Himself because clt industries was not in a position

This preview shows page 27 - 29 out of 30 pages.

himself because CLT Industries was not in a position to pay him. Hence, from the time of the purchase, he hadbeen in possession of the vehicle including the original registration papers thereof, but allowing petitioner fromtime to time to use the van for deliveries of machinery. Petitioner thus filed an action for replevin and damages.Both RTC and CA denied the petition.ISSUEWhether or not replevin, being possessory in nature, is the proper remedy.HELDReplevin is in the nature of a possessory action and determines nothing more than the right of possession.However, when the title to the property is distinctly put in issue by the defendant's plea and by reason of thepolicy to settle in one action all the conflicting claims of the parties to the possession of the property incontroversy, the question of ownership may be resolved in the same proceeding.Further, although a "replevin" action is primarily one for the possession of personality, yet it is sufficientlyflexible to authorize a settlement of all equities between the parties, arising from or growing out of the maincontroversy. 17 Thus, in an action for replevin where the defendant is adjudged entitled to possession, he need notgo to another forum to procure relief for the return of the replevied property or secure a judgment for the value ofthe property in case the adjudged return thereof could not be had. As such, both RTC and CA are correct in theirdecision.
28 |S A N T I A G O , S a r a A n d r e a N i n a P . 2 0 1 7 - 0 0 6 4 C i v i l P r o c e d u r e S e a t w o r ke.Direct and Indirect ContemptA.M. No. 05-3-04-SCJuly 22, 2005RE: LETTER DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2005 OF ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDAFACTSIn a letter to the Chief Justice dated February 21, 2005, with copies thereof furnished all the Associate Justices ofthe Court and other government entities, RTC judges and counsels listed thereunder, Atty. Noel S. Sorreda, whoidentified himself as “member, Philippine Bar”, expressed his frustrations over the unfavorable outcome of andthe manner by which the Court resolved the 10 cases filed by him recounting therein and alleging circumstancessurrounding the dismissal on February 7, 2000 of the very first case he filed with the Court, UDK-12854, entitledRamon Sollegue vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Frustrated with the adverse ruling thereon, Atty. Sorreda hadpreviously written a letter dated April 2, 2001 addressed to the Chief Justice, copy furnished all the AssociateJustices of this Court, the Court of Appeals and the Office of the Solicitor General, denouncing the Court, asfollows:Reacting, the Court, in an en banc Resolution dated August 14, 2001, required Atty. Sorreda to show cause whyhe should not be properly disciplined “for degrading, insulting and dishonoring the Supreme Court by using vile,offensive, intemperate and contemptuous derogatory language against it”. In response to the “show cause” order,Atty. Sorreda addressed two (2) more letters to the Court dated December 2, 2001 and June 16, 2002, arguing forthe propriety of his action and practically lecturing the Court on his concepts of Legal and Judicial Ethics and

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 30 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
N/A
Tags
Pleading, Appellate court, Trial court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture