Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > August 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 42142 August 9, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., v. MARIANO A. ALBERT, ET AL.

060 Phil 308:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 42142. August 9, 1934.]

THE BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., Petitioner, v. MARIANO A. ALBERT, judge of Branch AB of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ISABEL ABLAZA, and PEDRO VALDEZ LIONGSON, Respondents.

Ohnick & Opisso for Petitioner.

Pedro Valdez Liongson for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. REPLEVIN; MANUAL DELIVERY OF PERSONAL PROPERTY; COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BY DEFENDANT FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY; CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION 267, CONSTRUED. — The last sentence of section 267 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reading: "If a return of the property be not so required within five days after the taking and service of notice to the defendant, it must be delivered to the plaintiff, except as provided in section two hundred and seventy", is taxative and mandatory in nature. For one to avail himself of the privilege of retaining the possession of property, compliance with the conditions precedent imposed is necessary, and failure to comply therewith entitles plaintiff to possession. The redelivery bond must be filed within the time prescribed.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — A trial judge acts in excess of jurisdiction when he attempts to approve a bond for the redelivery of chattels to the defendant presented after the statutory period has expired.


D E C I S I O N


MALCOLM, J.:


The facts which have induced the presentation of this petition for a writ of certiorari addressed to the Court of First Instance of Manila not being in dispute, the legal question arising out of the admitted facts is only to be decided, and concerns the interpretation which should be given to the last sentence of section 267 found in the portion of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to manual delivery of personal property, and reading: "If a return of the property be no so required within five days after the taking and service of notice to the defendant, it must be delivered to the plaintiff, except as provided in section two hundred and seventy."cralaw virtua1aw library

Isabel Ablaza and Pedro Valdez Liongson executed promissory notes, and chattel mortgages on autocalesas, in favor of the Bachrach Motor Company, Inc. An action for the foreclosure of the chattel mortgages was begun. In aid of the foreclosure proceeding, the plaintiff in that case filed an action for the delivery of personal property and presented a bond in order to obtain possession of the autocalesas. The sheriff of Manila, after taking over the control of the chattels, gave notice to the defendants to file a bond for the return of the property if they desired to retain it. Within the five- day period the defendants failed to file any bond. Upon such failure the sheriff of Manila delivered the chattels to the plaintiff. Five days later the defendants filed an urgent motion in which they asked the court to approve a bond in the sum of P6,000 for the return to them of the replevied chattels. After hearing the trial judge granted the petition on the theory that he had general jurisdiction, and that there was nothing in the law which prohibited him to take action.

Section 267 of our code of Civil Procedure was derived from section 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure of California. In turn, the California codal provision was based on the Practice Act of New York, except that instead of using the word "shall" before the words "be delivered", the word "must" was used. The emphatic, taxative, mandatory nature of the language is accordingly evident. The New York Court has held that, where seller, for default in payments on a machine sold on an installment contract secured by a chattel mortgage, replevied the machine, the buyer, not having given the statutory bond and reclaimed the chattel, nor having demanded the return thereof, has, as a matter of law, conceded seller’s right to possession. (O. B. Brush Corp. v. Weiner Bookbinding Co. [1922], 198 N. Y. S., 566.) The California Court has held that the right of a defendant in a claim and delivery action to require the return to him of property taken from him by the sheriff is conditioned upon his giving to the sheriff an undertaking as provided by section 514, Code of Civil Procedure. (Bailey v. Baker [1915], 153 Pac., 242.) A Pennsylvania Court has held that the bond must be filed within the time prescribed. (Lunneman v. Lunneman, 11 Pa. Dist., 759.)

Aside from the intendment to be deduced from the language used by the Legislature and aside from the authorities, it is readily apparent that for one to avail himself of the privilege of retaining the possession of property, compliance with the conditions precedent imposed is necessary, and failure to comply therewith entitles plaintiff to possession. The initial steps in obtaining redelivery must be taken within the time limited by the statute. In this connection it should be recalled that the autocalesas had passed out of the possession of the defendants and out of the control of the court into the possession of the plaintiff because of the failure of the defendants to file the necessary bond in time.

The parties have discussed other phases of the case, particularly the effect of Act No. 4122 which introduced by way of amendment article 1454-A into the Civil Code. We think, however, that any pronouncements on these questions would be beyond the issue. The controlling factor is that the trial judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in attempting to approve a bond for the redelivery of the chattels presented after the statutory period had expired.

Petition granted, the costs to be paid by the respondents Isabel Ablaza and Pedro Valdez Liongson.

Villa-Real, Imperial, Butte and Goddard, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 40198 August 1, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO URSUA

    060 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 40709 August 1, 1934 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. PURE CANE MOLASSES CO., INC.

    060 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 41568 August 2, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRANQUILINO BALANSAG

    060 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 40372 August 4, 1934 - GOTIAOCO HERMANOS, INC. v. FELICIANA ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 41040 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GELACIO DEQUIÑA

    060 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 41131 August 9, 1934 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MIGUEL v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF LEYTE, ET AL.

    060 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 41308 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CO CHANG

    060 Phil 293

  • G.R. Nos. 41984 & 42051 August 9, 1934 - NEMESIO MONTEVERDE, ET AL. v. DELFIN JARANILLA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 42142 August 9, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., v. MARIANO A. ALBERT, ET AL.

    060 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 40322 August 10, 1934 - SINFOROSO DE GALA v. GENEROSO DE GALA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 40763 August 10, 1934 - UNITED STATES SHOE COMPANY v. LOURDES M. CATALA

    060 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 40786 August 10, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO ARIARTE

    060 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 40958 August 11, 1934 - JOSE SANTOS v. MARIA LUCIANO

    060 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 41292 August 11, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LUNETA MOTOR CO., ET AL.

    060 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. 40945 August 15, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ASTUDILLO

    060 Phil 338

  • G.R. Nos. 40543 & 40544 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IMAM AMPAN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 40934 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELENO QUINTO

    060 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 40445 August 17, 1934 - NICOLASA MACAM v. JUANA GATMAITAN

    060 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 40553 August 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUADA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 41503 August 17, 1934 - E. M. MASTERSON v. SMITH NAVIGATION COMPANY

    060 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. 40577 August 23, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCOPIO REYES, ET AL.

    060 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. 41313 August 24, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS MANDIA

    060 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 42181 August 24, 1934 - PEDRO V. MANZA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    060 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 42209 August 24, 1934 - VICENTE BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. VALERIANO FUGOSO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 40581 August 25, 1934 - ALEJANDRO SAMIA v. IRENE MEDINA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 41045 August 25, 1934 - CANUTO JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. ROBERTA JOAQUIN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 41311 August 28, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON L. MALLARI, ET AL.

    060 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 40766 August 29, 1934 - W. S. PRICE v. YU CHENGCO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 41002 August 29, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

    060 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 41205 August 29, 1934 - SATURNINO AGUILAR, ET AL. v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    060 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 41213 August 29, 1934 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ASUNCION MITCHEL VIUDA DE SY QUIA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 41532 August 29, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO FORMENTO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 42137 August 29, 1934 - PEDRO REYES v. JESUS M. PAZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 39871 August 30, 1934 - EMILIA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. ANTONINA JASON, ET AL.

    060 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 40905 August 30, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES SANTOS

    060 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 40913 August 30, 1934 - EUGENIO ALIMON v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    060 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 41456 August 30, 1934 - J. T. KNOWLES v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    060 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 39810 August 31, 1934 - BENITO TAN CHAT, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILOILO

    060 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 40921 August 31, 1934 - IN RE: SIY CHONG LIN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    060 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 41421 August 31, 1934 - ROSENDO R. LLAMAS, ET AL. v. GONZALO ABAYA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 41534 August 31, 1934 - M.P. TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    060 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 42241 August 31, 1934 - C.P. FELICIANO v. GIL CALIMBAS, ET AL.

    060 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 42259 August 31, 1934 - ISABEL BIBBY PADILLA v. A. HORRILLENO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 511