Activity 9 Replevin

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA
COLLEGE OF LAW
INTRAMUROS, MANILA
A.Y. 2021-2022
PRACTICE COURT I
REPLEVIN
SUBMITTED TO:
COMMISSIONER GINA F. CENIT-ESCOTO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPLAINT 1
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT BY APPLICANT 20
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE TO DEFENDANT 28
REPLEVIN BOND 29
SUMMONS TO ADVERSE PARTY 30
SHERIFF’S RETURN 31
ORDER OF WRIT OF REPLEVIN 32
WRIT OF REPLEVIN 34
SHERIFFS RETURN 36
ANSWER 37
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT 45
PROOF OF SERVICE TO PLAINTIFF 51
NOTICE OF PRE-TRIAL 52
SHERIFF’S RETURN 53
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF 55
PROOF OF SERVICE TO DEFENDANT 67
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF DEFENDANT 68
PROOF OF SERVICE TO PLAINTIFF 71
PRE-TRIAL ORDER 72
ORDER FOR COURT ANNEXED MEDIATION 80
CAM MEDIATORS REPORT 82
CAM SETTLEMENT 84
CONTRIBUTION 86
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
City of Manila, Branch 30
MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO,

Plaintiff,
-versus-
JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG,

Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------------x
C O M P LA I N T
WITH UTMOST DEFERENCE TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
PLAINTIFF Marianne Gail Z. Cariño, by and through the undersigned

counsel, respectfully alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Marianne Gail Z. Cariño is a Filipino, of legal age, single, an

assistant audit manager, and a resident of 555 Quintos Street,
Sampaloc, Manila, 1008, Metro Manila. Plaintiff Cariño may be
served with summons and other court processes in the said address;
2. Defendant Justine Mark N. Dagdag is a Filipino, 27 years of age,

single, and a resident of 680 Miguelin Street, Sampaloc, Manila, 1008,
Metro Manila. Defendant Dagdag may be served with summons and
other court processes in the said address.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
3. On 01 June 2019, plaintiff bought a brand new Red Toyota Vios 1.3 E
CVT with Plate Number 9VN CR6 (Exhibit A) amounting to
Php870,000.00 at Toyota Shaw in Mandaluyong.
4. The purchase price was paid by the plaintiff in full to avail of the 5%
cash discount. Thus, the net purchase price paid by the plaintiff is
1
Php826,500.00. A deed of absolute sale (Exhibit B) was executed and
an official receipt (Exhibit C) and certificate of registration (Exhibit
D) were issued.
5. On 08 December 2019, plaintiff was promoted to senior audit

manager and was assigned to work in the United Kingdom for at least
a year.
6. On 11 December 2019, plaintiff met with the defendant at The

Penthouse and talked about the properties that the plaintiff will leave
behind, specifically the brand new Toyota Vios. She decided to leave
the car with the defendant, allowing him to bring it to his possession,
use and maintain its condition until she comes back from the United
Kingdom to which the defendant accepted.
7. The car was turned over to the defendant on 23 December 2019 and
on 05 January 2020, plaintiff left the Philippines for her work in the
United Kingdom.
8. The defendant was informed on 05 November 2020 that the plaintiff’s

foreign assignment will be extended for another year, thus, the car will
remain in the defendant’s possession. Also, the plaintiff requested that
the defendant look after the former’s brother, Johndel, while she was
away.
9. Johndel met an accident on 03 February 2021 where he was

hospitalized for 15 days. The hospital bills amounting to Php
456,876.00 was shouldered by the defendant. However, the plaintiff
was not informed of the accident at the request of Johndel.
10.On 04 April 2021, plaintiff returned to the Philippines due to the

closure of the branch office that she was working for in London
because of the pandemic. She was required to undergo the mandatory
14-day quarantine period. Thereafter, on 18 April 2021, she went
home unannounced to surprise her brother, however, she was also
surprised to see her brother’s arm cast with a brace. She was then
informed about the accident that Johndel was involved in.
11.The plaintiff and the defendant met on 22 April 2021 where they
talked about the accident. The plaintiff then reminded the defendant
that she will be soon recovering the car but no specific time and date
was agreed upon yet. She also informed the defendant that she will be
paying back the hospital expenses of her brother that the latter paid
for.
2
12.On 30 April 2021, the plaintiff called and informed the defendant that
the car should be returned to her by 05 May 2021 but the latter refused
because the car was still under repair.
13.On 07 May 2021, the plaintiff tried calling the defendant but the latter
was not answering her calls nor her texts.
14.On 10 May 2021, the plaintiff went to the residence of the defendant
but was informed that the latter was in the province. Later that night,
the defendant called the plaintiff and confirmed that he was in the
province and that they will talk about the car once he returns to the
city.
15.On 13 May 2021, the plaintiff called the defendant again and
requested that the car be returned to her because she will use it for a
business trip to Albay but the latter once again refused to return it
because it was still in the service center for repairs.
16.Feeling frustrated, the plaintiff sent a long text message (Exhibit E) to

the defendant on 18 May 2021, ordering the latter to return the car on
20 May 2021. She told the defendant that she will bring a case against
the latter if he will not return the car on the said date. The defendant
did not reply to her text message.
17.Finally, on 21 May 2021, through her counsel, the plaintiff issued a

demand letter (Exhibit F) to the defendant which was received by the
latter on the same day.
CAUSE OF ACTION
18.The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a verbal agreement that
the possession of the plaintiff’s car will be transferred to the defendant
while the former was in the United Kingdom. They also agreed that
the car will be returned to the plaintiff once she returns to the
Philippines.
19.Despite several verbal demands, the defendant refused to return the

car on several occasions. Because of this, the plaintiff sent a demand
letter to the defendant.
20.On 22 May 2021, thru text message (Exhibit G), the defendant refused
to return the car to the plaintiff, arguing that he considered it as the
payment for the hospital expenses he paid for the latter’s brother.
21.The car is being wrongfully detained by the defendant, in violation of

the rights of the plaintiff. Based on their agreement, he must have
returned the property upon the return of the plaintiff to the
Philippines.
3
22.By the defendant’s continued possession of the property, plaintiff
incurred expenses that she would not have spent if she had possession
of the car. The plaintiff had to pay for Grab from the time she arrived
in the Philippines.
23.The plaintiff was constrained to engage the services of undersigned

counsel to whom it obligated itself to pay as Attorney’s Fees the
amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00)
PRAYER
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, judgment be
rendered in favor of Plaintiff and against defendant ordering the latter, as
follows:
1. Return the subject property to the plaintiff; and
2. Pay Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) as Attorney’s Fees
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.
City of Manila, Philippines, 07 June 2021.
ATTY. ANTHONY JOHN T. DEL AYRE

Counsel for Plaintiff
Room 305 Knights of the Columbus Bldg.,
Intramuros, Manila
Roll No. 2018-80005
IBP No. 3562967-4/5/22
PTR No. 468385-4/5/22; Mandaluyong
MCLE Compliance No. 0685
4

Plaintiff,
-versus-

Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------------x
AFFI DAV I T
I, MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO, of legal age, single, and a resident

of 555 Quintos Street, Sampaloc, Manila, 1008, Metro Manila, after being
sworn in accordance with law depose and say that:
1. I am the plaintiff in an action for recovery of possession against the

defendant with Case No. R-MNL-21-432567-CV in the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 30.
2. I am the owner of the property, particularly described as follows, to

wit:
Brand: Toyota
Model/Series: Vios 1.3 E CVT
Type of Body: Sedan
Year Model: 2019
Plate Number: 9VN CR6
Color: Red
Engine Number: 1TRA680922
Chassis Number: PA2JW8EM4K3153625
MV File No: 1301-00000530607
Displacement: 1329
No. of cylinders: 4
Fuel: Petrol
Gross weight: 1550
Net weight/shipping weight/net capacity: 1090
CR Number: 3758514-6
OR Number: 1827852994
5
OR Date: June 1, 2019
Amount: P3,498
3. I entered into an agreement with the defendant that he will have the
possession of the property while I was in the United Kingdom but
it will be returned to me once I return to the Philippines;
4. I demanded from the defendant the return of said property but the
latter refused and continues to refuse to do so.
5. That the said personal property is wrongfully detained by the

defendant without any lawful cause whatsoever;
6. That the said personal property has not been taken for tax
assessment or fine pursuant to law, or seized under an execution, or
an attachment against the property of the plaintiff;
7. That the actual value of the said property is Eight Hundred

Twenty-Six Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php826,500.00);
8. I executed a performance bond in double the value of the property,

in favor of the defendant, for the return of the property to the
former if such return be adjudged, and for the payment of such
sum as the defendant may recover in the action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 07 June

2021 in Sampaloc, City of Manila, Philippines.
MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 7th day of June

2021. Affiant personally came and appeared with Driver’s License No.
EO4-25-69296 issued by the Land Transportation Office (LTO) on March
27, 2019, at Mandaluyong City, bearing her photograph and signature,
known to me as the same person who personally signed the foregoing
instrument before me and avowed under penalty of law to the whole truth of
the contents of said instrument.
6
Han Joon Hwi
ATTY. HAN JOON-HWI
Notary Public
Roll No. 2018-80005
IBP No. 3562967-4/5/22
PTR No. 468385-4/5/22; Manila
Doc. No. 362;
Page No. 74;
Book No. XVIII;
Series of 2021
7
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM
SHOPPING
I, MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO, Filipino, of legal age, single, and

a resident of 555 Quintos Street, Sampaloc, Manila, 1008, Metro Manila, the
plaintiff of this case, after being duly sworn to in accordance with law do
hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the above complaint to be prepared and have

read and known the contents thereof;
3. That the allegations therein are true of my own knowledge;
4. That I have not therefore commenced any other action or

proceeding involving the same issue in any court, tribunal, or
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such
other pending action or claim is pending therein;
5. That should I thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding

has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within five (5)
days therefrom to the court wherein aforesaid complaint or
initiatory pleading has been filed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this verification

th
this 7 day of June 2021.

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 7th day of June

2021. Affiant personally came and appeared with Driver’s License No.
EO4-25-69296 issued by the Land Transportation Office (LTO) on March
27, 2019, at Mandaluyong City, bearing her photograph and signature,
known to me as the same person who personally signed the foregoing
instrument before me and avowed under penalty of law to the whole truth of
the contents of said instrument.
8
Han Joon Hwi
ATTY. HAN JOON-HWI
Notary Public
Roll No. 2018-80005
IBP No. 3562967-4/5/22
PTR No. 468385-4/5/22; Manila
Doc. No. 363;
Page No. 74;
Book No. XVIII;
Series of 2021
9
EXHIBIT “A”
10
DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
This Deed of Sale made and executed this 1st day of June 2019 in Mandaluyong
City, Philippines by and between:
TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, a domestic corporation duly

organized and existing by virtue of Philippine laws with principal office at Toyota Shaw,
304 Shaw Boulevard, Pleasant Hills, Mandaluyong, 1552 Metro Manila, represented
herein by JOANNA CHANG, hereinafter known as the VENDOR;
-and-
MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO, Filipino, of legal age, and resident of 555 Quintos
Street, Sampaloc, Manila, 1008, Metro Manila, hereinafter known as the VENDEE.
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, THE VENDOR is the absolute owner of the motor vehicle, more
particularly described as follows:
Brand: Toyota
Type of Body: Sedan
Year Model: 2019
Color: Red
File No.: 1301-00000530607
WHEREAS, the VENDOR has offered to sell to the VENDEE and the latter has
agreed to buy the aforementioned vehicle for the price and under the condition herein
set forth:
That for and in consideration of the sum of Eight Hundred and Twenty-Six
Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (PHP826,500.00), Philippine Currency, receipt whereof
is hereby expressly acknowledged by the VENDOR from the VENDEE, and by these
Page 1 of 3
11
presents, the VENDOR does hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY unto the
VENDEE the above-described motor vehicle, free from all liens and encumbrances.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our hands this 1st day of June
2019 at Mandaluyong City, Philippines.
MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES

Vendee CORPORATION
Vendor
BY:
JOANNA CHANG
Representative
Signed in the presence of:
JANNAH PUMBAYA CESS INGUITO
Page 2 of 3
12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Republic of the Philippines )

City of Mandaluyong ) S.S.
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines this
1st day of June 2019, the following personally appeared with their Competent Evidence
of Identity, to wit:
Name ID Type/No.: Date/Place Issued
JOANNA CHANG 986-543-455-3434 January 10,

2010/Manila
MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO 232-233-132-4435 January 10,

2015/Manila
known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed this Deed of Sale
consisting of three (3) pages including this page, acknowledged to me that the same is
their free and voluntary act and deed.
WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL, on the date and place above
written.
ATTY. DYOSA L. CRUZ

NOTARY PUBLIC
Appointment No. 15-90 until December 30, 2020
304 Shaw Boulevard, Pleasant Hills, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila
MCLE Compliance No. V-0081755 January 4, 2019
Series of 2018 PTR No. 7500881 Makati: 01/04/2019
IBP NO. 037150 Makati 01/4/2019
Roll. No. 63581
Tell. No. (02) 8720-9440
Doc. No. 51;

Page No. 12;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
Page 3 of 3
13
EXHIBIT “C”
14
EXHIBIT “D”
15
EXHIBIT “E”
16
21 May 2021
JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG

680 Miguelin Street
Sampaloc, Manila
1008 Metro Manila
DEMAND LETTER
Dear Mr. Dagdag:
We write on behalf of our client, MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO, in

connection with the possession of a motor vehicle with the following
technical specifications:
Brand Toyota
Model/Series Vios 1.3 E CVT
Type of Body Sedan
Year Model 2019
Plate Number 9VN CR6
Color Red
The said motor vehicle has been transferred to your possession since 23
December 2019. Our client has demanded for its return on the following
dates through the following means:
Date Means
04 April 2021 Phone call
07 May 2021 Phone call
10 May 2021 House visit
13 May 2021 Phone call
18 May 2021 Text message
However, despite several communication from our client, you still failed to
deliver the motor vehicle to her possession. Thus, final demand is hereby
17
made upon you to return the motor vehicle to her possession within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of this letter.
Should you fail to comply with this demand within ten (10) calendar days
from receipt of this letter, we shall be constrained to take the necessary legal
action against you to protect the interest of my client to the said motor
vehicle.
Please give this matter your immediate and preferential attention. I trust that
you will see your way clear towards the prompt compliance to my client’s
plain and valid demand for you to avoid the inconvenience, expenses and
embarrassment of litigation.
Very truly yours,
ADA LAW OFFICES

Intramuros, Manila
By:
ATTY. ANTHONY T. DEL AYRE

Counsel
cc: MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO
18
EXHIBIT “G”
19

Plaintiff,
-versus- Case No. R-MNL-21-432567-CV

For: Recovery of Possession with
Prayer for Writ of Replevin

Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
|OF GAIL CARIÑO |
I, Marianne Gail Z. Cariño, Filipino, of legal age, with residence at

555 Quintos Street, Sampaloc, Manila, 1008, Metro Manila, fully aware and
conscious that I am subscribing under oath and may face criminal liability
for false testimony or perjury, if the statements herein contained are proven
to be false, in response to the questions propounded by Atty. Anthony T. Del
Ayre, do hereby depose and state that:
PURPOSES
The testimony of the witness Marianne Gail Z. Cariño, is being

offered to prove that:
1. She owns the property which is the subject matter of this case;
2. She allowed the defendant to use the property while she was
abroad; and
3. She did not transfer the ownership of the property to the defendant.
This Judicial Affidavit shall serve as the direct testimony of the

witness in this case.
QUESTION AND ANSWER
20
1. Q: Do you swear before this court to tell the truth?
A: Yes, I do.
2. Q: Please state your name.

A: I am Marianne Gail Z. Cariño
3. Q: Are you the same person who filed the complaint in this case?
A: Yes.
4. Q: Why did you file a complaint?

A: Because Mr. Dagdag has no intention to return my car.
5. Q: Who is Mr. Dagdag?

A: He is the defendant in this case. He is also my bestfriend. That is
why I allowed him to use my car while I was working abroad.
6. Q: You said that he is your bestfriend, how long have you been friends
with him?
A: We’ve been bestfriends since we were in college.
7. Q: You mentioned that you allowed him to use your car while you
were working abroad, why did you allow him?
A: Besides the fact that I trust him, my brother does not know how to
drive a car and I don’t want my car to deteriorate because of its
non-usage.
8. Q: You mentioned that you allowed him to use your car while you
were working abroad, why did you allow him?
A: Besides the fact that I trust him, my brother does not know how to
drive a car and I don’t want my car to deteriorate because of its
non-usage. That is why I let him use the car before I went abroad.
9. Q: Before you went abroad, what else did you give to your bestfriend,
if any?
21
A: I left with him the keys of my car as well as other equipment
necessary for the maintenance of my car.
10.Q: When did you give to him the keys of your car?
A: On 23 December 2019
11.Q: What is the brand and model of your car?

A: It’s Toyota Vios 1.3 E CVT
12.Q: What is the year model?

A: It’s the 2019 model
13.Q: What is the color of your car?

A: Red.
14.Q: Where did you buy your car?

A: In one of Toyota’s branch office in Mandaluyong.
15.Q: For how much did you buy this car?

A: The purchase price was P870,000 but because I paid the purchase
price in full, I got a 5% discount. I only paid a net purchase price of
P826,500.
16.Q: What are other documents you can present to prove your
ownership?
A: The deed of sale and the ORCR or the original receipt for the car.
17.Q: You said you went abroad, how long did you stayed there?
A: I stayed there for more than a year.
18.Q: When did you return to the Philippines?

A: On 18 April 2021
22
19.Q: When you returned to the Philippines, what did you do next?
A: When I went home, I saw my brother who was injured. I asked
him what happened to him. He told me that he was hit by an
oncoming vehicle while traversing Commonwealth Avenue aboard his
motorcycle and he stayed for 15 days in the hospital for medical
treatment.
20.Q: What is the name of your brother?

A: Johndel Cruz
21.Q: How many siblings do you have?

A: Only my brother, Johndel.
22.Q: What else did he mention when he underwent medical treatment?

A: He told me that my bestfriend shouldered the medical expenses of
my brother.
23.Q: When you learned about this, what did you do afterwards, if any?
A: I met with Mr. Dagdag at Starbucks SM San Lazaro where I
reminded him to return my car. I also told him that I’ll be paying back
the medical expenses he incurred for my brother.
24.Q: What date did you tell to the defendant to return your car?
A: I forgot to mention it to him but I called him a few days after we
met.
25.Q: When did you call him?

A: On 30 April 2021
26.Q: What was your conversation about?

A: I told him to return my car on 05 May 2021 but Mr. Dagdag
refused to return it because he told me that the car was being repaired
at the service center.
23
27.Q: What did you do when he told you that the car was at the service
center?
A: I called him again on 07 May 2021 but he was ignoring my calls
and text messages.
28.Q: When he ignored your calls, what did you do, if any?
A: On 10 May 2021, I went to his house but only his father was
present. He told me that my bestfriend was staying in the province.
29.Q: Where you still able to contact your bestfriend on the same date?
A: Yes.
30.Q: What did he told you?

A: He told me that he was in province and that they will discuss about
the car when he returned home.
31.Q: What did you do next to get your property from your bestfriend?
A: On 18 May 2021, I messaged Mr. Dagdag through a text message
ordering him to return the car on 20 May 2021 and that I will act
accordingly if he will not return it by the date mentioned.
32.Q: What was his response?

A: He did not reply to my text message.
33.Q: What did you do when the defendant did not respond to your
messages?
A: On 21 May 2021 I sent a demand letter to him ordering him to
return my car.
34.Q: How did the defendant reacted or replied to your demand letter?
24
A: He sent me a text message stating that his refusal to return my car
was because he paid the medical expenses of my brother and the car
will serve as a reimbursement for the expenses he incurred.
I hereby attest to the truth of the foregoing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this 7th day of June 2021 in Manila City, Philippines.

Affiant Witness
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 7th day of June

2021 in Manila City, Philippines by the above-named affiant who exhibited
to me his identification document consisting of Driver’s License ID No.
N04-18-013921 issued at Caloocan City.
ATTY. DYOSA L. CRUZ

Notary Public for the City of Manila
Appointment No. 15-90
Until December 30, 2022
Unit 111 Golden Palace Building
Taft Avenue corner Padre Faura Street, City of Manila
IBP NO. 037150 Makati 01/4/2019
Roll. No. 63581
Tell. No. (02) 8720-9440
Doc. No. 208;

Page No. 123;
Book No. 21;
Series of 2021
25
SWORN ATTESTATION
I, Anthony T. Del Ayre, of legal age, Filipino, with office address at

Room 305 Knights of the Columbus Bldg., Intramuros, Manila, Philippines
after being duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
state;
1. I conducted/supervised the examination of the witness, Ms.

Marianne Gail Z. Cariño, at the abovementioned office.
2. I have faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions I
asked to the witness and the corresponding answers given by the
witness.
3. Neither I, nor any other person then present or assisting me,
coached the witness in giving the answers.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 7th

day of June 2021 in Manila City, Philippines.
Anthony T. Del Ayre

Affiant
26
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this th day of March
2021 in Manila City, Philippines by the above-named affiant who exhibited
to me his IBP ID with Roll of Attorneys No. 45530 as evidence of her
identity.
ATTY. DYOSA L. CRUZ

IBP NO. 037150 Makati 01/4/2019
Roll. No. 63581
Tell. No. (02) 8720-9440
Doc. No. 209;

Page No. 124;
Book No. 21;
Series of 2021
27
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City of Manila ) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, ANNE SY, Filipino, of legal age, and resident of Unit 201, XYZ Building,
Sampaloc, Manila, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose
and say that:
1. I am a legal assistant in the law office of Atty. Anthony Del Ayre with
office address at ADA Law Offices, Room 305, Knights of the Columbus
Bldg., Intramuros, Manila; and
2. On 08 June 2021, in my aforementioned capacity, I had personally served
a copy of the complaint in the case entitled MARIANNE GAIL Z.
CARIÑO vs. JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG, docketed as Case No.
R-MNL-21-432567-CV, as well as a copy of the bond, by personal
service to JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG in his address at 680 Miguelin
Street, Sampaloc Manila, 1008, Metro Manila.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 09 June 2021 at

Sampaloc Manila.
ANNE SY
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 09 June 2021 at City of Manila,

affiant exhibiting to me her Passport with Passport No. P5514933B issued on 24 January
2016.
ATTY. DYOSA L. CRUZ

NOTARY PUBLIC
Appointment No. 15-90 until December 30, 2022
304 Shaw Boulevard, Pleasant Hills, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila
IBP NO. 037150 Makati 01/4/2020
Roll. No. 63581
Tell. No. (02) 8720-9440
Doc. No. 51;

Page No. 12;
Book No. IX;
Series of 2021.
Received: 08-June-2021
Justine Mark N. Dagdag
28
29

Plaintiff, Case No. R-MNL-21-432567-CV
For: Recovery of Possession
with Prayer for Replevin
vs.

Defendant.
X-----------------------------------------x
SUMMONS
TO: JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG

680 Miguelin Street, Sampaloc Manila,
1008, Metro Manila
Pursuant to the Rules on Civil Procedure, you are hereby required to

enter your appearance in the above-entitled case and file an answer to the
complaint of the petitioner, which is hereto attached, and serve copies
thereof to the petitioner within fifteen (15) days after the service of this
summons, exclusive of the day of this service. If you fail to answer within
the period aforesaid, the Court shall render judgment against you as may be
warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and grant petitioner the relief
prayed for.
WITNESS, the HON. ROSE MAY GABEJAN, Presiding Judge of

this Court, this 10th day of June 2021.
MARIA FATIMA C. BELINO

Branch Clerk of Court
30

vs.

Defendant.
X-----------------------------------------x
SHERIFF’S RETURN
On 11 June 2021, the undersigned went to the residence of respondent

JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG at 680 Miguelin Street, Sampaloc Manila,
1008, Metro Manila to personally serve a copy of the Summons to him.
The said respondent personally and willingly received the foregoing

court processes. As evidence of his acknowledgment and receipt thereof, he
affixed his signature on the original copy of the Summons.
“DULY SERVED” (Personally to JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG)
WHEREFORE, the original copy of the Summons hereto attached is

hereby returned to the Honorable Court of origin for its record and
information.
12 June 2021, City of Manila.
PRINCESS PUMBAYA
Sheriff IV
31
MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO ,

Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. R-MNL-21-432567-CV


Defendant.
X--------------------------------------------X
ORDER
This Order is being issued in connection to the Recovery of

Possession with Prayer for Writ of Replevin filed by the plaintiff on 07 June
2021.
Plaintiff’s counsel Atty. Anthony Del Ayre filed a bond amounting to

P1,653,000.00 for the immediate return of the plaintiff’s property. In order to
support her application for writ of replevin, plaintiff executed her Judicial
Affidavit. Also attached is the photo of the vehicle with visible plate number
marked as Exhibit “A”. The Deed of Absolute Sale marked as Exhibit “B”
and the Original Receipt and Certificate of Registration of the vehicle
marked as Exhibit “C” and “D” respectively, were also attached to prove her
rightful ownership.
As provided in Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, the party seeking the

issuance of the writ must first file the required affidavit and a bond that is
double the value of the property. In this case, the applicant was able to show
in her affidavit that she is the owner of the property claimed as evidenced by
Exhibit “C” and “D” as she was able to particularly describe the vehicle and
show that she is entitled to the possession thereof. Second, plaintiff was able
to show that the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party and
alleging the cause of detention thereof based on the executed Judicial
Affidavit. Third, plaintiff successfully showed that the vehicle has not been
distrained, taken for a tax assessment or fine nor was it seized under a writ
of execution or custodia legis. Fourth, the plaintiff was able to show the
actual market value of the property through Exhibit “B”. Lastly, she was able
32
to give a bond, executed to the adverse party in double the value of the
property as stated in the affidavit aforementioned, for its return.
On the basis of the foregoing, the plaintiff’s application for writ of

replevin is hereby granted.
City of Manila, 14 June 2021.
HON. ROSE MAY GABEJAN

Presiding Judge
33

Plaintiff,


Defendant.
X--------------------------------------------X
WRIT OF REPLEVIN
TO: PRINCESS PUMBAYA

Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court
Branch 30, City of Manila
GREETINGS:
WHEREAS, the plaintiff MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO in the

above-entitled case having filed an application with this Court praying for
the seizure and delivery of the property, more particularly described
hereunder, and having filed the affidavit required by the Rules of Court in
the Philippines and having executed to the defendant's bond in the amount of
One Million and Seven Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos (P1,740,000.00)
for one (1) Toyota Vios 1.3E CVT 2019 Model, which is double the total
actual value (P826,500.00) of the said subject personal property.
You are hereby ordered to take immediate possession of the personal

property which is now detained by the defendant JUSTINE MARK N.
DAGDAG, to wit:
Brand: Toyota
34
Type of Body: Sedan
Year Model: 2019
Color: Red
File No.: 1301-00000530607
You shall also keep the said property in your possession and dispose
of the same in the manner prescribed by law, provided the legal fees and all
the necessary expenses are fully paid.
For the purpose of serving this Writ, the Sheriff may seek the
assistance of the Philippine National Police where the subject property is
located.

Presiding Judge
35

Plaintiff,


Defendant.
X--------------------------------------------X
SHERIFF’S RETURN
(Personal Service)
This is to certify that on 15 June 2021, the undersigned personally

served the Order and the Writ of Replevin, including its application,
affidavit, and bond to defendant JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG who signed
to acknowledge receipt thereof.
WHEREFORE, the original copy of the Order and Writ of Replevin,

therefore, respectfully returned, DULY SERVED PERSONALLY.
PRINCESS PUMBAYA
Sheriff IV
RECEIVED BY:

June 15 2021 ; 11:00 am
36
Alyssa Mae F. Guevarra
Court Staff

Plaintiff,
- versus –

Defendant.
x------------------------x
ANSWER
The Defendant, through her undersigned counsel, by way of Answer

to the Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Writ of
Replevin with the 10 June 2021 Order this Honorable Court, respectfully
states the following:
I. ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS
1. The Defendant admits the factual circumstances of the Parties to this

case as specified in paragraphs 2, 6, and 9 of the Complaint.
2. The Defendant admits the allegations in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the

Petition, subject to special and affirmative defenses as hereinafter stated.
II. NEGATIVE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
3. The Defendant repleads and incorporates the foregoing allegations by

reference.
Plaintiff has no clear and

unmistakable right over the
car.
4. While the Defendant admits that he is in possession of the vehicle, the

same should be declared as the rightful owner of the said vehicle as it was
applied as the payment for the debt incurred by the plaintiff.
37
5. Dation in payment or dacion en pago is the delivery and transmission
of ownership of a thing by the debtor to creditor as an accepted equivalent of
the performance of an obligation.
6. It is a mode of extinguishing an existing obligation that partakes of the

nature of sale whereby a property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction
of a debt in money.
7. According to Article 1245 of the Civil Code, dation in payment,

whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in
money, shall be governed by the law on sales.1
8. Thus, being likened to that of a contract of sale, dacion en pago is

governed by the law on sales.
9. Jurisprudence dictates that what actually takes place in dacion en

pago is an objective novation of the obligation where the thing offered as an
accepted equivalent of the performance of an obligation is considered as the
object of the contract of sale, while the debt is considered as the purchase
price.2
The requisites of dacion

en pago are present
10. In the case of Caltex v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Supreme

Court notes the requisites for a valid dation in payment. The jurisprudence
provides that:
In order that there must be a valid dation in payment, the following are
the requisites: (1) There must be the performance of the prestation in lieu
of payment (animo solvendi) which may consist in the delivery of a
corporeal thing or a real right or a credit against the third person; (2)
there must be some difference between the prestation due and that which
is given in substitution (aliud pro alio); (3) there must be an agreement
between the creditor and the debtor that the obligation is immediately
extinguished by reason of the performance of a prestation different from
that due.3
11. There is dation in payment when property is alienated to the creditor

in satisfaction of a debt in money. Here, the debtor delivers and transmits to
the creditor the former’s ownership over a thing as an accepted equivalent of
the payment or performance of an outstanding debt.
1
Article 1245, New Civil Code
2
Dao Heng Bank v. Spouses Lilia and Reynaldo Laigo, G.R. No. 173856, November 20, 2008
3
G.R. No. 72703, November 3, 1992
38
12. On 11 December 2019, the Plaintiff and the Defendant talked about
the former’s plan that she will leave behind a red Toyota Vios to the latter.
Since her brother Johndel does not know how to drive it and fearing that it
will deteriorate due to possible non-usage.
13. When the Plaintiff’s brother got hit by an incoming vehicle on 03

February 2021, the same was hospitalized for 15 days incurring P 456, 875
in hospital bills (Exhibit 1 and 2). And since the plaintiff was outside the
country, the defendant shouldered the bills.
14. The Plaintiff then had the obligation to reimburse the payment made
by the Respondent.
15. The first requisite of dacion en pago is present because the Plaintiff
had delivered the said vehicle to the Defendant. The second element is also
present because there was a difference in the value of the car and the amount
of the hospital bills shouldered by the Defendant. Lastly, the third requisite is
also present because the Defendant had acknowledged that the delivered
vehicle shall be used as payment of the debt incurred by the Plaintiff from
him.
16. Dacion en pago extinguishes the obligation to the extent of the value
of the thing delivered, either as agreed upon by the parties or as may be
proved, unless the parties by agreement – express or implied, or by their
silence – consider the thing as equivalent to the obligation, in which case the
obligation is totally extinguished.
17. Since all the requisites are present, there is a valid dacion en pago in
this case which tantamount to the dismissal of the petition.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

the instant Petition be DISMISSED for lack of cause of action.
OTHER RELIEFS just and equitable under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.
City of Manila, Philippines, 21 June 2021.
39
RONEL C. BATTAD
Unit 2021 MLP Building,
Taft Avenue corner Padre Faura Street, Manila
PTR OR No. 1234567, Manila, 01/09/2013
IBP No. 78910, Manila, 01/09/2013
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0009876, 01/09/2019
Roll No. 54236
Tel. No. (02) 8527-3574
40
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
I, JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG, of legal age, Filipino, and with

residence address at 555 Quintos Street, Sampaloc, Manila, 1008, Metro
Manila, after being duly sworn in accordance with the law, do hereby depose
and say that:
1. I am the Respondent in the above-entitled case;
2. The allegations are true and correct based on my personal

knowledge or based on authentic documents;
3. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or

needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
4. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if

specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support
after a reasonable opportunity for delivery; and
5. I hereby declare and certify under oath that I have not heretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; and that if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar
action or claim has been filed or is pending, I will report that fact
within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the court wherein the
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 21 June

2021 in Taft Avenue, City of Manila, Philippines.

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 07 October 2021 in

Taft Avenue, City of Manila, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her
passport (P2547871B) issued in Pasay City, Philippines on 30 March 2018.
41
ATTY. DYOSA L. CRUZ
IBP NO. 037150 Makati 01/4/2019
Roll. No. 63581
Tell. No. (02) 8720-9440
Doc. No. 312:

Page No. 67:
Book No. 01:
Series of 2021.
42
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT, JOHNDEL C. CRUZ, MALE, 28 Y/O OF AGE, FROM
555 QUINTOS STREET, SAMPALOC, MANILA, WAS ADMITTED AND TREATED
IN THIS HOSPITAL FROM FEBRUARY 3, 2021, TO FEBRUARY 18, 2021 FOR
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND/OR DIAGNOSIS:
MULTIPLE FRACTURE, LEFT HAND
CT SCAN READING:
● INCOMPLETE NON-DISPLACED FRACTURE WITH INTRA-ARTICULAR
EXTENSION, STYLOID PROCESS OF RADIUS
● AVULASED FRACTURE, SCAPHOID
● INCOMPLETE FRACTURE, TRAPEZIUM
● AVULSED FRACTURE, CAPITATE
● CHIP FRACTURE, HAMATE
● COMPLERE DISPLACE FRACTURE, BASE OF THE 5TH METACARPAL
TREATMENT: CAST AND PIN PLACEMENT FOR 1-2 MONTHS IS NEEDED TO

STABILIZE FRACTURE.
DR. TARA ELI BURGER, FPH, MD

ATTENDING PHYSICIAN
43
HOSP # 152098 DATE: 02/18/2021
# OF DAYS 15 TIME: 12:03 PM
PATIENT’S NAME CRUZ, JOHNDEL CARINO WARD: 6 MAIN B
ADDRESS 555 QUINTOS STREET, SAMPALOC MANILA AGE: 28 Y/0
PHIC 08-025162770-7
MEMBERSHIP SSS-M
DATE OF ADMISSION 02/03/2021 TIME OF ADMISSION 12:25 AM

DATE OF DISCHARGE 02/18/2021 TIME OF DISCHARGE 11:27 AM
PHYISICIAN DR. TARA ELI BURGER
DIAGNOSIS MULTIPLE FRACTURE, LEFT HAND
FINAL DIAGNOSIS MULTIPLE FRACTURE, LEFT HAND
NET AMOUNT DUE FOR HOSPITAL BILL Php 456,876.00

NET BALANCE DUE Php 31, 876.00
Add: PROFESSIONAL FEES Php 75,000.00
PRIVATE ROOM x 15 DAYS Php 150,000
LABORATORY and SURGERY Php 200,000
TOTAL FF AMOUNT Php 458,776.00
BIR PERMIT # 0514-125-00317-CBA/AR
This is a duplicate copy. Authorized Signature is not required.
Thank you for Choosing St. Luke’s Medical Center as your health care provider.
44
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
CITY OF MANILA, BRANCH 30

Plaintiff,
- versus –

Defendant.
x------------------------x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
OF JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG
I, JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG, Filipino, twenty-seven (27) years

of age, an employee, residing at 680 Miguelin Street, Sampaloc Manila,
1008, Metro Manila, do hereby depose and state that:
I am fully aware and conscious that I am subscribing under oath and

may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury in answering the
questions propounded by Atty. Ronnel C. Battad during an examination
conducted at Unit 2021 MLP Building, Taft Avenue corner Padre Faura
Street, Manila;
This Judicial Affidavit is being offered to prove the factual allegations

in the Civil Case for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Writ of
Replevin filed against Justin Mark N. Dagdag.
1. Q: Do you swear before the Court to tell the truth?

A:Yes, I do.
2. Q:Do you know the plaintiff in this case?

A:Yes, I know her.
3. Q: How do you know her?

A: She is my best friend.
4. Q: How do you call the plaintiff in this case?
45
A: By her second name. Gail.
5. Q: How long have you been best friends with Gail?

A: For as long as I can remember. I think we've been best friends
for more than five (5) years now.
6. Q: As best friends, how was your relationship with Gail for the
past five (5) years?
A:We were happy. Gail was very helpful and kind. I was always
there for her too, not just in good times but also during the hard
times.
7. Q: Who is Johndel Cariño?

A: Johndel is Gail’s brother.
8. Q: How long have you known Johndel?

A: I think, for almost five (5) years too.
9. Q: What kind of car transmission can you drive? A manual or an

automatic?
A: I can drive both manual and automatic car transmission.
10.Q: Since when did you learn to drive a car?

A: I have been driving for more than nine (9) years or since I was
in high school.
11. Q: Please describe the car that you have been driving for the past
two (2) years.
A: It is a red Toyota Vios, a 2019 model. The plate number is 9VN
CR6.
12. Q:How did you possess the said car?

A:It was given to me by Gail before she left for London.
13. Q:Why did Gail leave or give the car to you before she went to
London?
A: Since her brother Johndel does not know how to drive, Gail left
the car to me instead so that the car will not deteriorate due to
non-usage. Gail did not want the car to be wasted and just parked
in the garage. Gail wanted the car to be useful to her loved ones.
14. Q: Who spends for the gas, maintenance, and repair, if any, of the
said car for the past two (2) years?
A: I used my own money for the gas and maintenance of the said
car.
46
15. Q: What kind of contract did you and Gail enter in relation to the
possession or use of the said car?
A: We do not have any formal written contract regarding the
possession or use of the said car. We just verbally agreed with
each other before Gail went to London, that I will be the one to
use and take care of it.
16. Q: What did you give or provide in return, for using the said car?
A: I was the one who maintained the car. I took good care of the
car for two (2) long years. I also watched over her brother to make
sure that Johndel was doing well while Gail was away.
17. Q: What happened on 3 February 2021?

A:Johndel got into an accident, and he was hospitalized for fifteen
(15) days.
18. Q: Who paid for Johndel’s hospital expenses?

A: I was the one who paid the hospital expenses of Johndel when
he had an accident.
19. Q: Why did you pay for the hospital expenses of Johndel?
A: Johndel begged not to tell his sister about the incident that is
why I was the one who helped him.
20. Q: How did you pay Johndel’s hospital expenses?

A: I used my funds from the bank to help Johndel with the
hospital expenses. The funds that I used were supposed to be my
capital in putting up a business.
21.Q: Why were you at Starbucks SM San Lorenzo on 22 April 2021?

A: Gail and I talked and we had a little catch-up conversation. She
promised to pay back the amount I spent for the hospitalization of
Johndel. Gail also asked about the car, however, there was no
agreed date regarding its return.
22. Q: How many times did you receive a verbal demand from Gail to
return the car?
A: Only twice. Two demands through the phone then she went to
my house once, but I was not there. She did not demand for the
return of the car when she visited my house.
23. Q: What are the dates to be exact?
47
A: Gail called me on 30 April 2021 and on 13 May 2021. She
went to visit me in my house on 10 May 2021.
24. Q: Why were you not able to return the car on the said demands?
A: The car was not with me. It was in the service center because I
was having it maintained and some repairs were going on that
time. I was also busy with planning my business, that is why I was
not able to check if the repairs were already done on my scheduled
dates of visit to the service center.
25. Q: What happened next when Gail learned about the ongoing
repair and maintenance of the car?
A: She just waited for the repair to be done. She did not share with
the repair and maintenance expenses nor extend help to quicken
the process in the service center, yet, she wanted the car to be
returned right away.
26.Q: What was the content of your text message to Gail on 22 May
2021?
A: I explained that the car would serve as payment for the
expenses I incurred from Johndel’s hospitalization. I told her that I
suffered from paying for the hospitalization, medicines, and tests
as well as from spending for the maintenance and repair of the car.
I told Gail that the car will be considered as payment to offset all
the expenses and sufferings I incurred from taking her
responsibilities while she was away for years.
I hereby attest to the truth of the foregoing.

this 19 June 2021 in the City of Manila, Philippines.

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 19 June 2021 in

the City of Manila, Philippines by the above-named affiant exhibiting to me
her valid identification document consisting of Voter’s ID No. 1234 issued in
Manila City, Philippines on 30 March 2015.
48
ATTY. DYOSA L. CRUZ
IBP NO. 037150 Makati 01/4/2019
Roll. No. 63581
Tell. No. (02) 8720-9440
Doc. No. 195:

Page No. 004:
Book No. 105:
Series of 2021.
49
SWORN ATTESTATION
I, RONNEL C. BATTAD, of legal age, Filipino, with office address at
Unit 2021 MLP Building, Taft Avenue corner Padre Faura Street, Manila,
after being duly sworn into in accordance with the law, do hereby depose
and state that:
1. I conducted /supervised the examination of the affiant, Justin

Mark N. Dagdag at the abovementioned office;
2. I faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions I asked
the witness and the corresponding answers given by the witness;
and
3. Neither I nor any other person then present or assisting me
coached the witness in giving the answers.

this 19 June 2021 in the City of Manila, Philippines.
Atty. Ronnel C. Battad

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 19 June 2021 in

the City of Manila, Philippines by the above-named affiant exhibiting to me
his valid identification document consisting of his Passport (P2987654A)
issued in Pasay City, Philippines on 30 March 2018.
ATTY. DYOSA L. CRUZ

IBP NO. 037150 Makati 01/4/2019
Roll. No. 63581
Tel. No. (02) 8720-9440
Doc. No. 197:
Page No. 005:
Book No. 13:
Series of 2021.
50

Plaintiff,


Defendant.
X--------------------------------------------X
PROOF OF SERVICE

served his Answer to the plaintiff, Marianne Gail Z. Cariño, who signed
hereunder to acknowledge receipt thereof.
City of Manila, Philippines.
21 June 2021.

Defendant
Received:

Plaintiff
June 21, 2021; 10:05am
51

Plaintiff,


Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x
NOTICE OF PRE-TRIAL
The parties are hereby required to appear personally or through their

duly authorized representative, and their counsel in the Pre-Trial on 16 July
2021 at 10 o’clock A.M., and in the following proceedings:
1. COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION: 30 July 2021 at 10 o’clock A.M.
2. JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION: 13 August 2021 at 10 o’clock

A.M., if necessary.
The parties and their counsels are required to be present at the pre-trial
and to file with the court and serve on the adverse party at least three (3)
days before the date of pre-trial scheduled on 16 July 2021, their respective
pre-trial briefs which shall contain, among others:
a. A concise statement of the case and the reliefs prayed for;
b. A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;
c. The main factual and legal issues to be tried or resolved;
52

Plaintiff,


Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x
SHERIFF’S RETURN
(Personal Service)

served the Notice of Pre-Trial, upon plaintiff Marianne Gail Z. Carino who
signed to acknowledge receipt thereof.
WHEREFORE, the original copy of the Notice of Pre-Trial is,

PRINCESS PUMBAYA
Sheriff IV
RECEIVED BY:

June 24, 2021, 1:30 PM
53

Plaintiff,


Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x
SHERIFF’S RETURN
(Personal Service)

served the Notice of Pre-Trial, upon defendant Justine Mark N. Dagdag who
signed to acknowledge receipt thereof.
WHEREFORE, the original copy of the Notice of Pre-Trial is,

PRINCESS PUMBAYA
Sheriff IV
RECEIVED BY:

June 24, 2021, 10:30 AM
54

Plaintiff,


Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF THE PLAINTIFF
The Plaintiff, represented by the undersigned counsel as her attorney-in-law,

respectfully submits to this Honorable Court this Pre-Trial Brief, to wit:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR
1. This is a Petition for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Writ of

Replevin and Damages involving a motor vehicle, described as 2019
Red Toyota Vios 1.3 E CVT with plate number 9VN CR6 (the
“Vehicle”).
2. Plaintiff Marianne Gail Z. Cariño is a Filipino, of legal age, single,

and with a residence at 555 Quintos Street, Sampaloc, Manila, 1008,
Metro Manila while Defendant Justin Mark N. Dagdag is a Filipino,
55
of legal age, single, and a resident of 680 Miguelin Street, Sampaloc
Manila, 1008, Metro Manila.
3. Without any formal written contract, Plaintiff allowed Defendant to

temporarily possess, use, and maintain the vehicle from the time
Plaintiff leaves the Philippines until she comes back.
4. On 07 June 2021, Plaintiff, in order to recover her property, filed a

Petition for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Writ of
Replevin against Defendant. Plaintiff also filed a bond amounting to
One Million Six Hundred Fifty Three Thousand Pesos
(PhP1,653,000.00) on that same day, for the immediate return of her
property.
5. A copy was served personally to Defendant on 04 June 2020.
6. On 10 June 2021, the Regional Trial Court - Branch 30, City of

Manila, issued summons directing Defendant to file his answer within
fifteen (15) days after service of summons.
7. On 14 June 2021, an order was issued by this Court, thereby granting

the Writ of Replevin in favor of the Plaintiff.
8. On 15 June 2021, The sheriff then proceeded to the residence of

Defendant and served a copy of the Order together with the copy of
application, affidavit and bond as evidence by sheriff’s return and
took possession of the vehicle.
9. On 18 June 2021, in the absence of any objection to the sufficiency of

the bond, the sheriff delivered the vehicle to Plaintiff.
56
10. On 21 June, 2021, Defendant filed his answer. A copy of the answer
was also sent to Plaintiff based on the proof of service presented by
Defendant.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
11.On 01 June 2019, Plaintiff bought a brand new 2019 Red Toyota Vios
1.3 E CVT amounting to Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Pesos
(PhP870,000.00) at Toyota Shaw, 304 shaw boulevard, Pleasant Hills,
mandaluyong, 1552 Metro Manila. She paid the purchase price in full
to avail of the five percent (5%) cash discount. Thus the net purchase
price of the car is Eight Hundred Twenty Six Thousand Five
Hundred Pesos (PhP826,500.00) The office manager, Princess
Inguito, executed a deed of sale and an original receipt was issued for
the Plaintiff.
12.On 08 December 2019, Plaintiff was promoted to senior audit

manager and was given an order to be assigned at the Ernst and Young
Birmingham Office in the United Kingdom for at least a year with a
possible contract extension depending on her work performance. She
was very happy with her foreign assignment so she called Defendant
to celebrate her promotion and they scheduled it on 11 December
2019 at The Penthouse located at the 21st floor of the Lepanto
Building in Makati Avenue, Makati.
57
13.On 11 December 2019, the two met at the agreed place. Plaintiff and
Defendant talked about the former’s plans until their discussion
focused on the properties that she will leave behind such as her car.
Since Plaintiff’s brother Johndel does not know how to drive it and
fears that it will deteriorate due to possible non-usage. Plaintiff
decided to let Defendant bring it to his possession, use and maintain
its condition until she comes back from abroad to which Defendant
accepted.
14.On 23 December 2019, Plaintiff finally turned over the possession of

the car to Defendant.
15.On 05 January 2020, Plaintiff left the Philippines aboard KLM Royal
Dutch Airlines.
16.On 03 February 2021, Plaintiff’s brother, Johndel, was hit by an

oncoming vehicle while traversing Commonwealth Avenue aboard his
motorcycle. Her brother was then hospitalized for 15 days incurring
Four Hundred Fifty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Six
Pesos (P456,876.00) in hospital bills which were shouldered by
Defendant. The said incident was not communicated to Plaintiff
because Johndel requested to keep it a secret so that Plaintiff will not
worry.
58
17.On 18 April 2021, Plaintiff returned to her home where she was
surprised to see Johndel’s arm cast with a brace. There, she finally
learned about the incident.
18.On 22 April 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant met at Starbucks Sm San

Lazaro and had a friendly talk after being far away for far too long.
Their conversation shifted to the narration of the incident and later to
the motor vehicle. Plaintiff reminded Defendant that she will soon be
getting back the car to which Defendant agreed to but no time and
date were discussed yet. Plaintiff also told Defendant that she’ll be
paying back the expenses the latter incurred for her brother.
19.On 30 April 2021, Plaintiff called Justin to tell him that she’ll be
getting back the car on 05 May 2021 but the latter refused since the
car is still under repairs.
20.On 07 May 2021, Plaintiff again called Defendant but he is not

answering her calls nor texting back.
21.On 10 May 2021, Plaintiff went to the house of Defendant but only
her father said that he is in the province. Later that night, Defendant
called Plaintiff to tell her that he is at the province and that they’ll just
talk about the car once he gets back.
22.On 13 May 2021, Plaintiff called Defendant again and she requested
him to return the vehicle since she will use it for business travel on
59
Albay but Defendant again denied it explaining that the car was again
at the service center for repairs.
23.On 18 May 2021, Plaintiff feeling frustrated, in a long text message,

finally ordered Defendant to return the car on 20 May 2021 and that
she will act accordingly if he will not return it by that day via a text
message but the latter did not send a reply.
24.On 21 May 2021, Plaintiff, through counsel Anthony Del Ayre, issued
a demand letter to Defendant which was received by him on the same
date.
25.On 22 May 2021, Defendant, in a long message to Plaintiff, refused to

return the motor vehicle arguing that he considered it as the payment
for the hospital expenses he incurred.
26.By the defendant’s continued possession of the property, Plaintiff

incurred expenses that she would not have spent if she had possession
of the car. The plaintiff had to pay for Grab from the time she arrived
in the Philippines.
27.Therefore, Plaintiff was constrained to engage the services of

undersigned counsel to whom it obligated itself to pay as Attorney’s
Fees the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP10,000.00)
60
FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES
1. Whether Plaintiff has legal right over the subject vehicle; and
2. Whether or not Plaintiff is obliged to reimburse the expenses incurred by
Defendant under the principle of dacion en pago.
POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE OR ALTERNATIVE MODE OF DISPUTE

RESOLUTION
Plaintiff is willing to consider any amicable settlement or undergo alternative

modes of dispute resolution with respect to the primary prayer of this petition.
AVAILMENT OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURE

AND REFERRAL TO A COMMISSION
None of the instances when a suit may be referred to a commissioner are

attendant in this case.
DOCUMENTARY AND OBJECT EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED
EXHIBIT PURPOSE
Exhibit A - Picture of the car with plate To identify the vehicle
number
Exhibit B - Deed of Absolute Sale To serve as proof of ownership of the
Plaintiff
Exhibit C - Original Receipt of the To serve as proof of ownership of the
purchase of car Plaintiff
Exhibit D - Certificate of Registration To serve as proof of ownership of the
61
of the car Plaintiff
Exhibit E - Screenshot of Defendant’s To serve as proof of receipt of
reply to Plaintiff’s text message Plaintiff’s text message regarding the
demand to return the vehicle
Exhibit F - Screenshot of text message To serve as proof of demand to return
sent by Plaintiff to Defendant the vehicle
WITNESS TO BE PRESENTED
Judicial Affidavit of Marianne Gail Z. Cariño to serve as her direct testimony in

this case.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF POINTS OF LAW AND CITATION OF

AUTHORITIES
Plaintiff has legal right over the subject vehicle
28. In a complaint for replevin, the claimant must convincingly show that he is
either the owner or clearly entitled to the possession of the object sought to be
recovered, and that the defendant, who is in actual or legal possession thereof,
wrongfully detains the same1. Articles 428 and 429 of the New Civil Code
explained that the owner exercises rights over his or her property and may legally
bring an action for its recovery, to wit:
“Article 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing,
without other limitations than those established by law.
1
Siy vs Tomlin, G.R. No. 205998, April 24, 2017
62
The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of the
thing in order to recover it.
Article 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of
his property”
29. Records show that Plaintiff acquired the vehicle through a deed of sale in the
amount of Eight Hundred Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(PhP826,500.00) from Toyota Shaw. From Plaintiff’s own account, she authorized
Defendant to temporarily possess and use the vehicle while Plaintiff was out of the
country. Plaintiff remains the owner of the vehicle despite the continuous
possession of Defendant of the said vehicle for two (2) years, and the expenses
incurred by Defendant for its maintenance.
30. Nevertheless, Plaintiff, having in her name and possession the original receipt
as well as the registration of the vehicle, shall be entitled to all the rights over the
vehicle, as provided under Article 434 of the New Civil Code, to wit:
“Article 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and

the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of
the defendant's claim.”
31. In Aznar v. Yapdiangco2, the Court held that the intervenor-appellee had been
unlawfully deprived of his personal property. Consequently, although the
plaintiff-appellant acquired the car in good faith and for a valuable consideration
from Vicente Marella, the said decision concluded, still the intervenor-appellee was
entitled to its recovery on the mandate of Article 559 of the New Civil Code which
provides:
“Article. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is

equivalent to title. Nevertheless, one who lost any movable or has been
unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of
the same.
2
Aznar v. Yapdiangco, G.R. No. L-18536, March 31, 1965
63
If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been
unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the
owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid
therefor.”
32. Although possession of a movable property is a presumption of ownership,

such presumption however is disputable. The Plaintiff who has been unlawfully
deprived of her property may therefore, recover it from Defendant who is in
possession of her property.
Plaintiff is not obliged to reimburse the expenses incurred by Defendant under

the principle of dacion en pago
33. There is no dispute that Defendant incurred expenses from the hospitalization
of Plaintiff’s brother. Defendant willingly and voluntarily offered to help and paid
all the hospital fees furtively so that Plaintiff will not know about the accident. For
dacion en pago to exist, there must be an acceptance on the part of the creditor of
the thing equivalent to the amount of debt. Such acceptance does not exist in the
case of the Plaintiff.
34. In Rockville Excel International Exim Corp. vs Spouses Culla,3 the Court
defined dacion en pago as the delivery and transmission of ownership of a thing by
the debtor to the creditor as an accepted equivalent of the performance of an
existing obligation, which is a special mode of payment where the debtor offers
another thing to the creditor who accepts it as equivalent to the payment of an
outstanding debt. Moreover, the elements of dacion en pago consist of (a)
existence of a money obligation; (b) the alienation to the creditor of a property by
the debtor with the consent of the former; and (c) satisfaction of the money
obligation of the debtor.
35. Despite the existence of money obligation in this case, Plaintiff never offered
her vehicle to serve as equivalent to the payment of the hospital expenses. Due to
the absence of one of the requisites of dacion en pago, Defendant cannot claim the
vehicle of Plaintiff by reason of the non-payment of the latter’s debt.
3
Rockville Excel International Exim Corp. vs Spouses Culla, G.R. No. 155716, October 2, 2009
64
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the

instant Petition for Recovery of Possession be GRANTED.
OTHER RELIEFS just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise
prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
City of Manila, 9 July 2021.
ADA Law Offices

Intramuros, Manila
Telephone No.: (02) 8298-9711
By:
Atty. Anthony T. Del Ayre

Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-21: Manila
IBP No, 693095:1-04-07: Manila Chapter
Roll No. 42481:5-10-15: Manila
Copy Furnished:
Atty. Ronel C. Battad
65
Counsel for Defendant
Taft Avenue corner Padre Faura Street,
Manila, Philippines
66

Plaintiff,


Defendant.
X--------------------------------------------X
PROOF OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on 9 July 2021, the undersigned personally served his
Pre-trial Brief to Defendant, Justin Mark N. Dagdag, who signed hereunder to
acknowledge receipt thereof.
9 July 2021.

Defendant
Received:

Plaintiff July 9, 2021; 10:05am
67
Regional TRIAL COURT

Plaintiff,
Case No: R-MNL-21-432567-CV
-versus- For: Recovery of Possession

Defendant,
x----------------------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
COMES NOW, Defendant, through counsel and to this Honorable

Court, most respectfully submits this Pre-trial Brief and, states that:
PROPOSED STIPULATIONS OF FACTS
1. On 01 June 2019, the Plaintiff bought a brand new Red Toyota

Vios 1.3 E CVT with Plate Number 9VN CR6 (Annex A)
amounting to Php 870,000.00 at Toyota Shaw in Mandaluyong.
2. On 08 December 2019, the Plaintiff was promoted to senior audit

manager and was assigned to work in the United Kingdom for at
least a year.
3. On 11 December 2019, the Plaintiff met with the Defendant at The

Penthouse and talked about the properties that the plaintiff will
leave behind, specifically the brand new Toyota Vios. She decided
to leave the car with the defendant, allowing him to bring it to his
possession, use and maintain its condition until she comes back
from the United Kingdom to which the defendant accepted.
4. The car was turned over to the Defendant on 23 December 2019

and on 05 January 2020, plaintiff left the Philippines for her work
in the United Kingdom.
5. On 03 February 2021, the Plaintiff’s brother met an accident where

he was hospitalized for 15 days. The hospital bills amounting to
Php 456,876.00 was shouldered by the Defendant.
AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
68
The Defendant is open to any amicable settlement so long as the terms
and conditions thereof are reasonable and acceptable.
AVAILMENT OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURE

AND REFERRAL TO A COMMISSION
None of the instances when a suit may be referred to a commissioner

are attendant in this case.
ISSUES
WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST

THE DEFENDANT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
WITNESS/ES FOR THE DEFENDANT
The Defendant, Justine Mark N. Dagdag intends to present the following as

her witnesses:
NAME OF WITNESS PURPOSE

Justine Mark N. Dagdag To prove that he is the rightful
Defendant owner of the vehicle in issue.
EXHIBITS FOR THE DEFENDANT
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION/ PURPOSE

Exhibit 1 The Medical Certificate of Johndel
Cariño issued by St. Luke’s Medical
Center as proof that the Petitioner’s
brother was admitted and treated in
the said hospital during the month
of February 2021
Exhibit 2 The hospital receipt of payment
issued by St. Luke’s Medical Center
as proof that the Defendant paid the
hospital bills of the Johndel Cariño.
The Defendant reserves the right to present other witnesses during trial
and/or upon submission of position paper.
APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE
69
Article 1245 of the Civil Code provides that dation in payment,
whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in
money, shall be governed by the law on sales.
It was mentioned in the case of Caltex v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, G.R. No. 72703, November 3, 1992 that the requisites of a valid
dacion en pago are the following:
1. There must be the performance of the prestation in lieu of payment
(animo solvendi) which may consist in the delivery of a corporeal
thing or a real right or a credit against the third person;
2. There must be some difference between the prestation due and that
which is given in substitution (aliud pro alio); and
3. There must be an agreement between the creditor and the debtor that
the obligation is immediately extinguished by reason of the
performance of a prestation different from that due.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

the instant Petition be DISMISSED for lack of cause of action.
OTHER RELIEFS just and equitable under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.
City of Manila, Philippines, 12 July 2021.
By:
RONEL C. BATTAD
Taft Avenue corner Padre Faura Street, Manila
PTR OR No. 1234567, Manila, 01/09/2013
IBP No. 78910, Manila, 01/09/2013
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0009876, 01/09/2019
Roll No. 54236
Tel. No. (02) 8527-3574
Copy Furnished 13 July 2021
ATTY. ANTHONY T. DEL AYRE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Intramuros, Manila
70

Plaintiff,
-versus-

Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------------x
PROOF OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on 13 July 2021, the undersigned personally

served his Pre-Trial Brief upon Plaintiff Marianne Gail Z. Cariño who
signed hereunder to acknowledge receipt thereof.
13 July 2021.

Defendant
Received:

Plaintiff
71

Plaintiff,


Defendant.
X--------------------------------------------X
PRE-TRIAL ORDER
I. PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
A. Documentary and other Object Evidence:
Exhibit “A” - Photo of the vehicle with visible plate number for
proper identification of the vehicle;
Exhibit “B” - Deed of Absolute Sale to prove the ownership of

vehicle;
Exhibit “C” - Original Receipt of the subject vehicle registered

in the Land Transportation Office, to prove the ownership of the
vehicle;
Exhibit “D” - Certificate of Registration of the subject vehicle

registered in the Land Transportation Office, to prove the
ownership of the vehicle;
Exhibit “E” - Screenshot of the plaintiff’s messages showing

demand to return the subject vehicle;
72
Exhibit “F” - Demand letter of the plaintiff against the
defendant;
Exhibit “G” - Screenshot of the defendant’s reply message to

the plaintiff;
B. Testimonial Evidence:
The plaintiff Marianne Gail Z. Cariño will present her Judicial

Affidavit which she duly executed to serve as her direct
testimony to this case;
C. Reserved Evidence:
Plaintiff has no reserved evidence.
II. DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE
A. Documentary and other Object Evidence:
Exhibit “1” - The Medical Certificate of Johndel Cariño issued

by St. Luke’s Medical Center as proof that the Petitioner’s
brother was admitted and treated in the said hospital during the
month of February 2021;
Exhibit “2” - The hospital receipt of payment issued by St.

Luke’s Medical Center as proof that the Defendant paid the
hospital bills of the Johndel Cariño.;
B. Testimonial Evidence:
The defendant Justine Mark N. Dagdag will present his Judicial

Affidavit which he duly executed to serve as his direct
testimony to this case;
C. Reserved Evidence:
Defendant has no reserved evidence;
73
Evidence not pre-marked and listed herein shall not be allowed
during trial.
III. POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
The parties in this case are willing to consider any amicable settlement
or undergo alternative modes of dispute resolution.
IV. ADMITTED FACTS AND STIPULATION OF FACTS
1. Plaintiff Marianne Gail Z. Cariño is a Filipino, of legal age, single,

and with a residence at 555 Quintos Street, Sampaloc, Manila, 1008,
Metro Manila while Defendant Justine Mark N. Dagdag is also a
Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident of 680 Miguelin Street,
Sampaloc Manila, 1008, Metro Manila;
2. On 01 June 2019, plaintiff bought a brand new 2019 Red Toyota Vios
1.3 E CVT amounting to Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Pesos
(PhP870,000.00) at Toyota Shaw, 304 Shaw Boulevard, Pleasant
Hills, Mandaluyong, 1552 Metro Manila;
3. On 08 December 2019, plaintiff was promoted to senior audit
manager and was given an order to be assigned at the Ernst and Young
Birmingham Office in the United Kingdom for at least a year. She was
very happy with her foreign assignment so she called the defendant to
celebrate her promotion and they scheduled it on 11 December 2019
at The Penthouse located at the 21st floor of the Lepanto Building in
Makati Avenue, Makati City;
4. On 11 December 2019, the two met at the agreed place. Plaintiff and
the defendant talked about the former’s plans until their discussion
focused on the properties that she will leave behind which includes
her 2019 Red Toyota Vios 1.3 E CVT. Since plaintiff’s brother
Johndel does not know how to drive the vehicle and fears that it will
deteriorate due to possible non-usage, plaintiff decided to allow the
74
defendant to possess, use, and maintain the vehicle’s condition until
she comes back from abroad in which the defendant accepted;
5. On 23 December 2019, plaintiff finally turned over the possession of
the car to the defendant. On 05 January 2020, plaintiff left the
Philippines aboard KLM Royal Dutch Airlines;
6. On 03 February 2021, plaintiff’s brother, Johndel, was hit by an
upcoming vehicle while traversing Commonwealth Avenue aboard his
motorcycle. Her brother was then hospitalized for 15 days incurring
Four Hundred Fifty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Six
Pesos (P456,876.00) hospital bill which was shouldered by the
defendant;
7. On 18 April 2021, plaintiff returned to her home where she was
surprised to see Johndel’s arm cast with a brace. There, she finally
learned about the incident;
8. On 22 April 2021, plaintiff and defendant met at Starbucks SM San
Lazaro and had a friendly talk after being away for too long. Their
conversation shifted to the narration of the incident and later to the
motor vehicle. Plaintiff reminded the defendant that she will soon get
back the car to which defendant agreed to but no time and date were
discussed yet. Plaintiff also told the defendant that she’ll be paying
back the expenses the latter incurred for her brother;
9. On 30 April 2021, plaintiff called Justin to tell him that she’ll be
getting back the car on 05 May 2021 but the latter refused since the
car is still under repairs. On 07 May 2021, plaintiff called again the
defendant but he did not answer her calls nor did the defendant
responded to her text message;
10. On 10 May 2021, plaintiff went to the house of the defendant but
only the former met the latter’s father who said that he is in the
province. Later that night, the defendant called the plaintiff to tell her
that he is in the province and that they will just talk about the car once
he gets back. On 13 May 2021, plaintiff called the defendant again
and requested him to return the vehicle as she will use it for business
75
travel on Albay but the defendant did not heed to her request
explaining that the car was again at the repair shop;
11. On 18 May 2021, plaintiff, in a long text message, finally ordered the
defendant to return the car on 20 May 2021 and that she will act
accordingly if defendant will not return it on the said date;
12. On 21 May 2021, plaintiff, through counsel Anthony Del Ayre, sent a
demand letter. The defendant received the demand letter on the same
date;
13. On 22 May 2021, defendant, in a long message to the plaintiff,
refused to return the motor vehicle arguing that the subject vehicle is
the payment for the hospital expenses he incurred for the plaintiff’s
brother;
14. On 07 June 2021, plaintiff, in order to recover her property, filed a
Petition for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Writ of
Replevin against the defendant. On the same day, the plaintiff also
filed a bond amounting to One Million Six Hundred Fifty Three
Thousand Pesos (PhP1,653,000.00) for the immediate return of her
property.
IV. ISSUES TO BE TRIED OR RESOLVED
1. Whether Plaintiff has a legal right over the subject vehicle;

2. Whether Plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant for
recovery of possession;
3. Whether Plaintiff is obliged to reimburse the expenses incurred by
Defendant under the principle of dacion en pago.
V. APPLICABLE LAWS, RULES, JURISPRUDENCE
Rule 60, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that a party praying
for the recovery of possession of personal property may, at the
commencement of the action or at any time before answer, apply for an
76
order for the delivery of such property to him, in the manner hereinafter
provided.
Various provisions of the New Civil Code, specifically Art. 428, 429,
434, 559, and 1245 were invoked by the parties. The principle of dacion en
pago was also raised in the parties' respective pre-trial briefs.
Further, several jurisprudence related to the issue were used by the

parties to come up with their respective arguments.
VI. MANIFESTATION OF PARTIES HAVING AVAILED OF THEIR

INTENTION TO AVAIL OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURES OR
REFERRAL TO COMMISSIONER
Both parties manifested that they are amenable to avail of discovery

procedures as the court may require. However, in the instant case, the suit is
not a proper subject to be referred to a Commissioner.
VII. NUMBER AND NAMES OF WITNESSES, THE SUBSTANCE OF

THEIR TESTIMONIES, AND APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF
HOURS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE PARTIES FOR THE
PRESENTATION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE WITNESSES
Plaintiff will be the sole witness for herself. She will testify as to the
identity of the vehicle, ownership thereof, and demands made to the
defendant to return the vehicle.
For the defense, the defendant will also be the sole witness. He will
testify to prove his ownership over the subject vehicle.
The number of hours that will be required by the parties for the
presentation of their respective witnesses shall be limited to one (1) hour per
each party as they only have themselves to present.
VIII. SCHEDULE OF CONTINUOUS TRIAL DATES FOR BOTH

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT
77
Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) shall proceed on 30 July 2021 at
10:00AM, for both the claiming party or plaintiff and defendant to present
and terminate each respective evidence.
The CAM date shall be final and intransferrable, and no motions for
postponement that are dilatory in character shall be entertained by the court.
If such motions are granted in exceptional cases, the postponement/s by
either party shall be deducted from such party’s allotted time to present
evidence.
The parties are hereby ordered to immediately proceed and personally

appear at the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) located at 214 PMC Bldg.,
Real St., Malate, Manila with or without their counsel/s, for mediation
proceedings. The assigned Mediator is ordered to submit a report to this
court on the results of the mediation based on the factual and legal issues to
be resolved within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) calendar days from
the date of the court’s referral of this case to the PMC Unit.
Should mediation fail after the lapse of the said 30-day period, the
parties are ordered to appear before the court so that the trial shall proceed
on the trial dates indicated above. Only if the judge of the court to which the
case was originally raffled is convinced that settlement is possible that the
case may be referred to another court for judicial dispute resolution, which
shall be conducted within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) calendar
days from notice of the court-annexed mediation. If judicial dispute
resolution fails, trial before the original court shall proceed on the dates
agreed upon.
Failure of the party or his/her counsel to comply with the

abovementioned schedule of hearings and deadlines shall be a ground for
imposition of fines and other sanctions by the court.
The parties and their counsel are hereby notified hereof, and the court
shall no longer issue a subpoena to the parties present today.
SO ORDERED.
City of Manila, 20 July 2021.
78
CONFORMITY:
MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG

Plaintiff Defendant
ANTHONY T. DEL AYRE RONEL C. BATTAD

Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant’s counsel
ATTESTED: MA. FATIMA BELINO

Branch Clerk of Court
NOTED BY: HON. ROSE MAY GABEJAN

Presiding Judge
79

vs.

Defendant.
X-----------------------------------------x
ORDER
Pursuant to A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, this case is hereby referred to the

Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) for the exploration of the possibilities of
an amicable settlement. The parties are hereby required to appear through
their duly authorized representatives and their counsels at the Ground Floor,
Old GSIS Building, Aroceros Street, Manila on 30 July 2021 at 10:00 AM.
The parties are further reminded that mediation is a mandatory part of

the pre-trial proceedings and that sanctions may be imposed in case of
failure to appear therein.
SO ORDERED.
22 July 2021, City of Manila

Presiding Judge
Copy furnished:
Marianne Gail Z. Cariño

555 Quintos Street, Sampaloc,
Manila, 1008, Metro Manila
Plaintiff
80
Atty. Anthony Del Ayre
ADA Law Offices, Room 305
Knights of the Columbus Bldg.,
Intramuros, Manila

680 Miguelin Street, Sampaloc
Manila, 1008, Metro Manila
Defendant
Atty. Ronel C. Battad

Taft Avenue corner
Padre Faura Street, Manila
Counsel for the Defendant
81

vs.

Defendant.
X-----------------------------------------x
MEDIATOR’S REPORT
Upon receipt of the Order of Referral, CAM was set as follows:
Particulars 1st CAM Session 2nd CAM Session

Date and Time July 30, 2021, 10:00 August 2, 2021, 10:30
am am
Plaintiff Marianne Gail Z. Marianne Gail Z.
Cariño Cariño
Counsel for the Atty. Anthony Del Atty. Anthony Del
Plaintiff Ayre Ayre
Respondent Justine Mark N. Justine Mark N.
Dagdag Dagdag
Counsel for Atty. Ronel C. Battad Atty. Ronel C. Battad
Respondent
STATUS ALL PRESENT ALL PRESENT
OUTCOME:
✓ SUCCESSFUL CAM, attached herewith is/are:
✓ a) Compromise Agreement
□ b) Motion to Dismiss/Withdraw Case
□ c) Proof of Satisfaction of Claim/s
82
□ d) Others, specify __________________
□ FAILED CAM, due to:
□ a) No agreement was reached by the parties despite efforts towards

a settlement
□ b) Parties fail to appear on the date of resetting
□ c) Others, specify __________________
□ BACK TO COURT, NO CAM CONDUCTED, due to:
□ a) Non-appearance of one or both parties in at least two successive

CAM sessions
□ b) Non-payment or refusal to pay mediation fees
□ c) Refusal to participate to begin trial on the merits
□ d) Preference of the parties to begin trial on the merits
□ e) lack of authority of the representative of ______________
RECOMMENDATION
✓ a) Approval of the attached documents/s
□ b) Dismissal of the case for non-appearance of the defendant despite

notice and allow plaintiff to adduce evidence on her claims
□ c) Imposition of sanctions on the absent party, such as but not

limited to censure, reprimand, declaration in contempt, costs and fees
spent by the attending party, and such other sanctions for failure to
appear for pre-trial under the Rules.
REMARKS: The parties have agreed to amicably settle their disputes

during the second CAM session. The compromise agreement is hereby
referred to the Presiding Judge of the case for approval.
Carmela David Pamela Mendoza

Mediator PMC Unit Staff
August 3, 2021
Date
83
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
This Compromise Agreement is made and entered into in the City of Manila,
Philippines by and between
Marianne Gail Z. Carino of legal age, Filipino, single, and with address at 555
Quintos Street, Sampaloc, Manila, 1008, Metro Manila, hereinafter referred to as
“FIRST PARTY”
-and-
Justine Mark N. Dagdag, of legal age, Filipino, single, and with address at 680
Miguelin Street, Sampaloc, Manila, 1008, Metro Manila, hereinafter referred to as
“SECOND PARTY.”
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the SECOND PARTY has the possession of the Red Vios with the
plate number 9VN CR6
WHEREAS, after several demands, the SECOND PARTY refused to return the
possession of the car to the FIRST PARTY
WHEREAS the FIRST PARTY thereafter filed a civil case for Replevin before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, branch 30.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, both

parties have agreed on the following terms and conditions, to wit:
1. The SECOND PARTY agrees to RETURN THE RED VIOS on September 5,

2021;
2. After the execution of this Agreement and upon payment by the SECOND
PARTY, the FIRST PARTY shall file the necessary Motion to the Court to
withdraw its pending case filed against the SECOND PARTY without
prejudice to its right to refile the case in case of non-compliance by the
SECOND PARTY;
3. Both Parties agree that this Agreement shall constitute as the Decision of the
Honorable Court on the aforesaid pending case.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed these presents on this
30th day of August 2021 in Metro Manila, Philippines.
BY:
_______________________________ ________________________
Marianne Gail Z. Carino Justine Mark N. Dagdag
Signed in the presence of:
_______________________________ ________________________
Rayvan G. Evangarde Tony G. Pablo
84
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CITY OF Manila) S.S.
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public in and for and in the City of Makati, Philippines on
this 1st day of September 2021 personally appeared the following:
NAME GOVERNMENT ISSUED DATE AND PLACE OF

ID ISSUE
Marianne Gail Z.
TIN ID 745-299-822-000 May 7, 2018/Makati City
Carino
Justine Mark N.
PRC No. 0147521 April 11, 2017/Manila City
Dagdag
known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing Compromise

Agreement consisting of two (2) pages, including this page, and they acknowledged to
me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 1st day of
August, 2021 in Makati City.
ATTY. JUSTIN S. KHO

NOTARY PUBLIC
Until December 2022
Fedman Suites, 199 Salcedo, Legazpi
Metro Manila
IBP O.R. No. 0927P December 10, 2017
Roll No. 09327/MCLE No. VI-935127
PTR No. MLA2532/01-02-2020
Appointment No. M-432
Doc. No. 373

Page No. 76
Book No. XVIII
Series of 2021.
85
CONTRIBUTION
1. BATTAD, Ronel C.
a. Co-drafted the facts of the case with Belino, Inguito and Cruz
b. Co-drafted the script with Belino, Inguito and Cruz
c. Drafted the Notice of Pre-Trial
d. Drafted the Sheriff’s Return of Notice of Pre-Trial
e. Drafted the Demand Letter
f. Prepared and discussed in a meeting the general outline of the process
and overall output for the assigned activity
g. Act as the counsel of defendant
2. BELINO, Maria Fatima C.

a. Co-drafted the facts of the case with Battad, Inguito and Cruz
b. Co-drafted the script with Battad, Inguito and Cruz
c. Consolidated the file for submission
d. Edited necessary attachment for the complaint
e. Attended the meeting
f. Act as Clerk of Court
3. CARIÑO, Marianne Gail Z.

a. Drafted the Complaint
b. Drafted the Affidavit/Application for Writ of Replevin
c. Drafted the Proof of Service of Pre-Trial Brief to Plaintiff
d. Attended the meeting
e. Acted as the plaintiff
4. CRUZ, Johndel B.
a. Co-drafted Pre-trial Order with Gabejan
b. Co-drafted the facts of the case with Battad, Inguito and Belino
c. Co-drafted the script with Battad, Inguito and Belino
5. DAGDAG, Justine
a. Drafted the Judicial Affidavit of Plaintiff
b. Drafted the Replevin Bond Official Receipt
c. Co-drafted the Pre-Trial Brief of the Plaintiff
d. Act as Defendant
6. DAVID, Carmela
a. Drafted the Judicial Affidavit of Defendant
86
b. Co-drafted the Pre-trial Brief of Plaintiff with Dagdag
c. Prepared Exhibits E and G
d. Attended the meeting
e. Narrator
7. DEL AYRE, Anthony

a. Drafted the Answer
b. Drafted the Pre-trial Brief of the Defendant
c. Attended group meetings
d. Acted as counsel for the plaintiff
8. GABEJAN, Rose May

a. Drafted the Order for Issuance of Writ of Replevin
b. Drafted the Writ of Replevin
c. Drafted the Proof of Service to the Adverse Party (Answer part)
d. Drafted the Sheriff’s Return, re: Writ of Replevin
e. Co-drafted the Pre-trial Order with Cruz
f. Acted as Judge
9. INGUITO, Princess
a. Co drafted facts
b. Co drafted script
c. Drafted medical cert
d. Drafted hospital bills
e. Drafted compromise agreement for settlement in CAM proceedings
f. Attended meetings
10. PUMBAYA, Princess Jannah S.

a. Drafted Deed of Sale
b. Drafted Proof of Service
c. Drafted Summons
d. Drafted Sheriff’s Return
e. Drafted CAM Order
f. Drafted Mediator’s Report
g. Attended meeting
87

Activity 9 Replevin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Activity 9 Replevin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT BY APPLICANT 20

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE TO DEFENDANT 28

SUMMONS TO ADVERSE PARTY 30

ORDER OF WRIT OF REPLEVIN 32

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT 45

PROOF OF SERVICE TO PLAINTIFF 51

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF 55

PROOF OF SERVICE TO DEFENDANT 67

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF DEFENDANT 68

PROOF OF SERVICE TO PLAINTIFF 71

ORDER FOR COURT ANNEXED MEDIATION 80

CAM MEDIATORS REPORT 82

MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO,

JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG,

WITH UTMOST DEFERENCE TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

PLAINTIFF Marianne Gail Z. Cariño, by and through the undersigned

1. Plaintiff Marianne Gail Z. Cariño is a Filipino, of legal age, single, an

2. Defendant Justine Mark N. Dagdag is a Filipino, 27 years of age,

5. On 08 December 2019, plaintiff was promoted to senior audit

6. On 11 December 2019, plaintiff met with the defendant at The

8. The defendant was informed on 05 November 2020 that the plaintiff’s

9. Johndel met an accident on 03 February 2021 where he was

10.On 04 April 2021, plaintiff returned to the Philippines due to the

16.Feeling frustrated, the plaintiff sent a long text message (Exhibit E) to

17.Finally, on 21 May 2021, through her counsel, the plaintiff issued a

19.Despite several verbal demands, the defendant refused to return the

21.The car is being wrongfully detained by the defendant, in violation of

23.The plaintiff was constrained to engage the services of undersigned

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully prayed

1. Return the subject property to the plaintiff; and

2. Pay Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) as Attorney’s Fees

City of Manila, Philippines, 07 June 2021.

ATTY. ANTHONY JOHN T. DEL AYRE

MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO,

JUSTINE MARK N. DAGDAG,

I, MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO, of legal age, single, and a resident

1. I am the plaintiff in an action for recovery of possession against the

2. I am the owner of the property, particularly described as follows, to

5. That the said personal property is wrongfully detained by the

7. That the actual value of the said property is Eight Hundred

8. I executed a performance bond in double the value of the property,

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 07 June

MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 7th day of June

I, MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO, Filipino, of legal age, single, and

1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the above complaint to be prepared and have

3. That the allegations therein are true of my own knowledge;

4. That I have not therefore commenced any other action or

5. That should I thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this verification

MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 7th day of June

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, a domestic corporation duly

Model/Series: Vios 1.3 E CVT

Type of Body: Sedan

Year Model: 2019

Plate Number: 9VN CR6

Engine Number: 1TRA680922

Chassis Number: PA2JW8EM4K3153625

File No.: 1301-00000530607

MARIANNE GAIL Z. CARIÑO TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES