Machinery vs.

Pecson
GR. No. L-7057

Facts:
Machinery and Engineering Supplies Inc. (petitioner) filed a complaint for replevin
against Ipo Limestone Co., Inc., and Antonio Villarama in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
The court issued an order on March 13, 1953, commanding the seizure of machinery and
equipment at the defendants' factory in Bulacan. Deputy sheriffs, upon the petitioner's insistence,
dismantled and removed the machinery, rendering them unserviceable. The defendants filed an
urgent motion for the return of the properties, and the trial court ordered the provincial sheriff to
return them to their original location. The deputy sheriffs returned the properties along the road,
making their use impracticable and without re-installing them in their former position. The trial
court ordered the petitioner to reinstate the machinery and equipment at its expense, but the
provincial sheriff sought assistance, claiming the petitioner refused to comply. The Court of
Appeals dismissed the petitioner's certiorari petition against the trial court's orders.

Issues:

Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the petitioner to
provide funds and assistance for the reinstallation of the machinery and equipment. NO

Whether the machinery and equipment are subject to replevin. NO

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner's certiorari petition. NO

Court's Ruling:

The Court of Appeals justified the dismissal, stating that the trial court's order was not an
abuse of discretion but a proper response to the petitioner's unlawful acts.

The machinery and equipment were considered immovable property under Article 415 of
the Civil Code, making them not subject to replevin.

Real property, including fixtures annexed to the realty, is not subject to replevin. The
petitioner assumed the risk by insisting on dismantling the property, and the court affirmed the
need for the petitioner to reinstall the properties in their original condition.

The Court of Appeals' decision was affirmed, dismissing the certiorari petition and
holding the petitioner responsible for the reinstallation of the machinery and equipment. The
court emphasized that the properties were immovable and not subject to replevin, and the
petitioner's actions led to the need for their reinstallation.