Replevin

(1) Nature
- it consists in the delivery, by the order of the court, of a personal property by the defendant to the plaintiff; its purpose is to protect the plaintiff’s right of
possession of said property, or prevent the defendant from damaging, destroying, or disposing of the same during the pendency of the suit.
(2) Procedural Requisites
- Affidavit
1. That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed, particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof;
2. 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;
3. 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 custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody; and
4. The actual market value of the property
- Bond
1. Double the value of the property as stated in the affidavit
2. Purpose: 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.
(3) Grounds
1. That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party, alleging the cause of detention thereof
(4) Application/Case/Example

BA Finance Corp. vs. CA

Facts: Sps. Manahan executed PN to Carmasters. This was secured by a CM over their car. Later on, Carmasters transferred this to petitioner BA
Finance. BA Finance demanded payment but spouses failed to pay. Hence, they filed a case for Replevin with Damages. BA filed a bond and the Court
granted the replevin with the warning that they should serve summons within 30 days to respondents, but it did not despite the lapse of 4 months.
Moreover, it was found out that the property was now with respondent Reyes and not Sps. Manahan. RTC ruled to dismiss the replevin case. CA also
dismissed. Both courts ruled that as regards the spouses, case is dismissed because no jurisdiction over them by virtue of the absence of summons.
With regard respondent Reyes, he is a possessor in good faith and is entitled to be respected with the same. Complaint has no cause of action against
him as he is merely even an ancillary over the main case.

Issue: WON a mortgagee can maintain an action for replevin against any possessor of the object of a CM even if the latter were not a party to the
mortgage. (YES, but in this case NO since the exception applies.)

Ruling: The general rule is that the mortgagee, upon the mortgagor’s default, is constituted an attorney in fact of the mortgagor enabling such
mortgagee to act for and in behalf of the owner and the fact that the defendant is not privy to the chattel mortgage is inconsequential. However, in case
the right of possession on the part of the plaintiff, or his authority to claim such possession or that of his principal, is put to great doubt (a contending
party might contest the legal bases for plaintiff’s cause of action or an adverse and independent claim of ownership or right of possession is raised by
that party), it could become essential to have other persons involved and accordingly impleaded for a complete determination and resolution of the
controversy. In this case, there is great doubt as to the possession of the plaintiff over the property by virtue of pieces of evidence and series of
objections conducted by the respondent. As such, essential parties have to be impleaded for the complete determination and resolution of the
controversy, which in this case was not done by petitioner.

Yang vs. Caldez

Facts: Morante Spouses owned two cargo trucks, but these trucks were registered in the name of Yang. It was alleged that Yang took the trucks without
their consent and brought it to Yopchokun. Despite repeated demands, Yang refused to deliver the trucks. Hence, Morante spouses filed an action to
recover possession and applied for a writ of replevin.

Support Pendente Lite

(1) Nature
(2) Procedural Requisites
(3) Grounds
(4) Application/Case/Example

Writ of Amparo
(1) Nature
(2) Procedural Requisites
(3) Grounds
(4) Application/Case/Example

Family Courts Act

(1) Nature
(2) Procedural Requisites
(3) Grounds
(4) Application/Case/Example