FACTS LOWER COURT/
PROCEDURAL ASPECT DECISION APPEALED FROM/
1) Filinvest Credit Corp. v. CA,
sps. Tadiaman
-Defendants-appellees, sps
Edilberto and Marciana
Tadiaman, purchased a 10-
wheeler Izusu cargo truck from
Jordan Enterprises, in
installments.
Said spouses executed a
promissory note and a Chattel
Mortgage over the motor vehicle
purchased to secure the payment
of the promissory note.
-Jordan Enterprises, Inc.
assigned its rights and interests
over the said instruments to
Filivest
- sps Tadiaman defaulted in the
payment of the installments due
on the promissory note,
- plaintiff-appellant filed an action
for replevin and damages against
them. Upon motion of the plaintiff-
appellant, a writ of replevin was
issued, and the truck was seized
in the province of Isabela, by
persons who represented
themselves to be special sheriffs
of the court, but who turned out to
be employees of the plaintiff-
appellant. Truck was brought
back to Manila
- defendant spouses filed a
counterbond, and the lower court
ordered the return of the truck.
- This was not immediately
implemented because the
defendant spouses were met with
delaying tactics of the plaintiff-
appellant, and when they finally
CONTENTION OF PARTIES/
TRIAL COURT
Main action: in favor of plaintiff
FILINVEST (sum of money) but it
held that for replevin was not in
order as [Filinvest] is not the
owner of the property
Counterclaim: in favor of
counter-claimants defendants
(award: Actual, moral, exemplary,
Attys fees)
Filinvest Credit Corporation
(hereinafter Filinvest ) appealed
that portion of the judgment on
the counterclaim to the Court of
Appeals
RULING
ISSUE
Court of Appeals correctly ruled that Filinvest is liable for
Petitioners Contention: -TC damages not because it commenced an action for replevin to
erred in awarding damages in recover possession of the truck prior to its foreclosure, but
favor of defendants in the because of the manner it carried out the seizure of the vehicle.
absence of any actionable loss Sections 3 and 4, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court are very clear
sustained by them for it was them and direct as to the procedure for the seizure of property under a
who violated their promissory writ of replevin, thus:
note
Sec. 3. Order.Upon the filing of such affidavit and bond with the
- that it had the right to seize the clerk or judge of the court in which the action is pending, the judge
truck from the moment that the of such court shall issue an order describing the personal
defendants appellees defaulted property alleged to be wrongfully detained, and requiring the
in the payment of the monthly sheriff or other proper officer of the court forthwith to take such
installments, and to institute an
property into his custody.
action for replevin preliminary to
effecting a foreclosure of the
Sec. 4. Duty of the officer.Upon receiving such order the officer
property mortgaged
must serve a copy thereof on the defendant together with a copy
extrajudicially
of the application, affidavit and bond, and must forthwith take the
property, if it be in the possession of the defendant or his agent,
COURT OF APPEALS
and retain it in his custody. . . . (emphasis supplied)
CA: affirmed in toto the decision
of the trial court
In Bachrach Motor Co. vs. Summers, the ruling was if a
mortgagee cannot obtain possession of a mortgaged property for
Plaintiff-appellant has not been
its sale on foreclosure, it must bring a civil action either to recover
held liable for filing an action for
such possession as a preliminary step to the sale or to obtain
replevin in order to recover
judicial foreclosure.
possession of the truck prior to its
The conclusion is clear that for the recovery of possession, where
foreclosure, but for the manner in
the right is disputed, the creditor must proceed along the usual
which it carried out the seizure of
channels by action in court.
the vehicle.
The consequence is that in such case the creditor must either
plaintiff-appellant was held liable
resort to a civil action to recover possession as a preliminary to a
for hiding the truck and making it
sale, or preferably he may bring an action to obtain a judicial
difficult for the defendants
foreclosure in conformity, so far as practicable, with the
appellees to recover the same.
provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law
Defendants-appellees were able
to have the writ of seizure
Replevin is, of course, the appropriate action to recover
quashed on the basis of a
possession preliminary to the extrajudicial foreclosure of a chattel
counterbond. And yet, it made it
mortgage
difficult for the defendants
appellees to actually recover the
vehicle.
recovered the truck, they found
the same to be cannibalized.
- defendants-appellee filed a
counterclaim for damages
(ground: illegal seizure of the
property, and hiding the truck in
some other place not their
garage, feigning knowledge that
the same had been recorded in
their incoming ledger books, the
cannibalizing done while the
truck was in the custody of
plaintiffs garage, the frustrations
which the defendants had to
undergo for two weeks before the
truck was finally placed in the
hands of Sheriff
FACTS
2) CHIAO LIONG TAN,
petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON.
MANUEL T. MURO, Presiding
Judge, RTC of Manila, and TAN
BAN YONG, respondents.
Petitioner Chiao Liong Tan filed
an action for replevin and claims
to be the owner of a motor
vehicle, an Isuzu elf van.
Petitioner says he has been in
possession, enjoyment and
there is unrebutted evidence that
LOWER COURT/
PROCEDURAL ASPECT
TRIAL COURT: In favor of
private respondent Tan Ban Yong
as the owner of and entitled to
the possession of the vehicle.
APPEAL
CA: Affirm TC
the truck was cannibalized
while in the custody of the
plaintiff-appellant
ISSUE: W/N CA erred?
CONTENTION OF PARTIES/
DECISION APPEALED FROM/
ISSUE
ISSUE:
1)W/N CA erred in disregarding
the Certificate of Registration of
the subject motor vehicle as proof
of ownership by the petitioner-
appellant NO
2) W/N ownership may be
decided in a proceeding for
replevin. -YES
trial court erred in holding that the action for replevin was not in
order as [Filinvest] is not the owner of the property (Sec. 2 par.
(a) Rule 60).
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 . . .
That the plaintiff is the owner of the property claimed, particularly
describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof; . . .
(emphasis supplied)
Upon the default by the mortgagor in his obligations,
Filinvest, as a mortgagee, had the right to the possession of the
property mortgaged preparatory to its sale in a public auction.
However, for employing subterfuge in seizing the truck by
misrepresenting its employees as deputy sheriffs and then hiding
and
cannibalizing it, Filinvest committed bad faith in violation of Article
19 of the Civil Code which provides:
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due,
and observe honesty and good faith.
RULING
1) A certificate of registration of a motor vehicle in ones name
indeed creates a strong presumption of ownership. For all
practical purposes, the person in whose favor it has been issued
is virtually the owner thereof unless proved otherwise. In other
words, such presumption is rebuttable by competent proof.
It is undeniable that an implied trust was created when the
certificate of registration of the motor vehicle was placed in the
name of petitioner although the price thereof was not paid by him
but by private respondent.
The principle that a trustee who puts a certificate of registration
in his name cannot repudiate the trust by relying on the
registration is one of the well-known limitations upon a title.
utilization of the said motor 2) Primarily, the action of replevin is possessory in character and
vehicle until it was taken from him determines nothing more than the right of possession. However,
by his older brother, Tan Ban when the title to the property is distinctly put in issue by the
Yong, the private respondent. defendants plea and by reason of the policy to settle in one
-Petitioner relies principally on the action all the conflicting claims of the parties to the possession of
fact that the Isuzu the property in controversy, the question of ownership may be
Elf van is registered in his name. resolved in the same proceeding.
-private respondent testified that
CLT Industries is a family Finally, although, a replevin action is primarily one for
business that was placed in possession of personalty, yet it is sufficiently flexible to
petitioners name because at that authorize a settlement of all equities between the parties ,arising
time he was then leaving for the from or growing out of the main controversy.17 Thus, in an action
United States and petitioner is the for replevin where the defendant is adjudged entitled to
remaining Filipino in the family possession, he need not go to another forum to procure relief for
residing in the Philippines, and the return of the replevied property or secure a judgment for the
that he paid for the van. value of the property in case the adjudged return thereof could
-Private respondent was able to not be had. Appropriately, the trial court rendered an alternative
present testimonies declaring that judgment.
he paid for the van
Petition for review is denied

FACTS LOWER COURT/ CONTENTION OF PARTIES/ RULING

PROCEDURAL ASPECT DECISION APPEALED FROM/
ISSUE
3) THE PHILIPPINE PORTS
AUTHORITY, represented by its
GENERAL MANAGER JUAN O.
PENA, petit`ioner, vs.
CIPRES STEVEDORING &
ARRASTRE, INC., respondent.

FACTS LOWER COURT/ CONTENTION OF PARTIES/ RULING

PROCEDURAL ASPECT DECISION APPEALED FROM/
ISSUE

FACTS LOWER COURT/ CONTENTION OF PARTIES/ RULING

PROCEDURAL ASPECT DECISION APPEALED FROM/
ISSUE

FACTS LOWER COURT/ CONTENTION OF PARTIES/ RULING

PROCEDURAL ASPECT DECISION APPEALED FROM/
ISSUE
FACTS LOWER COURT/ CONTENTION OF PARTIES/ RULING
PROCEDURAL ASPECT DECISION APPEALED FROM/
ISSUE

FACTS LOWER COURT/ CONTENTION OF PARTIES/ RULING

PROCEDURAL ASPECT DECISION APPEALED FROM/
ISSUE

FACTS LOWER COURT/ CONTENTION OF PARTIES/ RULING

PROCEDURAL ASPECT DECISION APPEALED FROM/
ISSUE

FACTS LOWER COURT/ CONTENTION OF PARTIES/ RULING

PROCEDURAL ASPECT DECISION APPEALED FROM/
ISSUE