Replevin broadly understood is both a form of principal remedy and of a

Replevin broadly understood is both a form of

This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 10 pages.

Replevin, broadly understood, is both a form of principal remedy and of a provisional relief. It may refer either to the action itself, i.e., to regain the possession of personal chattels being wrongfully detained from the plaintif by another, or to the provisional remedy that would allow the plaintif to retain the thing during the pendency of the action and hold it pendente lite. The action is primarily possessory in nature and generally determines nothing more than the right of possession. Replevin is so usually described as a mixed action, being partly in rem and partly in personam — in rem insofar as the recovery of specific property is concerned, and in personam as regards to damages involved. As an “action in rem,” the gist of the replevin action is the right of the plaintif to obtain possession of specific personal property by reason of his being the owner or of his having a special interest therein. PCI after realizing the amount of P2,000,000.00 from the proceeds of the foreclosure sale, could have prayed for a deficiency judgment in the same action as in fact it pursued its claim for attorney’s fees and liquidated damages therein, which claim was however, dismissed by the trial court. PCI, however, did not press any demand for such deficiency judgment in said case and instead filed this present suit for deficiency judgment long after the trial court rendered judgment in the earlier case. It cannot, however, evade the application of res judicata by varying the form of its action herein since the causes of action in the first case and in the present suit are clearly identical.
Image of page 5
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 pros and 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
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 10 pages?

  • Fall '18
  • Appellate court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture