Replevin, broadly understood, is both a form of principal remedy and of aprovisional relief. It may refer either to the action itself, i.e., to regain thepossession of personal chattels being wrongfully detained from the plaintifby another, or to the provisional remedy that would allow the plaintif toretain the thing during the pendency of the action and hold it pendente lite.The action is primarily possessory in nature and generally determinesnothing more than the right of possession. Replevin is so usually describedas a mixed action, being partly in rem and partly in personam — in reminsofar as the recovery of specific property is concerned, and in personamas regards to damages involved. As an “action in rem,” the gist of thereplevin action is the right of the plaintif to obtain possession of specificpersonal property by reason of his being the owner or of his having aspecial interest therein.PCI after realizing the amount of P2,000,000.00 from the proceeds of theforeclosure sale, could have prayed for a deficiency judgment in thesame action as in fact it pursued its claim for attorney’s fees and liquidateddamages therein, which claim was however, dismissed by the trial court.PCI, however, did not press any demand for such deficiency judgment insaid case and instead filed this present suit for deficiency judgment longafter the trial court rendered judgment in the earlier case. It cannot,however, evade the application of res judicata by varying the form ofits action herein since the causes of action in the first case and in thepresent suit are clearly identical.
AURORA B. GO, Petitioner, vs. ELMER SUNBANUN,* GEORGIE S. TAN, DORIS SUNBANUN and RICHARD SUNBANUN, Respondents.FACTS:Respondents filed a suit for damages against Aurora, her husband Yiu Wai Sang, and Yiu-Go Employment Agency for breach of warranty in the fire insurance policies that the respondents made involving the property rented by petitioner.The RTC rendered judgment finding only Aurora liable and ordering her to pay moral damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs.Aurora filed her Motion for Reconsideration on the last day to file her appeal. The court in its April 27, 2004 Order denied said motion.Atty. Ycong received the notice of denial with a day left to file her appeal. Explaining that Aurora has been busy campaigning for the local elections as she was running for the position of town mayor in Calubian, Leyte and that he and his client have yet to discuss the prosand cons of appealing the case, Atty. Ycong sought for the relaxation of the procedural rules by filing an extension of 15 days to file Aurora’s notice of appeal. The RTC denied the notice of appeal thereafter filed.For non-compliance with the formal requirements of a petition, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the certiorari petition filed by petitioner. The CA dismissed the petition for being procedurally flawed, viz: the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is signed by only one petitioner without a Special Power of