Scribd
Upload
48 views1 page

Summary of The Ruling: Since The Writ Was Not Properly Served, The 5 Day Period Within Which To File The Redelivery Bond Does Not Commence

The court ruled that since the writ of replevin was not properly served to Rivera, the mandatory 5-day period for filing a redelivery bond did not commence. Vargas filed a complaint against Rivera to recover construction equipment. However, the writ of replevin was served to the security guard of the crushing plant, not Rivera, which does not comply with constitutional requirements of due process. As the writ was invalidly served, there was no defined start date for the 5-day period, so Rivera's filing of the redelivery bond beyond 5 days from seizure was not untimely. The court granted Rivera's petition and ordered the case to proceed to trial.

Uploaded by

Veronica Chan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
48 views1 page

Summary of The Ruling: Since The Writ Was Not Properly Served, The 5 Day Period Within Which To File The Redelivery Bond Does Not Commence

The court ruled that since the writ of replevin was not properly served to Rivera, the mandatory 5-day period for filing a redelivery bond did not commence. Vargas filed a complaint against Rivera to recover construction equipment. However, the writ of replevin was served to the security guard of the crushing plant, not Rivera, which does not comply with constitutional requirements of due process. As the writ was invalidly served, there was no defined start date for the 5-day period, so Rivera's filing of the redelivery bond beyond 5 days from seizure was not untimely. The court granted Rivera's petition and ordered the case to proceed to trial.

Uploaded by

Veronica Chan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

REPLEVIN

#1.RIVERA VS VARGAS
(Summary of the ruling: Since the writ was not properly served, the 5 day period within which to file
the redelivery bond does not commence)
FACTS: Vargas filed a complaint against Rivera for the recovery of 150 T/H rock crushing plant
located in quezon. Vargas contends that said items were entrusted to Rivera's husband but upon his
death, Rivera refuses to hand over such items to him despite several demands, hence this court
action. The complaint was accompanied with prayer for replevin.
Summons was served to Rivera's secretary. However, the WRIT OF REPLEVIN WAS SERVED AND
SIGNED BY THE SECURITY GUARD OF THE CRUSHING PLANT despite the returns of such showed
that it was Rivera who received it.
Subsequently, Rivera filed an opposition to Vargas' claim and also filed a motion for acceptance of
REDELIVERY BOND. RTC DENIED, ruling that it was filed out of time since it was filed beyond the lapse
of (5) days from date of seizure. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: W/N redelivery bond was filed out of time and hence, should be denied.
HELD: NO. Service of the writ upon the adverse party is mandatory in line with the constitutional guaranty on
procedural due process and as safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures.[38] If the writ was not
served upon the adverse party but was instead merely handed to a person who is neither an agent of the adverse
party nor a person authorized to receive court processes on his behalf, the service thereof is erroneous and is,
therefore, invalid, running afoul of the statutory and constitutional requirements. The service is likewise
invalid if the writ of replevin was served without the required documents. Under these circumstances, no right
to seize and to detain the property shall pass, the act of the sheriff being both unlawful and unconstitutional.
since the writ was invalidly served, petitioner is correct in contending that there is no reckoning point from
which the mandatory five-day period shall commence to run.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, as well as its Resolution, in
CA-G.R. SP No. 78529 is hereby SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court is hereby ordered to restore the
parties to their former positions, discharge respondents replevin bond, and proceed with the trial of the main
action with dispatch.

You might also like