney, factor, #ro4eragent, or cler4, in the course of his employment as such, or #y any otherperson in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty,6 or 5an actionagainst a party who has #een guilty of fraud in contracting the de#t oincurring the o#ligation upon which the action is #rought,6 the defendant isnot allowed to file a motion to dissolve the attachment under 'ection > o$ule 23 #y offering to show the falsity of the factual averments in theplaintiffs application and affidavits on which the writ was #ased @ andconsequently that the writ #ased thereon had #een improperly or irregularlyissued @ the reason #eing that the hearing on such a motion for dissolutionof the writ would #e tantamount to a trial of the merits of the action. 0n othewords, the merits of the action would #e ventilated at a mere hearing of amotion, instead of at the regular trial. 1hen the writ of attachment is issued

upon a ground which is at the same time the applicants cause of action, theonly other way the writ can #e lifted or dissolved is #y a counter#ond, inaccordance with 'ection * of the same rule. %his recourse, however, wasnot availed of #y petitioner.

Torres vs Satsatin

Facts: T%e si'(in)s So$ia, Fr*+tosa, and Mario Torres ea+% onad-a+ent /,/// s0*are 1eters tra+2 o$ (and sit*ated at !arrioLan2aan, "as1ari3as, Cavite. 'ometime in --3, Ni+anor Satsatinas2ed petitioners4 1ot%er, A)ripina A(edia, i$ s%e anted to se(( t%eir(ands. A)ripina a)reed to se(( t%e properties. Petitioners, thusauthori?ed icanor, through a 'pecial Power of (ttorney, to negotiate for thesale of the properties. 'ometime in ---, Ni+anor o$$ered to se(( t%eproperties to So(ar Reso*r+es, In+. #So(ar&. So(ar a((e)ed(5 a)reed top*r+%ase t%e t%ree par+e(s o$ (and, together with the A,AAA


2/13

i44i orlin 'atsatin. On Octo#er >A, *AA*, petitioners filed an ! ot%erise, t%e 'ond s%o*(d 'e re-e+ted. Ever5 'onds%o*(d 'e a++o1panied '5 a +(earan+e $ro1 t%e S*pre1e Co*rts%oin) t%at t%e +o1pan5 +on+erned is 0*a(i$ied to transa+t '*siness%i+% is va(id on(5 $or t%irt5 #8/& da5s $ro1 t%e date o$ its iss*an+e.owever, it is apparent that the &ertification issued #y the Office of the&ourt (dministrator EO&( at the time the #ond was issued would clearlyshow that the #onds offered #y 1estern Guaranty &orporation may #eaccepted only in the $%&s of the cities of Ma4ati, Pasay, and Pasig.%herefore, the surety #ond issued #y the #onding company should not have#een accepted #y the $%& of "asmariDas, ;ranch -A, since the certificationsecured #y the #onding company from the O&( at the time of the issuanceof the #ond certified that it may only #e accepted in the a#ove se+ond, t%e rit o$ atta+%1ent iss*esp*rs*ant to t%e order )rantin) t%e rit> and t%ird, t%e rit isi1p(e1ented. For t%e initia( to sta)es, it is not ne+essar5 t%at

-*risdi+tion over t%e person o$ t%e de$endant 'e $irst o'tained.Hoever, on+e t%e i1p(e1entation o$ t%e rit +o11en+es, t%e +o*rt1*st %ave a+0*ired -*risdi+tion over t%e de$endant, $or it%o*t s*+%

-*risdi+tion, t%e +o*rt %as no poer and a*t%orit5 to a+t in an5 1annera)ainst t%e de$endant.(ny order issuing from the &ourt will not #ind thedefendant. S*+% 'e(ated servi+e o$ s*11ons on respondents +annot'e dee1ed to %ave +*red t%e $ata( de$e+t in t%e en$or+e1ent o$ t%erit. %he trial court cannot enforce such a coercive process on respondentswithout first o#taining )urisdiction over their person. T%e pre(i1inar5 rit o$atta+%1ent 1*st 'e served a$ter or si1*(taneo*s it% t%e servi+e o$s*11ons on t%e de$endant %et%er '5 persona( servi+e, s*'stit*ted

servi+e or '5 p*'(i+ation as arranted '5 t%e +ir+*1stan+es o$ t%e+ase. T%e s*'se0*ent servi+e o$ s*11ons does not +on$er aretroa+tive a+0*isition o$ -*risdi+tion over %er person 'e+a*se t%e (adoes not a((o $or retroa+tivit5 o$ a 'e(ated servi+e.

Metro In+. and spo*ses $rederi+2 and (i?a -*an vs Lara4s )i$ts andde+ors and 1r and 1s. L*is and (ara vi((a$*erteGR no ;@;@;, Nov. @, //7

F(&%': =aras Gifts and "ecors 0nc. E=G" and Metro, 0nc. are corporationsengaged in the #usiness of manufacturing, producing, selling and e!portinghandicrafts. =uis Cillafuerte, /r. and =ara Maria $. Cillafuerte are the

president and vice /une *AA>Order,the tria( +o*rt )ranted LG"4s pra5er and iss*ed t%e rit oatta+%1ent a)ainst t%e properties and assets o$ petitioners. On D*ne //8, petitioners $i(ed a 1otion to dis+%ar)e t%e rit oatta+%1ent. Metro In+. ar)*ed t%at t%e rit o$ atta+%1ent s%o*(d 'e

dis+%ar)ed on t%e )ro*nd t%at respondents $ai(ed to s*'stantiate t%eira((e)ations o$ $ra*d it% spe+i$i+ a+ts or deeds s%oin) %opetitioners de$ra*ded t%e1. (fter considering the arguments of theparties, the tria( +o*rt )ranted Metro in+4+ 1otion and (i$ted t%e rit o$atta+%1ent. =G" filed a motion for reconsideration. 0n its A 'eptem#e*AA> Order, the trial court denied the motion. (ccording to the trial courtrespondents failed to sufficiently show that petitioners were guilty of fraudeither in incurring the o#ligation upon which the action was #rought, or inthe performance thereof. %he trial court found no proof that petitioners weremotivated #y malice in entering into the *AA agreement. %he trial court alsodeclared that petitioners failure to fully comply with their o#ligation, a#senother facts or circumstances to indicate evil intent, does not automaticallyamount to fraud. =G" filed a petition for certiorari #efore the &ourt of(ppeals. =G" alleged that the trial court gravely a#used its discretion whenit ordered the discharge of the writ of attachment without requiringpetitioners to post a counter


3/13

o'(i)ations to re1it to p(ainti$$s t%eir s%ares. (nd worse, Metro 0nc.transacted directly with =G"s foreign #uyer to the latters e!clusion anddamage. &learly, Metro 0nc. planned everything from the #eginning,employed ploy and machinations to defraud plaintiffs, and consequentlyta4e from them a valua#le client. Metro 0nc.are li4ewise guilty of fraud #yviolating the trust and confidence reposed upon them #y =G". Metro 0nc.received the proceeds of =G"s =&s with the clear o#ligation of remitting2K thereof to =G". %heir refusal and failure to remit the said amountdespite demand constitutes a #reach of trust amounting to malice and fraud.=G"s allegation that petitioners undertoo4 to sell e!clusively and onlythrough /$PB=G" for %arget 'tores &orporation #ut that petitionerstransacted directly with respondents foreign #uyer is sufficient allegation of

fraud to support their application for a writ of preliminary attachment. Sin+et%e rit o$ pre(i1inar5 atta+%1ent as proper(5 iss*ed, t%e on(5 a5 it+an 'e disso(ved is '5 $i(in) a +o*nter:'ond in a++ordan+e it%Se+tion ;, R*(e 9@ o$ t%e R*(es o$ Co*rt.

PRELIMINARY INDUNCTION

I"OLOR v. CA

Facts: %o secure a loan of P2*A,AAA.AA, petitioner %eresita 0dolor e!ecutedin favor of private respondent Gumersindo "e Gu?man a "eed of $ealstate Mortgage with right of e!traraising charges of unfair la#or practice EH=P and illegadismissal against petitioner. %hereafter, the charges were elevated torespondent ational =a#or $elations &ommission E=$& for compulsory

ar#itration. =a#or (r#iter milio C. PeDalosa rendered a decision2

orderingpetitioner to pay private respondent separation pay. =a#or (r#iter milio CPeDalosa rendered a decision2ordering petitioner to pay private respondenseparation pay. private respondent filed with the =a#or (r#iter a motion foe!ecution of the decision of the =a#or (r#iter. Petitioner did not file anyopposition thereto. On the other hand, $eha#ilitation $eceiver of petitionersu#mitted a Manifestation with Motion,3alleging that petitioner was not yein a position to comply with the directive of =a#or (r#iter de Cera for thereason that it was still under $eha#ilitation $eceivership #y virtue of theorder of the 'ecurities and !change &ommission. "ue to the failure ofpetitioner to comply with its o#ligation to pay the first #atch of complainantstheir separation pay, the =a#or (r#iter granted the motion for e!ecution ofprivate respondent. petitioner filed with the =a#or (r#iter a Motion to'uspend !ecution,- citing as reason therefor the order issued #y the'ecurities and !change &ommission which states: (ll actions for claimsagainst the corporation #efore any court, tri#unal or #ody are suspendedaccordingly.

eld: Petitioner contends that pu#lic respondent should have denied theorder of the =a#or (r#iter for the immediate payment of separation pay infavor of private respondent. Petitioner insists that a stay of e!ecution omonetary award is )ustified in this case #ecause of the order of the'ecurities and !change &ommission suspending all claims againspetitioner pending #efore any court, tri#unal or #ody. /urisprudence hasesta#lished that a stay of e!ecution may #e warranted #y the fact that apetitioner corporation has #een placed under reha#ilitation receivership.

owever, it is undisputed that on March 2, --3, the 'ecurities and!change &ommission issued an order approving the proposedreha#ilitation plan of petitioner and placing it under liquidation pursuant toPresidential "ecree -A*


4/13

corporation, continue to manage the corporation for purposes of liquidationin order to protect the interest of its creditors and avoid dissipation, loss,wastage, or destruction of the remaining assets and other properties of thecorporation and to ensure orderly payment of claims against suchcorporation in accordance with applica#le laws. %hus, petitioner pointed outthat the '&s order suspending all claims against it pending #efore anyother court, tri#unal or #ody was pursuant to the reha#ilitation receivershipproceedings. 'uch order was necessary to ena#le the reha#ilitation receiverto effectively e!ercise its powers free from any )udicial or e!tra


5/13

Larro'is, Dr vs P%i(ippine eterans !an2

Facts: Petitioner spo*ses +ontra+ted a 1onetar5 (oan it% respondentP%i(ippine eterans !an2, eviden+ed '5 a pro1issor5 note, due anddemanda#le on Fe#ruary *3, -, and se+*red '5 a Rea( EstateMort)a)e eBe+*ted on t%eir (ot to)et%er it% t%e i1prove1entst%ereon. On March *>, -2, t%e respondent 'an2 ent 'an2r*pt andas p(a+ed *nder re+eivers%ip(i0*idation '5 t%e Centra( !an2 from(pril *2, -2 until (ugust --*. On (ugust *>, -2, t%e 'an2, t%ro*)%Fran+is+o Go, sent t%e spo*ses a de1and (etter %i+% pertains to t%eins*ran+e pre1i*1s advan+ed '5 respondent 'an2 over t%e1ort)a)ed propert5 o$ petitioners. On (ugust *>, --2, more thanfourteen years from the time the loan #ecame due and demanda#le,respondent 'an2 $i(ed a petition $or eBtra-*di+ia( $ore+(os*re o$1ort)a)e o$ petitioners4 propert5. On Octo#er , --2, t%e propert5as so(d in a p*'(i+ a*+tion '5 S%eri$$ Art%*r Ca'i)on it% P%i(ippineeterans !an2 as t%e (one 'idder. On (pril *+, --+, petitioners filed acomplaint with the $%&, &e#u &ity, to declare the e!tra, --*. From (pril -2 until /uly --*, defendant #an4 wasrestrained from doing its #usiness. T%e de$endant 'an24s ri)%t to$ore+(ose t%e 1ort)a)ed propert5 pres+ri'es in ten #;/& 5ears '*t s*+%period as interr*pted %en it as p(a+ed *nder re+eivers%ip.(rticle2I of the ew &ivil &ode to this effect provides: %he period during which

the o#ligee was prevented #y a fortuitous event from enforcing his right isnot rec4oned against him.

0ssue: 1hether or not the period within which the respondent #an4 wasplaced under receivership and liquidation proceedings may #e considered afortuitous event which interrupted the running of the prescriptive period in#ringing actions

eld: $espondents claims that #ecause of a fortuitous event, it was nota#le to e!ercise its right to foreclose the mortgage on petitioners property9and that since it was #anned from pursuing its #usiness and was placedunder receivership from (pril *2, -2 until (ugust --*, it could notforeclose the mortgage on petitioners property within such period sinceforeclosure is em#raced in the phrase doing #usiness, are without merit.+I on (pril *2, -2pursuant to 'ection *- of the &entral ;an4 (ct on insolvency of #an4sT%ere is a(so no tr*t% to respondent4s +(ai1 t%at it +o*(d not +ontin*edoin) '*siness $ro1 t%e period o$ Apri( ;769 to A*)*st ;77, t%e ti1eit as *nder re+eivers%ip. As +orre+t(5 pointed o*t '5 petitionerrespondent as even a'(e to send petitioners a de1and (ette r, throughFrancisco Go, on (ugust *>, -2 for accounts receiva#le in the totaamount of P+,>I2.AA as of (ugust 2, -I for the insurance premiumsadvanced #y respondent #an4 over the mortgaged property of petitionersow it could send a demand letter on unpaid insurance premiums and noforeclose the mortgage during the time it was prohi#ited from doing

#usiness was not adequately e!plained #y respondent. (s we held inPhilippine Ceterans ;an4 vs. =$&, a la#or case which also involvedrespondent #an4, a(( t%e a+ts o$ t%e re+eiver and (i0*idator pertain topetitioner, 'ot% %avin) ass*1ed petitioner4s +orporate eBisten+ePetitioner cannot disclaim lia#ility #y arguing that the non+owever, the #an4 may go after the receiver who islia#le to it for any culpa#le or negligent failure to collect the assets of such#an4 and to safeguard its assets.

REPLEIN

DOSE S. OROSA and MARTHA P. OROSA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURTOF APPEALS, FCP CRE"IT CORPORATION

Facts: On 'eptem#er *, ->, petitioner purchased the su#)ect motovehicle on installment from Fiesta Motor 'ales &orporation. e e!ecuted

and delivered to Fiesta Motor 'ales &orp. a promissory note paya#le inmonthly installments. %o secure payment, petitioner e!ecuted a chattemortgage over the su#)ect motor vehicle in favor of Fiesta Motor. On'eptem#er *, ->, Fiesta Motor 'ales assigned the promissory note andchattel mortgage to private respondent F&P &redit &orporation. %hecomplaint further alleged that petitioner failed to pay part of the installmentwhich fell due. &onsequently, private respondent F&P &redit &orporationdemanded from petitioner payment of the entire outstanding #alance of theo#ligation with accrued interest and to surrender the vehicle which petitionewas allegedly detaining. %he trial court dismissed the complaint for F&P hadno reason to file the present action since petitioner already paid theinstallments which are the sole #ases of the complaint. %he lower courdeclared that private respondent was not entitled to the writ of replevin, andwas lia#le to petitioner for actual damages under the replevin #ond it filed. a'upplemental "ecision was rendered #y the trial court ordering privaterespondents surety, 'tronghold 0nsurance &o., 0nc. to )ointly and severally

7with private respondent8 return to petitioner the -> Ford =aser .2 'edanor its equivalent in 4ind or in cash and to pay the damages specified in themain decision to the e!tent of the value of the replevin #ond.

0ssue: whether writ of replevin in returning the car or its equivalent is proper

eld: o #ecause petitioner had not yet fully paid the purchase price. %osustain lower courts decision would tantamount to un)ust enrichment. %he&ourt of (ppeals was correct when it instead ordered private respondent toreturn, not the car itself, #ut only the amount equivalent to the fourteeninstallments actually paid with interest.

SMART vs. ASTORGA

Facts: (storga was employed #y 'M($%. 1hen the 'M($% launched anorgani?ational alignment to achieve more efficient operations it a#olished(storgas division. (storga was offered supervisory position #ut refused to

accept after performance evaluation was conducted #ecause the positioncarried low salary. (storga filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. 'M($%averred that (storga was dismissed on the ground of redundancyMeanwhile, 'M($% demanded from (storga to pay the mar4et value oonda &ivic 'edan which was given to her under the companys car planprogram. %he writ of replevin was issued after (storga refused to return thesaid car. (storga argued that $%& has no )urisdiction #ecause the su#)eccar was the result of #enefit arising from employment contract.

0ssue: 1hether $%& has no )urisdiction over the complaint for recovery othe car.

eld: o. %he $%& rightfully assumed )urisdiction over the suit and actedwell within its discretion in denying (storgas motion to dismiss. 'M($%s

5


6/13

demand for payment of the mar4et value of the car or, in the alternative, thesurrender of the car, is not a la#or, #ut a civil, dispute. 0t involves therelationship of de#tor and creditor rather than employee. T%e e0*ip1ent as a((e)ed(5entr*sted to petitioner4s %*s'and, Dan T. Rivera, %o died so1eti1e in(ate //, as +areta2er o$ respondent4s +onstr*+tion a))re)ates'*siness in !atan)as. (ccording to Cargas, petitioner failed to return thesaid equipment after her hus#ands death despite his repeated demandsthus forcing him to resort to court action. 'ummons dated Fe#ruary *I*AA> was served upon petitioner through her personal secretary on (pril **AA> at her residence in ParaDaque &ity. 0nterestingly, however, t%e rit orep(evin as served *pon and si)ned '5 a +ertain Dosep% Re-*1o, t%ese+*rit5 )*ard on d*t5 in petitioner4s +r*s%in) p(ant in Saria5a*e?on on Apri( 7, //8, +ontrar5 to t%e s%eri$$4s ret*rn statin) t%a

t%e rit as served *pon Rivera. $ivera filed her answer, manifestationand motion for the acceptance of petitioners redelivery #ond. 0n her answerpetitioner countered that the roc4


7/13

#ond within five E2 days from the date of sei?ure as provided in the $ules of&ourt. Petitioner ar)*es t%at t%e RTC +o11itted )rave a'*se o$dis+retion in den5in) %er +o*nter'ond on t%e )ro*nd t%at it as $i(edo*t o$ ti1e. S%e +ontends t%at t%e 1andator5 $ive:da5 period did noteven 'e)in to r*n in t%is +ase d*e to t%e i1proper servi+e o$ t%e rit o$rep(evin, +ontrar5 to Se+tion o$ R*(e /.

0ssue: 1hether there is improver service of the writ of replevin.

eld: Ses. $eplevin is one of the most ancient actions 4nown to law, ta4ingits name from the o#)ect of its process. 0t originated in common law as aremedy against the wrongful e!ercise of the right of distress for rent and,

according to some authorities, could only #e maintained in such a case. ;ut#y the weight of authority, the remedy is not and never was restricted tocases of wrongful distress in the a#sence of any statutes relating to thesu#)ect, #ut is a proper remedy for any unlawful ta4ing. $eplevied, used inits technical sense, means delivered to the owner, while the words toreplevy means to recover possession #y an action of replevin. Rep(evin is'ot% a $or1 o$ prin+ipa( re1ed5 and o$ provisiona( re(ie$. It 1a5 re$ereit%er to t%e a+tion itse($, i.e., to re)ain t%e possession o$ persona(+%atte(s 'ein) ron)$*((5 detained $ro1 t%e p(ainti$$ '5 anot%er, or tot%e provisiona( re1ed5 t%at o*(d a((o t%e p(ainti$$ to retain t%e t%in)d*rin) t%e penden+5 o$ t%e a+tion and to %o(d it pendente lite.6T%ea+tion is pri1ari(5 possessor5 in nat*re and )enera((5 deter1inesnot%in) 1ore t%an t%e ri)%t o$ possession. A person see2in) a re1ed5in an a+tion $or rep(evin 1*st $o((o t%e +o*rse (aid don in t%estat*te, sin+e t%e re1ed5 is pena( in nat*re.>I1hen no attempt is madeto comply with the provisions of the law relating to sei?ure in this 4ind ofaction, the writ or order allowing the sei?ure is erroneous and may #e set

aside on motion>2#y the adverse party. ;e it noted, however, that a 1otionto 0*as% t%e rit o$ rep(evin )oes to t%e te+%ni+a( re)*(arit5 o$pro+ed*re, and not to t%e 1erits o$ t%e +ase8in t%e prin+ipa( a+tion.T%e pro+ess re)ardin) t%e eBe+*tion o$ t%e rit o$ rep(evin in Se+tion o$ R*(e / is *na1'i)*o*s= t%e s%eri$$, *pon re+eipt o$ t%e rit o$rep(evin and prior to t%e ta2in) o$ t%e propert5, 1*st serve a +op5t%ereo$ to t%e adverse part5 #petitioner, in t%is +ase& to)et%er it% t%eapp(i+ation, t%e a$$idavit o$ 1erit, and t%e rep(evin 'ond. 8@T%e reasonsare si1p(e, i.e., to provide proper noti+e to t%e adverse part5 that hisproperty is #eing sei?ed in accordance with the courts order uponapplication #y the other party, and ultimately to allow the adverse party tota4e the proper remedy consequent thereto. I$ t%e rit as not served*pon t%e adverse part5 '*t as instead 1ere(5 %anded to a person%o is neit%er an a)ent o$ t%e adverse part5 nor a person a*t%ori?edto re+eive +o*rt pro+esses on %is 'e%a($, t%e servi+e t%ereo$ iserroneo*s and is, t%ere$ore, inva(id, r*nnin) a$o*( o$ t%e stat*tor5 and

+onstit*tiona( re0*ire1ents.Hnder these circumstances, no right to sei?eand to detain the property shall pass, the act of the sheriff #eing #othunlawful and unconstitutional. %he $%&, however, denied the redelivery#ond for having #een filed #eyond the five>* each whichrepresents the rentals of the vehicle. Hnfortunately, * chec4s weredishonerd #y the #an4. Naren Go demanded the #alance which was dueagainst avaro or to return the vehicle. ( second complaint was then filed#y Naren Go which alleged almost the same allegations contained in thefirst complaint e!cept the su#)ect vehicle and the date. avaro then issued >post dated chec4s in the amount of PAA,AAA each #ut the third chec4 wasdishonored for insufficiency of funds. On Octo#er * and I, --, the $%&issued in #oth cases writs of replevin, as a result the 'heriff sei?ed the *

vehicle and delivered the same to the possession of Naren Go. 0n avarosmotion #oth cases were consolidated. 0n its may *AA order the $%&dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint states no cause oaction. Naren Go filed a M$ which was granted #y the $%&. $%& deniedavaros M$. avaro filed a pettion for certiorari with the &( #ut the &(affirmed the $%&s decision. avaros M$ was li4ewise #een denied. 0n hispresent petition, Navaro a((e)ed t%at t%e +o1p(aints ere pre1at*re'e+a*se no prior de1and as 1ade on %i1 to +o1p(5 it% t%eprovisions o$ t%e (ease a)ree1ents 'e$ore t%e +o1p(aints $or rep(evinere $i(ed.

0''H:1hether prior demand is necessary #efore a writ of replevin can #eissued

=": For a rit o$ rep(evin to iss*e, a(( t%at t%e app(i+ant 1*st do isto $i(e an a$$idavit and 'ond, p*rs*ant to Se+tion , R*(e / o$ t%eR*(es, which states: 'ec. *. (ffidavit and #ond. %he applicant must show #yhis own affidavit or that of some other person who personally 4nows thefacts:

Ea %hat the app(i+ant is t%e oner o$ t%e propert5claimed, particularlydescri#ing it, or is entit(ed to t%e possessionthereof9E# %hat the propertyis ron)$*((5 detained '5 t%e adverse part5, alleging the cause odetention thereof according to the #est of his 4nowledge, information, and#elief9Ec %hat the property has not #een distrained or ta4en for a ta!assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or sei?ed under a writ of e!ecution orpreliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under custodialegis, or if so

sei?ed, that it is e!empt from such sei?ure or custody9 andEd %he actuamar4et value of the property.

%he applicant must also give a #ond, e!ecuted to the adverse party indou#le the value of the property as stated in the affidavit aforementionedfor the return of the property to the adverse party if such return #e ad)udgedand for the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he may recoverfrom the applicant in the action. Not%in) in t%ese provisions %i+%re0*ires t%e app(i+ant to 1a2e a prior de1and on t%e possessor o$ t%epropert5 'e$ore %e +an $i(e an a+tion $or a rit o$ rep(evin. T%*s, priorde1and is not a +ondition pre+edent to an a+tion $or a rit o$ rep(evinMore importantly, avarro is no longer in the position to claim that a priodemand is necessary, as he has already admitted in his (nswers that hehad received the letters that Naren Go sent him, demanding that he eithepay his unpaid o#ligations or return the leased motor vehicles. avarrosposition that a demand is necessary and has not #een made is therefore

totally unmeritorious.

SUPPORT PEN"ENTE LITE

"E Asis vs. CA G.R. No. ;@9@6. Fe'r*ar5 ;9, ;777

F(&%': On Octo#er I, -, ir+e( ". Andres, in %er +apa+it5 as t%e(e)a( )*ardian o$ t%e 1inor, G(en Ca1i( Andres de Asis, 'ro*)%t ana+tion $or 1aintenan+e and s*pport a)ainst Man*e( de Asis, 'e$ore t%eRTC o$ *e?on Cit5, alleging that Manuel de (sis is the father of Glen&amil (ndres de (sis, and the former refused andBor failed to provide for themaintenance of the latter, despite repeated demands. Man*e( de asisdenied %is paternit5 o$ t%e said 1inor and %e +annot t%ere$ore 'ere0*ired to provide s*pport $or %i1.On /uly I, --, ir+e( ". Andrest%ro*)% +o*nse(, sent in a 1ani$estation statin) t%at Man*e( de asis1ade a -*di+ia( de+(aration t%at G(en Ca1i( as not %is +%i(d t%ere$ore%e is not entit(e to s*pport t%e +%i(d. 1ith this )udicial declaration, it is a

useless e!ercise to claim for support from Manuel. ;ased on thecircumstances, it will #e practical that Circel ". (ndres will withdraw thecomplaint su#)ect to the condition that Manuel de asis will not file a counterclaim. RTC dis1issed t%e +ase pre-*di+e. On 'eptem#er 3, --2anot%er Co1p(aint $or 1aintenan+e and s*pport as 'ro*)%t a)ainsMan*e( A. de Asis, in t%e na1e o$ G(en Ca1i( Andres de Asisrepresented '5 %er (e)a( )*ardian1ot%er, ir+e( ". Andres. 'e$ore t%eRe)iona( Tria( Co*rt o$ Ja(oo2an, praying that )udgment #e renderedordering to pay the plaintiff the sum of not less than P*,AAA per month foevery month since /une , -3 as support in arrears which defendantfailed to provide.%o give plaintiff a monthly allowance of P2,AAA.AA to #epaid in advance on or #efore the 2th of each and every month9%o giveplaintiff #y way of support pendente lite, a monthly allowance of P2,AAA.AAper month, the first monthly allowance to start retroactively from the first day

7
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_165895_2009.html#fnt42


8/13

of this month and the su#sequent ones to #e paid in advance on or #eforethe 2th of each succeeding month. On O+to'er 6, ;778, Man*e( 1oved todis1iss t%e Co1p(aint on t%e )ro*nd o$ res -*di+ata, a((e)in) t%at Civi(Case C:;;/@ is 'arred '5 t%e prior -*d)1entwhich dismissed withpre)udice &ivil &ase LI2 of %he

$evised Penal &ode provides that persons guilty of rape shall also #esentenced to ac4nowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent himfrom doing so, and in every case to support the offspring. 0n the case#efore us, +o1p*(sor5 a+2no(ed)1ent o$ t%e +%i(d Me(anie Ti'i)ar isnot proper t%ere 'ein) a (e)a( i1pedi1ent in doin) so as it appearst%at t%e a++*sed is a 1arried 1an. (s pronounced #y this &ourt inPeople v. Guerrero,the rule is that if the rapist is a married man, he canno#e compelled to recogni?e the offspring of the crime, should there #e anyas his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate. &onsequently, that portion othe )udgment under review is accordingly deleted. 0n any case, we sustainthat part ordering the accused to support the child as it is in accordance withlaw.

Lope? vs Co*rt o$ Appea(s

Facts: %he $egional %rial &ourt E$%& of Mala#on a decision declaring thenullity of marriage #etween &herry Pie =ope? and (l#erto =ope? a.4.a &esa=ope? Epetitioner. %he decision #ecame final and e!ecutory #ased on acertificationdated /anuary 2, *AA. Petitioner moved to reconsider* thesupport aspect of the decision #ut was denied #y Order of /anuary *+*AA. On Fe#ruary , *AA, the $%&, acting on petitioners otice o(ppealI filed on Fe#ruary 3, *AA, gave it due course and directed thetransmittal of the records of the case to the &ourt of (ppeals as soon aspossi#le. Petitioner paid #efore the $%& a total of 'i!ty EP+A.AA Pesos asdoc4et fees as shown #y Official $eceipt. For petitioners failure to pay thefull amount of P2*A.AA doc4et fees, the &ourt of (ppeals, #y $esolution oMarch -, *AA,+ dismissed his appeal. Petitioner filed a Motion fo$econsideration3of the appellate courts March -, *AA $esolution, #ut itwas denied #y $esolution of (pril *+, *AA on the grounds that the motion

did not contain an affidavit or proof of service and that it did not state on itsface the material dates determinative of its timeliness.

0ssue: 1hether or not the aspect of support is final and e!ecutory.

eld: %he dismissal of the petition notwithstanding, petitioner is not withouremedy. For as %at %e see2s to assai( is t%e a1o*nt o$ s*pport %eas ad-*d)ed to provide, %e +an $i(e a 1otion it% t%e tria( +o*rt $or its1odi$i+ation sin+e a -*d)1ent )rantin) s*pport never 'e+o1es $ina(.

Monte$a(+on vs. as0*e? G.R. No. ;9/;, D*ne ;@, //6

F(&%': 0n ---, petitioner "o(ores P. Monte$a(+on $i(ed a Co1p(aint $oa+2no(ed)1ent and s*pport a)ainst respondent Ronnie S. as0*e?'e$ore t%e RTC o$ Na)a Cit5. A((e)in) t%at %er son La*ren+e is t%ei((e)iti1ate +%i(d o$ as0*e?, s%e pra5ed t%at as0*e? 'e o'(i)ed to

)ive s*pport to +o:petitioner La*ren+e Monte$a(+on, %ose +erti$i+ateo$ (ive 'irt% %e si)ned as $at%er.(ccording to petitioners, Casque? onlygave a total of P-,AAA as support for =aurence since =aurence was #orn in-->. Casque? allegedly also refused to give him regular school allowancedespite repeated demands. Petitioner "olores added that she and Casque?are not legally married, and that Casque? has his own family. as0*e? asde+(ared in de$a*(t $or $ai(*re to anser t%e servi+e o$ s*11ons#s*'stit*ted&. T%e +o*rt ordered as0*e? to a+2no(ed)e La*ren+eand to pa5 P 9/// 1ont%(5.0n the same year, Casque? surfaced. e filed anotice of appeal to which petitioners opposed. (ppeal was granted #y thecourt. ;efore the appellate court, he argued that the trial court erred in tryingand deciding the case as it never acquired )urisdiction over his person, aswell as in awarding P2,AAA


9/13

in the first paragraph of (rticle 3*, there is no further need to file any actionfor ac4nowledgment #ecause any of said modes is #y itself a consummatedact. As $i(iation is 'e5ond 0*estion, s*pport $o((os as 1atter o$o'(i)ation. Petitioners ere a'(e to prove t%at La*ren+e needsas0*e?Ks s*pport and t%at as0*e? is +apa'(e o$ )ivin) s*+% s*pport."olores testified that she spent around P*AA,AAA for =aurence9 she spendsP,AAA a month for his schooling and their su#sistence. 'he told the lowercourt Casque? was earning H'J2>2 monthly #ased on his /anuary A, *AAAcontract of employment with Fathom 'hip Management and his seafarerinformation sheet. %hat income, if converted at the prevailing rate, would #emore than sufficient to cover the monthly support for =aurence. UnderArti+(e ;79 #& o$ t%e Fa1i(5 Code, a parent is o'(i)ed to s*pport %is

i((e)iti1ate +%i(d. T%e a1o*nt is varia'(e. T%ere is no $ina( -*d)1entt%ereo$ as it s%a(( 'e in proportion to t%e reso*r+es or 1eans o$ t%e)iver and t%e ne+essities o$ t%e re+ipient. It 1a5 'e red*+ed orin+reased proportionate(5 a++ordin) to t%e red*+tion or in+rease o$t%e ne+essities o$ t%e re+ipient and t%e reso*r+es or 1eans o$ t%eperson o'(i)ed to s*pport. 'upport comprises everything indispensa#lefor sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education andtransportation, in 4eeping with the financial capacity of the family. Hnder thepremises, the award of P2,AAA monthly support to =aurence is reasona#le,and not e!cessive nor e!or#itant.

Interp(eaderG.R. No. @/;9 Nove1'er ;8, ;76MARCELO A. MESINA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORA!LEINTERME"IATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ARSENIO M. GONONG, in%is +apa+it5 as D*d)e o$ Re)iona( Tria( Co*rt Mani(a #!ran+% III&,DOSE GO, and AL!ERT UY, respondents.

Facts: Respondent Dose Go, on "e+e1'er 7, ;768, p*r+%ased $ro1Asso+iated !an2 Cas%ierKs C%e+2for PAA,AAA.AA. Un$ort*nate(5, DoseGo (e$t said +%e+2 on t%e top o$ t%e des2 o$ t%e 'an2 1ana)er %en %e(e$t t%e 'an2. T%e 'an2 1ana)er entr*sted t%e +%e+2 $or sa$e2eepin)to a 'an2 o$$i+ia(, a +ertain A('ert U5, %o %ad t%en a visitor in t%eperson o$ A(eBander Li1. U5 %ad to anser a p%one +a(( on a near'5te(ep%one a$ter %i+% %e pro+eeded to t%e 1enKs roo1. while =ilia ;. 'evilla and hus#and /ose 'eelin filed their (nswer in &ross, ->. %he heirs of 'ofia OFarrel y Patino, et al.filed their (nswer in 0ntervention dated ovem#er A, ->. M0''0Opresented a motion for the placing on )udicial deposit the amounts due andunpaid from ternal Gardens. %he trial court denied )udicial deposit on theground that the question of ownership of the su#)ect property must first #eresolve. %hus, the contract entered #y the parties was declared ineffective(nother order dated Octo#er *+, -I was issued amending the Fe#ruary

9


10/13

>, -I order and setting aside the order for M0''0Os deposit of theamounts it had previously received from ternal Gardens.0n G.$. o. 3>2+-it appeared that on /anuary , -2, M0''0O filed a motion to dismiss the0nterpleader and the claims of the Maysilo state and the 0ntervenors and toorder the ternal Gardens to comply with its =and Management withM0''0O. On /anuary *, -2, the trial court passed aresolution,dismissing the interpleader and consolidating the interventionsfiled #y Pedro ;anon etc. with the Maysilo estate represented #y its receiver(rturo 'alientes. %he heirs of the Maysilo state moved for reconsiderationof the order of dismissal, which was granted #y the trial )udge.( motion for1rit of !ecution of the resolution of /anuary *, -2 was filed #yM0''0O. %his was denied on /une *2, -2. %he said court further set the

case for pre, -+> in the said case9 t%at t%e de$endant !ienvenido ATan, on t%e ot%er %and, +(ai1s to 'e (a$*( oner o$ its a$oresaid1e1'ers%ip $ee +erti$i+ate /; '5 virt*e o$ 1e1'ers%ip $ee +erti$i+ate/;:seria( no. ;;77 iss*ed to %i1 on D*(5 , ;79/ p*rs*ant to anassi)n1ent 1ade in %is $avor '5 San, C*('ertson and Frit?, t%eori)ina( oner and %o(der o$ 1e1'ers%ip $ee +erti$i+ate /;> , all owhich have #een issued as early as "ecem#er ->-9 that the clu# claims nointerest whatsoever in the said mem#ership fee certificate *A9 that it hasno means of determining who of the two defendants is the lawful ownethereof. %he &orporation prayed that Ea an order #e issued requiring =eeand %an to interplead and litigate their conflicting claims9 and E# )udgment#e rendered, after hearing, declaring who of the two is the lawful owner omem#ership fee certificate *A. owever, %he defendants moved to dismissthe complaint upon the grounds of res judicata, failure of the complaint tostate a cause of action, and #ar #y prescription. Findin) t%e )ro*nds o'ar '5 prior -*d)1ent and $ai(*re to state a +a*se o$ a+tion e(( ta2en

t%e tria( +o*rt dis1issed t%e +o1p(aint, with costs against the&orporation. %he petitioners appealed #efore the &( and contended thaT%e tria( +o*rt erred in dis1issin) t%e +o1p(aint, instead o$ +o1pe((in)t%e appe((ees to interp(ead 'e+a*se t%ere a+t*a((5 are +on$(i+tin)+(ai1s 'eteen t%e (atter it% respe+t to t%e oners%ip o$ 1e1'ers%ip$ee +erti$i+ate /;, and, as t%ere is not Identit5 o$ parties, o$ s*'-e+t1atter, and o$ +a*se o$ a+tion, 'eteen +ivi( +ase / o$ t%e CFI o$Mani(a and t%e present a+tion, t%e +o1p(aint s%o*(d not %ave 'eendis1issed *pon t%e )ro*nd o$ res judicata.%he &( affirmed the decisionof the trial court. ence, petit ion for review.

0ssue: 1hether or not the remedy of 0nterpleader was proper and filed ontime

eld: A sta2e%o(der s%o*(d *se reasona'(e di(i)en+e to %a(e t%e+ontendin) +(ai1ants to +o*rt. e need not await actual institution o

independent suits against him #efore filing a #ill of interpleader. He s%o*(d$i(e an a+tion o$ interp(eader it%in a reasona'(e ti1e a$ter a disp*te%as arisen it%o*t aitin) to 'e s*ed '5 eit%er o$ t%e +ontendin)+(ai1ants. Ot%erise, %e 1a5 'e 'arred '5 (a+%es or *nd*e de(a5. ;uwhere he acts with reasona#le diligence in view of the environmentacircumstances, the remedy is not #arred. %he question in this case is: asthe &orporation in this case acted with diligence, in view of all thecircumstances, such that it may properly invo4e the remedy of interpleader1e do not thin4 so. Corporation in t%e instant +ase as aare o$ t%e+on$(i+tin) +(ai1s o$ t%e appe((ees it% respe+t to t%e 1e1'ers%ip $ee+erti$i+ate /; (on) 'e$ore it $i(ed t%e present interp(eader s*it. It %ad'een re+o)ni?in) Tan as t%e (a$*( oner t%ereo$. It as s*ed '5 Lee%o a(so +(ai1ed t%e sa1e 1e1'ers%ip $ee +erti$i+ate. Yet it did notinterp(ead Tan. It pre$erred to pro+eed it% t%e (iti)ation #+ivi( +ase/& and to de$end itse($ t%erein. As a 1atter o$ $a+t, $ina( -*d)1entas rendered a)ainst it and said -*d)1ent %as a(read5 'een eBe+*ted0t is not therefore too late for it to invo4e the remedy of interpleader. It %as

'een %e(d t%at a sta2e%o(derKs a+tion o$ interp(eader is too (ate %en$i(ed a$ter -*d)1ent %as 'een rendered a)ainst %i1 in $avor o$ one o$t%e +ontendin) +(ai1ants, espe+ia((5 %ere %e %ad noti+e o$ t%e+on$(i+tin) +(ai1s prior to t%e rendition o$ t%e -*d)1ent and ne)(e+tedt%e opport*nit5 to i1p(ead t%e adverse +(ai1ants in t%e s*it %ere

-*d)1ent as entered. %his must #e so, #ecause once )udgment iso#tained against him #y one claimant he #ecomes lia#le to the latter. %now permit the &orporation to #ring =ee to court after the latters successfuesta#lishment of his rights in civil case *+AII to the mem#ership feecertificate *A, is to increase instead of to diminish the num#er of suitswhich is one of the purposes of an action of interpleader, with the possi#ilitythat the latter would lose the #enefits of the favora#le )udgment. %his canno#e done #ecause having elected to ta4e its chances of success in said civicase *+AII, with full 4nowledge of all the fact, the &orporation must su#mi

10


11/13

to the consequences of defeat. Moreover, a successful litigant cannot later#e impleaded #y his defeated adversary in an interpleader suit andcompelled to prove his claim anew against other adverse claimants, as thatwould in effect #e a collateral attac4 upon the )udgment. It is )enera((5 %e(d'5 t%e +ases it is t%e o$$i+e o$ interp(eader to prote+t a part5, nota)ainst do*'(e (ia'i(it5, '*t a)ainst do*'(e veBation on a++o*nt o$ one(ia'i(it5. In $ine, t%e instant interp(eader s*it +annot prosper 'e+a*set%e Corporation %ad a(read5 'een 1ade independent(5 (ia'(e in +ivi(+ase / and, t%ere$ore, its present app(i+ation $or interp(eadero*(d in e$$e+t 'e a +o((atera( atta+2 *pon t%e $ina( -*d)1ent in t%esaid +ivi( +ase> the appellee =ee had already esta#lished his rights tomem#ership fee certificate *A in the aforesaid civil case and, therefore, this

interpleader suit would compel him to esta#lish his rights anew, and there#yincrease instead of diminish litigations, which is one of the purposes of aninterpleader suit, with the possi#lity that the #enefits of the final )udgment inthe said civil case might eventually #e ta4en away from him9 and #ecauset%e Corporation a((oed itse($ to 'e s*ed to $ina( -*d)1ent in t%e said+ase, its a+tion o$ interp(eader as $i(ed ineB+*sa'(5 (ate, $or %i+%reason it is 'arred '5 (a+%es or *nreasona'(e de(a5.

"e+(arator5 Re(ie$G.R. No. ;9/6/, Dan*ar5 6, //6EUFEMIA ALME"A and ROMEL ALME"A, Petitioners, vs. !ATHALAMARJETING IN"USTRIES, INC., Respondent.

Facts: 'ometime in May --3, respondent !at%a(a Mar2etin) Ind*stries,In+., as (essee, represented '5 its president Ra1on H. Gar+ia, reneedits Contra+t o$ Lease it% Pon+iano L. A(1eda #Pon+iano&, as (essor,

%*s'and o$ petitioner E*$e1ia and $at%er o$ petitioner Ro1e( A(1eda .Hnder the said contract, Ponciano agreed to lease a portion of the (lmeda&ompound in Ma4ati &ity. for a term of four EI years from May , --3unless sooner terminated as provided in the contract. T%e +ontra+t o$(ease +ontained pertinent provisions %i+% )ave rise to t%e instant+ase, %erein, t%e (essee s%o*(d pa5 additiona( renta( or +%ar)e in+ase t%ere is in+reased o$ taB rate i1posed on t%e said '*i(din) and in+ase an eBtraordinar5 in$(ation or deva(*ation o$ P%i(ippine C*rren+5s%o*(d s*pervene, t%e va(*e o$ P%i(ippine peso at the time of theesta#lishment of the o#ligation shall #e the #asis of payment. "uring theeffectivity of the contract, Pon+iano died.%hereafter, respondent dealt withpetitioners. Petitioners in$or1ed respondents t%at t%e5 i(( in+reasedt%e renta( rate p*rs*ant to i1position o$ vat and eBtraordinar5 in$(ationor de$(ation as indi+ated in t%e +ontra+t o$ (ease. Respondents re$*sedto pa5 t%e at and ad-*sted renta(s. T%e respondent instit*ted ana+tion $or de+(arator5 re(ie$ $or p*rposes o$ deter1inin) t%e +orre+tinterpretation o$ +onditions o$ t%e (ease +ontra+t to prevent da1a)e

and pre-*di+e. Petitioners (ater 1oved $or t%e dis1issa( o$ t%ede+(arator5 re(ie$ +ase $or 'ein) an i1proper re1ed5 +onsiderin) t%atrespondent as a(read5 in 'rea+% o$ t%e o'(i)ation and that the casewould not end the litigation and settle the rights of the parties. %he trialcourt, however, was not persuaded, and consequently, denied the motion.RTC r*(ed in $avor o$ t%e respondents on t%e )ro*nds t%at= t%e '*rdeno$ pa5in) t%e AT as not a ne taB t%at o*(d +a(( $or app(i+ation andt%e de1and in renta( in+rease, t%ere 'ein) no eBtraordinar5 in$(ation ordeva(*ation. T%e respondent 1ade pa51ent o$ t%e renta( ad-*st1entde1anded '5 petitioners, t%*s, t%e +o*rt ordered t%e restit*tion '5 t%e(atter to t%e $or1er o$ t%e a1o*nts paid, notit%standin) t%e e((:esta'(is%ed r*(e t%at in an a+tion $or de+(arator5 re(ie$, ot%er t%an ade+(aration o$ ri)%ts and o'(i)ations, a$$ir1ative re(ie$ are not so*)%t'5 or aarded to t%e parties. On appeal, &( affirmed decision of $%&,however, it found that the trial court e!ceeded its )urisdiction in grantingaffirmative relief to the respondent, particularly the restitution of its e!cesspayment.

0ssue: 1hether the action for declaratory relied is proper.

eld: Ses. "eclaratory relief is defined as an action #y any personinterested in a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, e!ecutiveorder or resolution, to determine any question of construction or validityarising from the instrument, e!ecutive order or regulation, or statute, and fora declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. General rule that such anaction must #e )ustified, as no other adequate relief or remedy is availa#leunder the circumstances. "ecisional law enumerates the re0*isites o$ ana+tion $or de+(arator5 re(ie$, as follows: ;& the su#)ect matter of thecontroversy must #e a deed, will, contract or other written instrument,statute, e!ecutive order or regulation, or ordinance9 & the terms of saiddocuments and the validity thereof are dou#tful and require )udicial

construction9 8& there must have #een no #reach of the documents inquestion9 &there must #e an actual )usticia#le controversy or the ripeningseeds of one #etween persons whose interests are adverse9 9& the issuemust #e ripe for )udicial determination9 and & adequate relief is noavaila#le through other means or other forms of action or proceeding. (fterpetitioners demanded payment of ad)usted rentals, respondent compliedwith the terms and conditions set forth in their contract of lease #y payingthe rentals stipulated therein. Respondent re(i)io*s(5 $*($i((ed itso'(i)ations to petitioners even d*rin) t%e penden+5 o$ t%e presens*it. T%ere is no s%oin) t%at respondent +o11itted an a++onstit*tin) a 'rea+% o$ t%e s*'-e+t +ontra+t o$ (ease. Further, 0t is truethat in anganiban v. ili!inas "#ell etroleum Cor!oration738we held tha

the petition for declaratory relief should #e dismissed in view of thependency of a separate action for unlawful detainer. 0n the case at #enchthe trial court had not yet resolved the rescissionBe)ectment case during thependency of the declaratory relief petition. 0n fact, the trial court, where therescission case was on appeal, itself initiated the suspension of theproceedings pending the resolution of the action for declaratory relief.

Ta1'*ntin) vs Spo*ses S*1a'atFacts: On May >, -3>, respondents 1ort)a)ed a rea( propert5 topetitioner Antonio Ta1'*ntin), Dr. to se+*re t%e payment of a P3,3*3.-2(oan. 0n (ugust -3+, respondents ere in$or1ed t%at t%eiinde'tedness %ad 'a((ooned to P2,AAA $or t%eir $ai(*re to pa5 t%e1ont%(5 a1orti?ationsMay -33, #ecause respondents defaulted in theio#ligation, petitioner &ommercial ouse of Finance, 0nc. E&F0, asassignee of the mortgage, initiated foreclosure proceedings on themortgaged property #ut the same did not push through. 0t was restrained #y

the then &ourt of First 0nstance E&F0 of &aloocan &ity , a complaint foin)unction filed #y respondents against petitioners. owever, the case wassu#sequently dismissed for failure of the parties to appear at the hearing onovem#er -, -33. On Mar+% ;, ;7@7, respondents $i(ed an a+tion $orde+(arator5 re(ie$ it% t%e CFI o$ Ca(oo+an Cit5, !ran+% 88, see2in) ade+(aration o$ t%e eBtent o$ t%eir a+t*a( inde'tedness. 0t was doc4etedas &ivil &ase o. &.> andauthori?ed them to consign the amount to the court for proper disposition. 0ncompliance with the decision, respondents consigned the required amounon /anuary -, -. 0n March --2, respondents re+eived a noti+e os%eri$$4s sa(e indi+atin) t%at t%e 1ort)a)e %ad 'een $ore+(osed '5

CHFI on Fe#ruary , --2 and that an e!tra)udicial sale of the propertywould #e held on March *3, --2. On March *3, --2, respondentsinstit*ted Civi( Case No. C:;6, a petition $or pre(i1inar5 in-*n+tionda1a)es and +an+e((ation o$ annotation o$ en+*1'ran+e it% pra5er$or t%e iss*an+e o$ a te1porar5 restrainin) order, it% t%e RTC o$Ca(oo+an Cit5, !ran+% ;/. Hoever, t%e p*'(i+ a*+tion s+%ed*(ed ont%at sa1e da5 pro+eeded and t%e propert5 as so(d to CHFI as t%e%i)%est 'idder. $espondents failed to redeem the property during theredemption period. ence, title to the property was consolidated in favor of&F0 and a new certificate of title E%&% o. >A- was issued in its name0n view of these developments, respondents a1ended t%eir +o1p(aint toan a+tion $or n*((i$i+ation o$ $ore+(os*re, s%eri$$4s sa(e and+onso(idation o$ tit(e, re+onve5an+e and da1a)es. On Fe#ruary *AAA, t%e RTC iss*ed t%e assai(ed de+ision . 0t ruled that the - &Fdecision in &ivil &ase o. &.>and authori?ing consignation had long attained finality. T%e 1ort)a)e aseBtin)*is%ed %en respondents paid t%eir inde'tedness '5

+onsi)nin) t%e a1o*nt in +o*rt. As a +onse0*en+e, t%e tria( +o*rn*((i$ied t%e $ore+(os*re and eBtra-*di+ia( sa(e o$ t%e propert5Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the trial courts decision #ut it wasdenied. ence, this petition. Petitioners +(ai1 t%at t%e tria( +o*rt erred%en it a$$ir1ed t%e va(idit5 o$ t%e +onsi)nation. T%e5 insist t%at t%eCFI as 'arred $ro1 ta2in) +o)ni?an+e o$ t%e a+tion $or de+(arator5re(ie$ sin+e, petitioners 'ein) a(read5 in de$a*(t in t%eir (oana1orti?ations, t%ere eBisted a vio(ation o$ t%e 1ort)a)e deed even'e$ore t%e instit*tion o$ t%e a+tion. ence, the &F0 could not haverendered a valid )udgment in &ivil &ase o. &


12/13

0ssue: 1hether or not the decision of &F0 granting the declaratory relief isvalid (nd whether or not the decision of &( affirming the decision of the$%& that the foreclosure is invalid

eld: (n action for declaratory relief should #e filed #y a person interestedunder a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, and whose rights areaffected #y a statute, e!ecutive order, regulation or ordinance before #reachor violation thereof. %he purpose of the action is to secure an authoritativestatement of the rights and o#ligations of the parties under a statute, deed,contract, etc.for their guidance in its enforcement or compliance and not tosettle issues arising from its alleged #reach. 0t may #e entertained only#efore the #reach or violation of the statute, deed, contract, etc. to which it

refers.


13/13

Facts: Petitioners Philippine ational ;an4 EP; and quita#le P&0 ;an4are mem#ers of the consortium of creditor #an4s constituted pursuant to theMortgage %rust 0ndenture EM%0 +dated May *-, --, as amended, #y and#etween $i?al &ommercial ;an4ing &orporation

Documents

Digest Provisional Remedies