PROVREM CASE

YANG V. VALDEZ (REMEDIAL)

A bond that is required to be given by law is commonly understood
to refer to an obligation or undertaking in writing that is sufciently
secured. It is not indispensably necessary, however, that the
obligation of the bond be secured or supported by cash or personal
property or real property or the obligation of a surety other than
the person giving the bond.
The sufciency of a bond is a matter addressed to the sound
discretion of the court which must approve the bond. In the case at
bar, the replevin bond given by respondent spouses was properly
secured by the sureties themselves who declared their solvency
and capacity to answer for the undertaking assumed.
The provisional remedy of R!"#I$ is in the nature of a possessory
action and the applicant who seeks immediate possession of the
property involved need not be holder of the legal title to the
property. It sufces if at the time he applies for a writ of replevin,
he is entitled to the possession thereof.
A defendant in a replevin suit may demand return of possession of
the property replevied by %ling a R&"I#R' ()$& within the
periods speci%ed in *ections + and , of Rule ,-. .nder *ection +,
petitioner may at any time before the delivery of property to the
plainti/, require the return of the property0 in *ection ,, he may do
so within + days after the taking of the property by the ofcer. (oth
periods are mandatory in character.
The decisional principle on the %ling of counter replevin bond to
entitle the defendant to the redelivery or retaining possession of
the property, is compliance with all the conditions precedent
pursuant to the rules, and failure to comply therewith entitles
plainti/ to possession and the initial steps in obtaining redelivery
must be taken within the time limit provided therein.
A defendant in a replevin suit may demand return of possession of
the property replevied by %ling a redelivery bond within + days0
otherwise, the sheri/ will release the property to the third party
claimant.
G.R. No. 73317 August 31, 1989
!OMAS YANG, petitioner,
vs.
!E !ONORA"LE MARCELINO R. VALDEZ, P#$s%&%'g (u&g$,
R$g%o')* #%)* Cou#t, 11t+ (u&%,%)* R$g%o', "#)',+ --II,
G$'$#)* S)'tos C%t., SPS. RICARDO MORANE )'&
MILAGROS MORANE, respondents.
/ELICIANO, J.:
The present !etition for Certiorari
1
seeks to annul and set aside the
orders dated 1 2anuary 345+, 35 2anuary 345+ and 65 7ebruary
345+, of 2udge 8arcelino R. #alde9 of the Regional Trial :ourt of
;eneral *antos :ity, (ranch 66. The assailed orders, respectively,
had approved a replevin bond posted by respondents, denied the
counter<replevin bond %led by 8anuel 'aphockun, and re=ected
petitioner Thomas 'ang>s counter replevin bond.
)n ? 2anuary 345+, respondent spouses Ricardo and 8ilagros
8orante brought an action in the Regional Trial :ourt of ;eneral
*antos :ity against petitioner Thomas 'ang and 8anuel 'aphockun,
to recover possession of two @6A Isu9u<cargo trucks. In their
complaint, the 8orante spouses alleged that they had actual use
and possession of the two @6A cargo trucks, having acquired them
during the period from 3456 to 345?. The trucks were, however,
registered in the name of petitioner Thomas 'ang who was the
Treasurer in the 8orante spouses> business of buying and selling
corn. The 8orante spouses further alleged that they were deprived
of possession of the vehicles in the morning of B 2anuary 345+,
when petitioner 'ang had the vehicles taken from where they were
parked in front of the :oca<:ola !lant in ;eneral *antos :ity, to the
warehouse of 8anuel 'aphockun and there they were thereafter
held. &espite repeated demands, the complaint alleged, petitioner
'ang refused to release the trucks to respondent spouses.
To obtain immediate possession of the Isu9u trucks, respondent
spouses applied for a writ of replevin and put up a replevin bond of
!+,-,---.-- eCecuted by respondent 8ilagros 8orante and Atty.
(ayani :alon9o @counsel for respondent spousesA.lwph1.t
)n 1 2anuary 345+, the respondent =udge issued an order of sei9ure
directing the !rovincial *heri/ of *outh :otabato to take immediate
possession and custody of the vehicles involved. The *heri/ carried
out the order.
)n 3- 2anuary 345+, defendant 8anuel 'aphockun %led a motion
seeking repossession of the cargo trucks, and posted a replevin
counter<bond of !+,-,---.-- eCecuted by himself and one $arciso
8irabueno. The respondent =udge promptly required the respondent
spouses to comment on the counter<bond pro/ered.
The respondent spouses reacted by amending their complaint on
3B 2anuary 345+ by eCcluding 8anuel 'aphockun as party<
defendant. The following day, i.e., 3? 2anuary 345+, the
respondents submitted an opposition to 'aphockun>s counter<bond,
contending that since 8anuel 'aphockun was merely a nominal
defendant, he had no standing to demand the return of the cargo
trucks. (y an order dated 35 2anuary 345+, the respondent =udge
disapproved the counter<bond %led by 8anuel 'aphockun, since the
latter had been dropped as party<defendant and accordingly no
longer had any personality to litigate in the replevin suit. The trial
court also ordered the immediate release and delivery of the cargo
trucks to respondent spouses.
7or his part, petitioner 'ang moved, on 63 2anuary 345+, for an
eCtension of %fteen @3+A days within which to %le an answer to the
complaint for replevin. 7our days later, on 6+ 2anuary 345+,
petitioner put up a counter<bond in the amount of !+,-,---.--
which counter<bond was, however, re=ected by the respondent
=udge for having been %led out of time.
!etitioner 'ang now argues before us that, %rstly, respondent =udge
had committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
eCcess of =urisdiction in approving the replevin bond of respondent
spouses. It is contended by petitioner that replevin bond was
merely an undertaking of the bondsmen 8ilagros 8orante and Atty.
:alon9o to pay the sum of !+,-,---.--, that no tangible security,
such as Dcash, property or surety,D was placed thereby at the
disposal and custody of the court. It is argued, secondly, that the
replevin bond was defective considering that it had been %led by
only one of the two @6A private respondents and that the bondsmen
thereon had failed by its terms to undertake to return the cargo
trucks to petitioner should he @the petitionerA be ad=udged lawful
owner thereof.
Ee are not persuaded by petitioner>s arguments.
A bond that is required to be given by law is commonly understood
to refer to an obligation or undertaking in writing that is sufciently
secured.
0
It is not indispensably necessary, however, that the
obligation of the bond be secured or supported by cash or personal
property or real property or the obligation of a surety other than
the person giving the bond. 8ost generally understood, a DbondD is
an obligation reduced to writing binding the obligor to pay a sum of
money to the obligee under speci%ed conditions.
3
At common law,
a bond was merely a written obligation under seal.
1
A bond is
often, as a commercial matter, secured by a mortgage on real
property0 the mortgagee may be the obligee, although the
mortgagee may also be a third party surety whose personal credit
is added to that of the principal obligor under the bond.
The sufciency of a bond is a matter that is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court which must approve the bond. In the case at
bar, the replevin bond given by the respondent 8orante spouses
was properly secured by the sureties themselves who declared
their solvency and capacity to answer for the undertaking
assumed, through an Afdavit of 2usti%cation which read as followsF
Ee, 8I"A;R)* 8)RA$T and (A'A$I ". :A")$G),
both of legal age, 7ilipinos, married and residents of
8altana, Tampakan, *outh :otabato, and ;eneral
*antos :ity, respectively, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law do hereby depose
and sayF
3. That each of them is a resident
householder or free<holder within the
!hilippines0
6. That each of them is worth the
amount speci%ed in the under<taking
assumed by them in the above bond
over and above all debts, obligations
and property eCempt from eCecution.
I$ EIT$** EHR)7, we have hereunto set our
hands, this ?th day of 2anuary, 345+, at ;eneral
*antos :ity, !hilippines.
The above sworn declaration of solvency which was submitted to
the =udge together with the bond, in e/ect secured the replevin
bond. Ee note also that the sureties or bondsmen under the bond
included not only 8ilagros 8orante who was party<plainti/ below,
but also a third person, Atty. (ayani ". :alon9o who was not a
party<litigant. !etitioner 'ang never put in issue the %nancial
capability of these two @6A sureties. It follows that the approval of
the replevin bond by respondent =udge, before whom it was
presented and who was in a better position than this :ourt to
appreciate the %nancial standing of the sureties, can scarely be
questioned as a grave abuse of discretion.
The other ob=ections to the replevin bond are equally lacking in
merit. The fact that the other respondent, Ricardo 8orante, did not
act as surety on the same bond as his wife did, does not a/ect the
validity or the sufciency of that bond. It would appear to the
bene%t of petitioner that Atty. (ayani ". :alon9o signed up as the
other or second surety or bondsman on that bond, since petitioner
thereby acquired a right of recourse not only against the
respondent spouses but also against a third person, not a party to
the replevin suit. 7urther, the failure of the replevin bond to state
eCpressly that it was Dconditioned for the return of the property to
the defendant, if the return thereof be ad=udged,D
2
is not fatal to
the validity of the replevin bond. The replevin bond put up by
8ilagros 8orante and (ayani ". :alon9o stated that it was given
Dunder the condition that ItheyJ will pay all the costs, which may be
ad=udged to the said defendants and all damages which said
defendants may sustain by reason of the order of replevin, if the
court shall %nally ad=udge that the plainti/s were not entitled
thereto.D
3
Ee believe that the condition of the bond given in this
case substantially complied with the requirement of *ection 6, Rule
,-. 8oreover, the provisions of Rule ,-, *ection 6 of the Revised
Rules of :ourt under which the replevin bond was given may be
regarded as having become part of the bond as having been
imported thereunto. All the particular conditions prescribed in
*ection 6, Rule ,-, although not written in the bond in printer>s ink,
will be read into the bond in determining the scope and content of
the liability of the sureties or bondsmen under that bond.
7
!etitioner also contends that since the respondent spouses are not
the registered owners of the cargo trucks involved, the writ of
replevin should not have been issued. Ee do not think so. The
provisional remedy of replevin is in the nature of a possessory
action and the applicant who seeks immediate possession of the
property involved need not be holder of the legal title to the
property. It sufces, if at the time he applies for a writ of replevin,
he is, in the words of *ection 6, Rule ,-, Dentitled to the possession
thereof.D
!etitioner further urges that the dropping of 8anuel 'aphockun as
party<defendant in the amended complaint was fraudulently
intended to deprive him @'aphockunA of the right to demand the
return of the vehicles in dispute. The difculty with this argument is
that it is merely question<begging. A person in actual or
constructive possession of the goods sought to be replevied, should
of course be made a party<defendant. At the same time, however,
the respondent spouses, as complainants in the suit for replevin,
were entitled, for their own convenience and at their own peril, to
eCclude or strike out the name of a party previously impleaded
from the complaint. In eCcluding 8anuel 'aphockun as party<
defendant from the complaint, the respondent spouses were well
within their rights0 no leave of court was needed, no responsive
pleading having been previously %led.
8
!etitioner would %nally challenge the order of respondent =udge
dated 65 7ebruary 345+ re=ecting his counter<replevin bond for
having been %led out of time. !etitioner received summons on the
amended complaint on 6+ 2anuary 345+ and on the same day, %led
his counterbond. It is his contention that his redelivery bond was
not %led out of time, since he was served with summons only on 6+
2anuary 345+.
A defendant in a replevin suit may demand return of possession of
the property replevied by %ling a redelivery bond within the periods
speci%ed in *ections + and , of Rule ,-, which provideF
*ec. +. Return of property. K If the defendant ob=ects
to the sufciency of the plainti/s bond, or of the
surety or sureties thereon, he cannot require the
return of the property as in this section provided0 but
if he does not so ob=ect, he may, at any time before
the delivery of the property to the plaintif, require
the return thereof by flin with the !ler" or #ude of
the !ourt a bond e$e!uted to the plaintif, in double
the value of the property stated in the plainti/>s
afdavit, for the delivery of the property to the
plaintif, if %u!h delivery be ad#uded, and for the
payment of such sum to him as may be recovered
against the defendant, and by serving a copy of such
bond on the plainti/ or his attorney0
*ec. ,. &i%po%ition of property by o'!er. K (f within
fve )*+ day% after the ta"in of the property by the
o'!er, the defendant does not ob=ect to the
sufciency of the bond, or of the surety or sureties
thereon, or require the return of the property as
provided in the last preceding section0 or if the
defendant so ob=ects and the plainti/s %rst or new
bond is approved0 or if the defendant so requires,and
hi% bond i% ob#e!ted to and found in%u'!ient and
doe% not forthwith fle an approved bond, the
property %hall be delivered to the plaintif. If for any
reason the property is not delivered to the plainti/,
the ofcer must return it to the defendant. @mphasis
suppliedA
.nder *ection +, petitioner may Dat any time before the delivery of
the property to the plainti/D require the return of the property0 in
*ection ,, he may do so, Dwithin %ve @+A days after the taking of the
property by the ofcer.D (oth these periods are mandatory in
character.
9
Thus, a lower court which approves a counter<bond
%led beyond the statutory periods, acts in eCcess of its =urisdiction.
In the instant case, the cargo trucks were taken into custody by the
*heri/ on , -anuary 1./*. !etitioner 'ang>s counter<replevin bond
was %led on 6+ 2anuary 345+. The matter was treated at length in
the trial court>s order of 65 7ebruary 345+F
... (t i% al%o borne by the re!ord that defendant, thru
!oun%el, wa% %erved with !opy 0f the amended
!omplaint droppin defendant 1anuel 2ap from the
!omplaint on -anuary 13, 1./* and hen!e, %aid
re!eipt of the amended !omplaint wa% tantamount to
a %ummon% i%%ued to the defendant 4homa% 2an. It
is a truism that the primary purpose of summons is
to acquire =urisdiction over the person of the parties,
and =urisdiction can be acquired by the voluntary
submission of the defendant to the =urisdiction of the
:ourt. 5en!e, after defendant had been duly
repre%ented by !oun%el even at the in!eption of the
%ervi!e of %ummon% and a !opy of the order of
replevin on -anuary ,, 1./*, defendant 4homa% 2an
had already been duly %erved, e%pe!ially %o, when
!oun%el manife%ted in their !omment to the
oppo%ition fled by plaintif% that 1anuel 2ap ha%
been duly authori6ed to repre%ent 4homa%
2an. 7rom then on defendant should have been on
guard as to the provision of *ection ,, Rule ,- of the
Rules of :ourt K re K the %ve @+A days period within
which to %le the counter<replevin for the approval of
the court, counted from the actual taking of the
property by the ofcer or the sheri/ on 2anuary 1,
345+. It is honestly believed that the %ve<day period
spoken of by the Rule begins from the taking of the
property by the sheri/ and not from the service of
summons to the defendant, for even if summons was
already duly served to the defendant but the
property has not yet been taken by the sheri/, the
provision above cited does not apply. Hence, it is
clear that thepre%!riptive period for flin a !ounter7
replevin bond mu%t be !ounted from the a!tual
ta"in of the property by the %herif, %ub#e!t of the
replevin bond and in thi% parti!ular !a%e on -anuary
,, 1./*.True indeed, that defendant 8anuel 'ap %led
the counter<replevin bond on 2anuary 3-, 345+, which
was denied by this court, that was three @BA days
after the property was taken on 2anuary 1, 345+
butwhen the %aid defendant wa% dropped from the
!omplaint on -anuary 13, 1./*, defendant 4homa%
2an %hould have immediately fled the proper
!ounter7replevin bond after 8anuel 'ap has been
dropped from the complaint on 2anuary 3?, 345+
considering that the counter<replevin bond %led on
2anuary 3-, 345+ by 8anuel 'ap has become
obsolete on this date, 2anuary 3?, 345+. 4he %ervi!e
of %ummon% to 4homa% 2an on -anuary 8*, 1./*,
ha% be!ome an a!ademi! formality be!au%e on
-anuary 81, 1./*, !oun%el ha% already fled a motion
for e$ten%ion of time of ffteen )1*+ day% within
whi!h to fle their re%pon%ive pleadin !ounted from
-anuary 91, 1./*, for the oriinal period of ffteen
)1*+ day% for flin the !orre%pondin an%wer lap%ed
on -anuary 91, 1./*, whi!h thi% !ourt readily
ranted. Hence, irrespective of the order of this court
dated 2anuary 35,345+, denying the counter<replevin
bond %led, defendant 4homa% 2an %hould and mu%t
have fled hi% !ounter replevin bond within two )8+
day% from %ervi!e of the amended !omplaint, the
%ame mu%t have been+:fled on -anuary 1/, 1./*, to
!onform with liberal interpretation of the rule% and
not on -anuary 8*, 1./*, for then the !ounter
replevin bond had been fled beyond the period
provided by the Rule%. The decisional principle on the
%ling of counter replevin bond to entitle the
defendant to the redelivery or retaining possession of
the property, is compliance with all the conditions
precedent pursuant to the rules, and failure to
comply therewith entitles plainti/ to possession, and
the initial steps in obtaining redelivery must be taken
within the time limit provided
thereto . . .
14
@mphasis suppliedA
Ee agree with the conclusion of respondent =udge that petitioner>s
right to %le a counterbond had already prescribed.
Ee consider, accordingly, that respondent =udge did not commit
any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or eCcess of
=urisdiction in issuing the orders here assailed.
EHR7)R, the Resolution of the :ourt dated 5 7ebruary 3455
granting due course to the !etition is hereby EITH&RAE$ and the
D!etition for Review on Appeal by CertiorariD is &$I& for lack of
merit and the orders of respondent 2udge 8arcelino R. #alde9 dated
1 2anuary 345+, 35 2anuary 345+ and 65 7ebruary 345+ are hereby
A77IR8&. $o pronouncement as to costs.
*) )R&R&.