Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Navarro Vs Escobido

    Uploaded by

    Kenneth Ng
    This case involved a dispute over two motor vehicles that were leased by Karen Go from Navarro. Navarro claimed that Go's complaints seeking a writ of replevin to seize the vehicles were premature because she did not first demand that he comply with the lease agreements. However, the Supreme Court held that prior demand is not required to file an action for a writ of replevin. All that is needed is for the applicant to file an affidavit and bond establishing ownership or right to possession of the property, that the property is wrongfully detained, that it is not seized under other legal processes, and stating the property's value. There is nothing in the applicable rules that makes a prior demand a necessary precondition for a replev

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Navarro Vs Escobido

    Uploaded by

    Kenneth Ng
    32 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over two motor vehicles that were leased by Karen Go from Navarro. Navarro claimed that Go's complaints seeking a writ of replevin to seize the vehicles were premature because she did not first demand that he comply with the lease agreements. However, the Supreme Court held that prior demand is not required to file an action for a writ of replevin. All that is needed is for the applicant to file an affidavit and bond establishing ownership or right to possession of the property, that the property is wrongfully detained, that it is not seized under other legal processes, and stating the property's value. There is nothing in the applicable rules that makes a prior demand a necessary precondition for a replev

    Original Description:

    Navarro vs Escobido

    Original Title

    Navarro vs Escobido

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over two motor vehicles that were leased by Karen Go from Navarro. Navarro claimed that Go's complaints seeking a writ of replevin to seize the vehicles were premature because she did not first demand that he comply with the lease agreements. However, the Supreme Court held that prior demand is not required to file an action for a writ of replevin. All that is needed is for the applicant to file an affidavit and bond establishing ownership or right to possession of the property, that the property is wrongfully detained, that it is not seized under other legal processes, and stating the property's value. There is nothing in the applicable rules that makes a prior demand a necessary precondition for a replev

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views2 pages

    Navarro Vs Escobido

    Uploaded by

    Kenneth Ng
    This case involved a dispute over two motor vehicles that were leased by Karen Go from Navarro. Navarro claimed that Go's complaints seeking a writ of replevin to seize the vehicles were premature because she did not first demand that he comply with the lease agreements. However, the Supreme Court held that prior demand is not required to file an action for a writ of replevin. All that is needed is for the applicant to file an affidavit and bond establishing ownership or right to possession of the property, that the property is wrongfully detained, that it is not seized under other legal processes, and stating the property's value. There is nothing in the applicable rules that makes a prior demand a necessary precondition for a replev

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Navarro vs.

    Escobido, GR 153788, November 27, 2009


    (Provisional Remedies: Replevin: Prior demand is not a condition precedent)
    Facts: Private respondent (Karen Go) files a complaint with a prayer for the
    issuance of a writ of replevin against petitioner (Navarro) for the seizure of 2
    motor vehicles under lease agreement. Petitioner maintains among others in
    the case at bar that the complaints were premature because no prior
    demand was made on him to comply with the provisions of the lease
    agreements before the complaints for replevin were filed.
    Issue: WON prior demand is a condition precedent to an action for a writ of
    replevin.
    Held: No. Petitioner erred in arguing that prior demand is required before an
    action for a writ of replevin is filed since we cannot liken a replevin action to
    an unlawful detainer.
    For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the applicant must do is to file an
    affidavit and bond, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules, which states:
    Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond:
    The applicant must show by his own affidavit or that of some other person
    who personally knows the facts:
    (a)
    That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed,
    particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof;
    (b)
    That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party,
    alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the best of his
    knowledge, information, and belief;
    (c)
    That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax
    assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or
    preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under custodialegis, or if so
    seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody; and
    (d) The actual market value of the property.
    The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the adverse party in double
    the value of the property as stated in the affidavit aforementioned, for the
    return of the property to the adverse party if such return be adjudged, and
    for the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he may recover from
    the applicant in the action.

    The SC held that there is nothing in the afore-quoted provision which


    requires the applicant to make a prior demand on the possessor of the
    property before he can file an action for a writ of replevin. Thus, prior
    demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin.

    You might also like