CHIAO LIONG TAN V.

COURT OF APPEALS
Replevin is possessory in character and determines nothing more than the right of possession. However, when the title to the property is distinctly put in issue by the defendants plea and by reason of the policy to settle in one action all the conflicting claims of the parties to the possession of the property in controversy, the question of ownership may be resolved in the same proceeding.

FACTS:
Petitioner claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle, Isuzu Elf van, relying on the Certificate of Registration in his name. He claims that he sent his brother to look and purchase a car which the latter did. However, the brother is claiming ownership on the van. The brothers contention is that the purchase money was from the loan he acquired from a friend-lender. He asked petitioner to purchase the van and gave him the downpayment (P5,000). This is the reason why the car is registered in petitioners name. However, the balance (P133,000) was paid by respondent himself. The friend-lender and an Isuzu Motors employee corroborated the claim of the respondent. Petitioner files action of replevin. He lost in the lower courts. He appeals to overturn the order of replevin by proving ownership

ISSUE:
W/N ownership may be decided in a proceeding for replevin.

RULING:
YES. (still in this case, the petitioner lost because the SC affirmed the findings of the lower court) 1) A certificate of registration creates a strong presumption of ownership. But such is rebuttable by competent proof. 2) In this case, it is undeniable that an IMPLIED TRUST has been created in the name of petitioner (The court was able to conclude this because it affirmed the allegations of respondent). 3) Replevin is possessory in character and determines nothing more than the right of possession. However, when the title to the property is distinctly put in issue by the defendants plea and by reason of the policy to settle in one action all the conflicting claims of the parties to the possession of the

property in controversy, the question of ownership may be resolved in the same proceeding. In this case, the ownership was established through evidence and testimonies presented by defendant. 4) Also, replevin is sufficiently flexible to authorize a settlement of all equities between the parties, arising from or growing out of the main controversy. Hence, the winning party may in the same court procure relief for the return of the property.

CALUB V. CA
Replevin cannot be issued to recover a property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process and considered in the custody of the law. A replevin case against the State, without its consent, cannot prosper.

FACTS:
Petitioner from DENR apprehended two vehicles carrying illegally sourced lumber and thereafter confiscated them. The owners of the vehicles filed an action for replevin to recover the vehicles. They won in the trial court on the ground that petitioner did not act in accordance with the law. So petitioner appeals on the ground that the replevin in this case is a suit against the State and is therefore valid.

ISSUE:
1) Whether or not a replevin may be instituted for recovery of property under custodia legis. 2) Whether or not replevin in this case is a suit against the State

RULING:
1) No! Replevin cannot be issued to recover a property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process and considered in the custody of the law. 2) Yes! This suit is not valid because the State may not be sued without its consent or when the public official acted in bad faith in the discharge of his duties. It has been established that the DENR acted within its authority. Hence, its action is the action of the State.

< Prev Next >

SARMIENTO V. CA|CRUZ, 250 SCRA 108

FACTS:
Generosa Cruz owned a parcel of land in Bataan. The adjacent land belongs to the Nuguids but is being used and occupied by Eufemia Sarmiento for several years now. It was found out by the Geodetic Engineer that Sarmientos fence is encroaching Cruzs land for about 71 meters. Cruz requested Sarmiento to remove the fence, but the latter refused so Cruz filed a complaint for ejectment in the Municipal Trial Court. MTC decided for Cruz. Sarmiento appealed in the RTC, assailing the jurisdiction of the MTC. RTC decided for Sarmiento and held that the MTC had no jurisdiction to hear the case. CA reversed RTC and reinstated the MTC decision.

Issue:
Whether or not the court of origin (MTC) had jurisdiction over the ejectment case? (Apparently, Cruz failed to state details on how the encroachment was done.)

Held:
No. To give the court jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of an occupant or deforciant on the land, it is necessary that the complaint should embody such statement of facts as brings the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy,(complaint should state facts that would bring the parites in a smilar situation which the law provides a remedy) as the proceedings are summary in nature. The complaint must show enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence. The jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the complaint. When the complaint fails to aver facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as when it does not state how entry was effected or how and when

dispossession started, as in the case at bar, the remedy should either be an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria in the proper regional trial court.