RULE 60

REPLEVIN

SPOUSES DEO AGNER and MARICON AGNER vs. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC.
G.R. No. 182963, June 3, 2013

FACTS:

Petitioners spouses Agner executed a Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage in favor of Citimotors, Inc.
Thereafter the right and interest of Citimotors, Inc. in the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage was
assigned the same to respondent BPI.

For failure to pay four successive installments from May 15, 2002 to August 15, 2002 despite repeated
demands, respondent filed an action for Replevin and Damages. A writ of replevin was issued. Despite
this, the subject vehicle was not seized.

After trial on the merits, RTC ruled for the respondent and ordered petitioners to jointly and severally pay
the amount of Php576,664.04 plus interest at the rate of 72% per annum from August 20, 2002 until fully
paid, and the costs of suit. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.

Petitioner elevated the case before the SC and argued that respondent’s remedy of resorting to both
actions of replevin and collection of sum of money is contrary to the provision of Article 1484 of the
Civil Code

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erred in issuing a writ of replevin and ordering the party against whom writ
was issued to pay the applicant the value of the obligation considering that the writ was never
implemented.

HELD:

The answer is in the negative. The vehicle subject matter of this case was never recovered and delivered
to respondent despite the issuance of a writ of replevin. As there was no seizure that transpired, it cannot
be said that petitioners were deprived of the use and enjoyment of the mortgaged vehicle or that
respondent pursued, commenced or concluded its actual foreclosure. The trial court, therefore, rightfully
granted the alternative prayer for sum of money, which is equivalent to the remedy of "exacting
fulfillment of the obligation." Certainly, there is no double recovery or unjust enrichment to speak of.