Rightful payment under s 145 of

Act of a child under seven years of age:

Rightful payment under s 145 of

The case was docketed as Civil Case No.

Rightful payment under s 145 of

Q and assigned to RTC Branch After hearing the application, the trial court issued a July 29, Order 6 decreeing as follows: The subject vehicle was seized by the court-appointed special sheriff who then filed the corresponding Sheriff's Return.

Respondent claimed that he is the lawful and registered owner of the subject vehicle, having bought the same and caused registration thereof in his name on March 7, ; that the Complaint in Civil Case No. As for the alleged procedural defects, respondent claimed that the sheriff implemented the writ against the HPG, which is not a party to the case; that the Complaint must be dismissed for failure to pay the correct docket foes based on the actual value of the vehicle; and that the trial court acted with undue haste in granting the writ of replevin.

It held that respondent's remedy is not to move to quash the writ of replevin, but to post a counterbond within the reglementary period allowed under the Rules; that for failure to post said, counterbond, respondent's prayer for the return of the vehicle to him is premature; that the issues of ownership and insufficiency of the allegations in the complaint are best determined during trial; and that an allegation of undervaluation of the vehicle cannot divest the court of jurisdiction.

Respondent moved for reconsideration, but he was rebuffed just the same. Q on account of failure to pay the correct docket fees, defective complaint, procedural irregularities in the service of the writ of replevin, the fact that he is the registered owner of the subject vehicle, and for the reason that the trial court irregularly took cognizance of the case during the period for inventory of its cases.

Respondent sought injunctive relief as well. The CA added that it was improper for the sheriff to serve a copy of the writ of replevin upon the respondent on the day following the seizure of the subject vehicle, and not prior to the taking thereof; that the trial court is deemed to have acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it seized and detained the vehicle on the basis of an improperly served writ; and that respondent was correct in moving to quash the writ, as the proper remedy in case of an improperly served writ of replevin is to file a motion to quash the same or a motion to vacate the order of seizure, and not to file a counterbond as the trial court declared.

The CA thus decreed: Hence, the present Petition. In a November 10, Resolution, 19 this Court resolved to give due course to the Petition.

Issues Petitioner pleads the following assignment of errors: On the issue relating to his supposed defective complaint on account of insufficient allegations made therein, petitioner contends that there is nothing in the Rules which requires him to copy the requirements in Section 2 of Rule 60 and incorporate them to the letter in his complaint, as the rule merely requires an applicant in replevin to show the circumstances in his complaint or affidavit of merit, which he claims he did.

Finally, petitioner insists that the writ of replevin was properly served upon respondent. He did not address the issue relating to the sheriff's service of summons, the Writ of replevin, and the responding order of the trial court on the day following the seizure and detention of the subject vehicle, arguing rather sweepingly that it is sufficient for the sheriff to have served respondent with a copy of the writ of replevin, together with the complaint, affidavit, and bond.

He conceded that respondent was in constructive possession of the vehicle, as he was the registered owner thereof.


In his Reply, 22 petitioner retorts that the Petition is grounded on questions of law; that even though respondent was able to register the vehicle in his name, he is nonetheless a buyer and possessor in bad faith, and thus, the transfer of ownership over the subject vehicle in his favor is illegal; that a criminal case for estafa relative to the vehicle is pending against Ong, Chua, and Centeno; that Lopez's purported sale to Chua was anomalous; and that respondent should have filed a counterbond.

Respondent's Arguments In his Comment, 23 respondent essentially counters that the Petition should be dismissed as it raises issues of fact; that a liberal application of the rule requiring the payment of correct docket fees cannot apply to petitioner's case since he intentionally defrauded the court in misdeclaring the value of the subject vehicle; that while they need not be stated verbatim, the enumeration of required allegations under Section 2 of Rule 60 must still be specifically included in a complaint for replevin or in the accompanying affidavit of merit; that petitioner failed to show that he is the owner of the vehicle or that he is entitled to its possession, and that the vehicle is wrongfully detained by him, and that it has not been distrained, seized or placed under custodia legis; and that he is a buyer in good faith and for value.

Our Ruling The Petition must be denied. Court of Appeals, 26 this Court likewise held that- x x x It is not only the owner who can institute a replevin suit. A person "entitled to the possession" of the property also can, as provided in the same paragraph cited by the trial court, which reads: Wrongful detention by the defendant of the properties sought in an action for replevin must be satisfactorily established.

If only a mechanistic averment thereof is offered, the writ should not be issued.


This Court is not unaware of the practice by many vehicle buyers and second-hand car traders of not transferring registration and ownership over vehicles purchased from their original owners, and rather instructing the latter to execute and sign in blank deeds of sale covering these vehicles, so that these buyers and dealers may freely and readily trade or re-sell the vehicles in the second-hand car market without difficulty.The friendly team at Ray Skillman Chevrolet is happy to help you determine what's best for you.

South Post Rd. • Indianapolis, IN but the financial institution you leased it through is the rightful owner of that car. Typically, the costs associated with leasing a car include the first month’s payment, a security deposit.

contrary to petitioner's contentions and the trial court's erroneous ruling. In a Contract to Sell, the payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a breach, casual or serious, but a situation that.

By Greg Hunter's urbanagricultureinitiative.com (Early Sunday Release) Financial and geopolitical analyst Warren Pollock warns, "When I go swimming in the ocean, sometimes I have to duck under a wave. This wave may be too large to duck under, and I think that is what these large events are.

I think we are seeing large events, the. Replevin (/ r ɪ ˈ p l ɛ v ə n /) or claim and delivery (sometimes called revendication) is a legal remedy which enables a person to recover personal property taken wrongfully or unlawfully, pending a final determination by a court of law, and to obtain compensation for resulting losses.

Oct 11,  · “A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Physicians in California, however, face other targets and pay-for-performance initiatives in a context of multiple payers and payment rules. In addition, in England, the pay-for-performance initiative was part of a broader program of reform that greatly increased investment in primary care.