G.R. No.
158271 April 8, 2008 implemented levying personal properties of
CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
ASIAN CONSTRUCTION and DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, respondent.
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
filed by petitioner China Banking Corporation
(China Bank) seeking to annul the Resolution1
dated October 14, 2002 and the Resolution2
dated May 16, 2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CV No. 72175.
The facts of the case:
On July 24, 1996, China Bank granted respondent
Asian Construction and Development
Corporation (ACDC) an Omnibus Credit Line in
the amount of P90,000,000.00.3
On April 12, 1999, alleging that ACDC failed to
comply with its obligations under the Omnibus
Credit Line, China Bank filed a Complaint4 for
recovery of sum of money and damages with
prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary
attachment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Makati, Branch 138, docketed as Civil Case No.
99-796. In the Complaint, China Bank claimed
that ACDC, after collecting and receiving the
proceeds or receivables from the various
construction contracts and purportedly holding
them in trust for China Bank under several Deeds
of Assignment, misappropriated, converted, and
used the funds for its own purpose and benefit,
instead of remitting or delivering them to China
Bank.5
On April 22, 1999, the RTC issued an Order6
granting China Bank’s prayer for writ of
preliminary attachment. Consequently, as
shown in the Sheriff’s Report7 dated June 14,
1999, the writ of preliminary attachment was
ACDC, i.e., vans, dump trucks, cement mixers,
cargo trucks, utility vehicles, machinery,
equipment and office machines and fixtures.
On March 27, 2000, upon motion of China Bank,
the RTC issued a Summary Judgment8 in favor of
China Bank. ACDC filed its Notice of Appeal9
dated April 24, 2000.
On June 15, 2000, China Bank filed a Motion to
Take Custody of Attached Properties with
Motion for Grant of Authority to Sell to the
Branch Sheriff10 with the RTC, praying that it be
allowed to take custody of ACDC’s properties for
the purpose of selling them in an auction.11 On
June 20, 2000, ACDC filed its Opposition12 to the
June 15, 2000 Motion arguing that there can be
no sale of the latter’s attached properties in the
absence of a final and executory judgment
against ACDC.
On August 25, 2000, China Bank partially
appealed the Summary Judgment for not
awarding interest on one of its promissory
notes.13 Records of the case were elevated to
the CA.14
On April 18, 2002, China Bank filed a Motion for
Leave for Grant of Authority to Sell Attached
Properties15 which the CA denied in the herein
assailed Resolution dated October 14, 2002.
According to the CA, selling the attached
properties prior to final judgment of the
appealed case is premature and contrary to the
intent and purpose of preliminary attachment
for the following reasons: first, the records
reveal that the attached properties subject of
the motion are not perishable in nature; and
second, while the sale of the attached properties
may serve the interest of China Bank, it will not
be so for ACDC. The CA recognized China Bank’s
apprehension that by the time a final judgment
is rendered, the attached properties would be
worthless. However, the CA also acknowledged
that since ACDC is a corporation engaged in a
construction business, the preservation of the
properties is of paramount importance; and that
in the event that the decision of the lower court
is reversed and a final judgment rendered in
favor ACDC, great prejudice will result if the
attached properties were already sold.
China Bank filed a Motion for Reconsideration16
which was denied in the herein assailed CA
Resolution17 dated May 16, 2003.
Hence, the present petition for review on
certiorari, on the following ground:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS RENDERED
THE QUESTIONED RESOLUTIONS (ANNEXES "A"
and "B") IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11, RULE 57 OF
THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AS IT SHELVED
THE DEMANDS OF EQUITY BY ARBITRARILY
DISALLOWING THE SALE OF THE ATTACHED
PROPERTIES, UPHOLDING ONLY THE INTEREST
OF RESPONDENT, IN UTTER PARTIALITY.18
Considering that the herein assailed CA
Resolutions are interlocutory in nature as they
do not dispose of the case completely but leave
something to be done upon the merits,19 the
proper remedy should have been by way of
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as provided
for in Section 1 (b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC,20 which
provides:
Section 1. Subject of appeal. - An appeal may be
taken from a judgment or final order that
completely disposes of the case, or of a
particular matter therein when declared by
these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
xxxx
(b) An interlocutory order;
xxxx
In any of the foregoing instances, the aggrieved
party may file an appropriate special civil action
as provided in Rule 65. (Emphasis supplied).
The present petition for review on certiorari
should have been dismissed outright. However,
in many instances, the Court has treated a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 as
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, such as in cases where the subject
of the recourse was one of jurisdiction, or the act
complained of was perpetrated by a court with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.21 The present petition
does not involve any issue on jurisdiction,
neither does it show that the CA committed
grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion
to sell the attached property.
Section 11, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court
provides:
Sec. 11. When attached property may be sold
after levy on attachment and before entry of
judgment.- Whenever it shall be made to appear
to the court in which the action is pending, upon
hearing with notice to both parties, that the
property attached is perishable, or that the
interests of all the parties to the action will be
subserved by the sale thereof, the court may
order such property to be sold at public auction
in such manner as it may direct, and the
proceeds of such sale to be deposited in court to
abide the judgment in the action. (Emphasis
supplied)
Thus, an attached property may be sold after
levy on attachment and before entry of
judgment whenever it shall be made to appear
to the court in which the action is pending, upon
hearing with notice to both parties, that the
attached property is perishable or that the
interests of all the parties to the action will be
subserved by the sale of the attached property.
In its Memorandum,22 China Bank argues that
the CA’s notion of perishable property, which
pertains only to those goods which rot and decay
and lose their value if not speedily put to their
intended use,23 is a strict and stringent
interpretation that would betray the purpose for
which the preliminary attachment was
engrafted.24 Citing Witherspoon v. Cross,25
China Bank invokes the definition of "perishable
property" laid down by the Supreme Court of
California as goods which decay and lose their
value if not speedily put to their intended use;
but where the time contemplated is necessarily
long, the term may embrace property liable
merely to material depreciation in value from
other causes than such decay.
As stated in the Sheriff’s Report26 and Notices of
Levy on Properties,27 all of
ACDC’s properties which were levied are
personal properties consisting of used vehicles,
i.e., vans, dump trucks, cement mixers, cargo
trucks, utility vehicles, machinery, equipment
and office machines and fixtures. China Bank
insists that the attached properties, all placed
inside ACDC’s stockyard located at Silang, Cavite
and the branch office in Mayamot, Antipolo City,
are totally exposed to natural elements and
adverse weather conditions.28 Thus, China Bank
argues, that should the attached properties be
allowed to depreciate, perish or rot while the
main case is pending, the attached properties
will continue losing their worth thereby
rendering the rules on preliminary attachment
nugatory.
The issue hinges on the determination whether
the vehicles, office machines and fixtures are
"perishable property" under Section 11, Rules 57
of the Rules of Court, which is actually one of first
impression. No local jurisprudence or
authoritative work has touched upon this
matter. This being so, an examination of foreign
laws and jurisprudence, particularly those of the
United States where some of our laws and rules
were patterned after, is in order.29
In Mossler Acceptance Co. v. Denmark,30 an
order of the lower court in directing the sale of
attached properties, consisting of 20
automobiles and 2 airplanes, was reversed by
the Supreme Court of Louisiana. In support of its
contention that automobiles are perishable,
Mossler offered testimony to the effect that
automobile tires tend to dry-rot in storage,
batteries to deteriorate, crankcases to become
damaged, paint and upholstery to fade, that
generally automobiles tend to depreciate while
in storage.31 Rejecting these arguments, the
Supreme Court of Louisiana held that while there
might be a depreciation in the value of a car
during storage, depending largely on existing
economic conditions, there would be no
material deterioration of the car itself or any of
its appurtenances if the car was properly cared
for, and therefore it could not be said that
automobiles were of a perishable nature within
the intendment of the statute, which could only
be invoked when the property attached and
seized was of a perishable nature.32
With respect to the determination of the
question on whether the attached office
furniture, office equipment, accessories and
supplies are perishable properties, the Supreme
Court of Alabama in McCreery v. Berney National
Bank33 discussed the "perishable" nature of the
attached properties, consisting of shelving, stock
of drygoods and a complete set of store fixtures,
consisting of counters iron safe, desk and
showcases, to be within the meaning of
"perishable" property under the Alabama Code
which authorizes a court, on motion of either
party, to order the sale, in advance of judgment,
of perishable property which had been levied on
by a writ of attachment.34
In McCreery, the Supreme Court of Alabama
rejected the argument that the sale of the
attached property was void because the term
"perishable" property, as used in the statute,
meant only such property as contained in itself
the elements of speedy decay, such as fruits,
fish, fresh meats, etc.35 The Supreme Court of
Alabama held that whatever may be the
character of the property, if the court is satisfied
that, either by reason of its perishable nature, or
because of the expense of keeping it until the
termination of the litigation, it will prove, or be
likely to prove, fruitless to the creditor, and that
the purpose of its original seizure will probably
be frustrated, the sale of the attached property
is justified.
McCreery applied the doctrine in Millard’s
Admrs. v. Hall36 where the Supreme Court of
Alabama held that an attached property is
perishable "if it is shown that, by keeping the
article, it will necessarily become, or is likely to
become, worthless to the creditor, and by
consequence to the debtor, then it is embraced
by the statute. It matters not, in our opinion,
what the subject matter is. It may be cotton
bales, live stock, hardware provisions or dry
goods." Although the statute under which
Millard’s was decided used the words "likely to
waste or be destroyed by keeping," instead of
the word "perishable," the reasons given for the
construction placed on the statute apply equally
to the Alabama Code which uses the term
"perishable."37
In the Motion for Leave for Grant of Authority to
Sell Attached Properties38 filed before the CA,
China Bank alleged that the attached properties
are placed in locations where they are totally
exposed to the natural elements and adverse
weather conditions since their attachment in
1999;39 that as a result, the attached properties
have gravely deteriorated with corrosions eating
them up, with weeds germinating and growing
thereon and their engines and motors stock
up;40 and that the same holds true to the office
furniture, office equipment, accessories and
supplies.41 No evidence, however, were
submitted by China Bank to support and
substantiate these claims before the CA.
Notably, in the Petition filed before the Court,
China Bank, for the first time, included as
annexes,42 photographs of the attached
properties which were alleged to be recently
taken, in an attempt to convince the Court of the
deteriorated condition of the attached
properties.
The determination on whether the attached
vehicles are properly cared for, and the burden
to show that, by keeping the attached office
furniture, office equipment and supplies, it will
necessarily become, or is likely to become,
worthless to China Bank, and by consequence to
ACDC, are factual issues requiring reception of
evidence which the Court cannot do in a petition
for certiorari. Factual issues are beyond the
scope of certiorari because they do not involve
any jurisdictional issue.43
As a rule, only jurisdictional questions may be
raised in a petition for certiorari, including
matters of grave abuse of discretion which are
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.44 The office of
the writ of certiorari has been reduced to the
correction of defects of jurisdiction solely and
cannot legally be used for any other purpose.45
Certiorari is truly an extraordinary remedy and,
in this jurisdiction, its use is restricted to truly
extraordinary cases - cases in which the action of
the inferior court is wholly void; where any
further steps in the case would result in a waste
of time and money and would produce no result
whatever; where the parties, or their privies,
would be utterly deceived; where a final
judgment or decree would be nought but a snare
and delusion, deciding nothing, protecting
nobody, a judicial pretension, a recorded
falsehood, a standing menace. It is only to avoid
such results as these that a writ of certiorari is
issuable; and even here an appeal will lie if the
aggrieved party prefers to prosecute it.46
Moreover, the Court held in JAM Transportation
Co., Inc. v. Flores47 that it is well-settled, too
well-settled to require a citation of
jurisprudence, that this Court does not make
findings of facts specially on evidence raised for
the first time on appeal.48 The Court will not
make an exception in the case at bar. Hence, the
photographs of the attached properties
presented before the Court, for the first time on
appeal, cannot be considered by the Court.
China Bank argues that if the CA allowed the
attached properties to be sold, whatever
monetary value which the attached properties
still have will be realized and saved for both
parties.49 China Bank further claims that should
ACDC prevail in the final judgment50 of the
collection suit, ACDC can proceed with the bond
posted by China Bank.51 The Court finds said
arguments to be specious and misplaced.
upon examination of the evidence presented by
both parties which the Court cannot do in a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals
dated October 14, 2002 and May 16, 2003 in CA-
G.R. CV No. 72175 are hereby AFFIRMED.

Section 4, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provides: SO ORDERED.

Section 4. Condition of applicant’s bond. - The

party applying for the order must thereafter give
a bond executed to the adverse party in the
amount fixed by the court in its order granting
the issuance of the writ, conditioned that the
latter will pay all the costs which may be
adjudged to the adverse party and all the
damages which he may sustain by reason of the
attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that
the applicant was not entitled thereto.

It is clear from the foregoing provision that the

bond posted by China Bank answers only for the
payment of all damages which ACDC may sustain
if the court shall finally adjudge that China Bank
was not entitled to attachment. The liability
attaches if "the plaintiff is not entitled to the
attachment because the requirements entitling
him to the writ are wanting," or "if the plaintiff
has no right to the attachment because the facts
stated in his affidavit, or some of them are
untrue."52 Clearly, ACDC can only claim from the
bond for all the damages which it may sustain by
reason of the attachment and not because of the
sale of the attached properties prior to final
judgment.

Sale of attached property before final judgment

is an equitable remedy provided for the
convenience of the parties and preservation of
the property.53 To repeat, the Court finds that
the issue of whether the sale of attached
properties is for the convenience of the parties
and that the interests of all the parties will be
subserved by the said sale is a question of fact.
Again, the foregoing issue can only be resolved
Rule 51 Judgment
Memorandum decisions are permitted in the CA.
After judgment or final resolution of the CA and
dissenting or separate opinions if any, are signed
by the Justices taking part, they shall be
delivered for filing to the clerk who shall indicate
thereon the date of promulgation and cause true
copies to be served upon parties or counsel.
Date when judgment or final resolution becomes
executory shall be deemed as date of entry.
RULE 56 Procedure in the Supreme
Court
1. Original cases cognizable – exclusive list:
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, habeas corpus;
Disciplinary proceedings against judges and
attorneys;
Cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers, and consuls.
2. An appeal to SC can only be taken by petition
for review on certiorari, except in criminal cases
where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment.
3. Grounds for dismissal of appeal by SC
Failure to take appeal within the reglementary
period;
Lack of merit in the petition;
Failure to pay the requisite docket fee and other
lawful fees or to make deposit for costs;
Failure to comply with the requirements
regarding proof of service and contents of and
the documents which should accompany the
petition;
Failure to comply with any circular, directive or
order of the SC without justifiable cause;
Error in choice or mode of appeal
Case is not appealable to the SC.
Discretionary upon SC (and CA) to call for
preliminary conference similar to pre-trial.
General Rule: Appeal to SC by notice of appeal
shall be dismissed.
Exception: In criminal cases where the penalty
imposed is life imprisonment, or when a lesser
penalty is imposed but involving offenses
committed on the same occasion or arising out
of the same occurrence which gave rise to the
more serious offense for which the penalty of
death or life imprisonment is imposed (Section 3,
Rule 122)
Appeal by certiorari from RTC to SC submitting
issues of fact may be referred to the CA for
decision or appropriate action, without
prejudice to considerations on whether or not to
give due course to the appeal as provided in Rule
45.
Provisional Remedies
Provisional remedies (ancillary/auxiliary)
à Writs and processes available during the
pendency of the action which may be resorted to
by a litigant to preserve and protect rights and
interests therein pending rendition, and for the
purpose of ultimately affecting a final judgment
in the case.
à PROVISIONAL – constituting temporary
measures availed of during the pendency of the
action.
à ANCILLIARY – incidents in and dependent on
the result of the main action.
Rule 57 Preliminary Attachment
1. Preliminary Attachment
Available even if the recovery of personal
property is only an incidental relief sought in the
action;
May be resorted to even if the personal property
is in the custody of a third person;
Extends to all kinds of property, real or personal
or incorporeal;
To recover possession of personal property
unjustly detained, presupposes that the same is
being concealed, removed, or disposed of to
prevent its being found or taken by the
applicant;
Can still be resorted to even if the property is in
custodia legis, as long as the property belongs to
the defendant, or is one in which he has
proprietary interests, AND with permission of
the court
2. Grounds
Recovery of specified amount of money and
damages, except moral or exemplary, where
party is about to depart from the Phils with
intent to defraud creditors;
Action for money or property embezzled or for
willful violation of duty by public officers, officers
of corporation, agent, or fiduciary;
Recovery of possession of property (both real
and personal) unjustly detained, when the
property is concealed or disposed of to prevent
is being found or taken;
Action against party guilty of fraud in contracting
the debt or incurring the obligation or in the
performance thereof;
Action against party who is concealing or
disposing of property, or is about to do so, with
intent to defraud creditors;
Action against party who is not a resident of the
Phils and cannot be found therein or upon who
service by publication can be made.
3. PRINCIPLE OF PRIOR OR CONTEMPORARY
JURISDICTION:
Enforcement of writ of preliminary attachment
must be preceded by or simultaneously
accompanied by service of summons, copy of
complaint, application and affidavits for the
attachment and the bond upon the adverse
party; BUT the requirement of prior or
contemporaneous service of summons shall not
apply where the summons could not be served
despite diligent efforts, or the defendant is a
resident of the Phils temporarily absent
therefrom, or the defendant is a non-resident of
the Phils or the action is in rem or quasi in rem.
4. When preliminary attachment is discharged
a. Debtor posts a counterbond or makes
requisite cash deposit- if attachment to be
discharged is with respect to particular property,
counterbond or deposit shall be equal to the
value of the property as determined by the
court; in all other cases, amount of counterbond
should be equal to the amount fixed in the order
of attachment.
à CASH DEPOSIT OR COUNTERBOND SHALL
SECURE THE PAYMENT OF ANY JUDGMENT THAT
ATTACHING PARTY MAY RECOVER
b. Applicant’s bond is insufficient or
sureties fail to justify;
c. Attachment was improperly or
irregularly issued;
d. Property attached is exempt from
execution;
e. Judgment is rendered against attaching
party;
f. Attachment is excessive – discharge is
with respect to the excess
5. Application for discharge may only be filed
with the court where the action is pending and
may be filed even before enforcement of the
writ so long as there has been an order of
attachment.
6. When to apply for damages against the
attachment bond
Before trial;
Before appeal perfected;
Before judgment becomes executory;
In the appellate court for damages pending
appeal, before judgment becomes executory.
7. When judgment becomes executory,
sureties on counterbond to lift attachment are
charged and can be held liable for the amount of
judgment and costs upon notice and summary
hearing. There is no need to first execute
judgment against the judgment obligor before
proceeding against sureties.
8. Claims for damages cannot be subject of
independent action except:
a. When principal case is dismissed by the
trial court for lack of jurisdiction without giving
the claiming party opportunity to prove claim for
damages;
 b. When damages sustained by a third
person not a party to the action. à When an application for a writ of preliminary
Rule 58 Preliminary Injunction injunction or a temporary restraining order is
included in a complaint or any initiatory
1. Preliminary injunction distinguished from pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala
Prohibition court, shall be raffled only after NOTICE to and
IN THE PRESENCE of the adverse party or the
Preliminary Injunction person to be enjoined. In any event, such notice
- Generally directed against party to the action shall be preceded, or contemporaneously
but may be against any person accompanied by service of summons, together
- Does NOT involve the jurisdiction of the court with a copy of the complaint and the applicant’s
- May be main action itself or just a provisional
affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in the
remedy in the main action
Phils; BUT the requirement of prior or
Prohibition contemporaneous service of summons shall NOT
- Directed against a court, tribunal, or person apply where the summons could not be served
exercising judicial powers despite diligent efforts, or the defendant is a
- May be on the ground that the court against resident of the Phils temporarily absent
whom the writ is sought acted without or in therefrom, or the defendant is a non-resident of
excess of jurisdiction; the Phils
- Always a main action
à Difference with principle in preliminary
2. Grounds for Preliminary Injunction
attachment – In attachment, the principle
applies only in the implementation of the writ,
Plaintiff is entitled to relief sought which consists
while in applications for injunction or TRO, this
in restraining or requiring the performance of
principle applies before the raffle and issuance
acts (latter is preliminary mandatory injunction);
of the writs or TRO.
The commission of acts or non-performance
during pendency of litigation would probably
6. TRO good for only 20 days from service; 60
work injustice to the plaintiff;
days for CA; until further orders from SC.
Defendant is doing or about to do an act violating
plaintiff’s rights respecting the subject of the
7. TRO can be issued ex parte only if matter of
action and tending to render judgment
grave urgency and plaintiff will suffer grave
ineffectual.
injustice and irreparable injury. Good for 72
3. Injunction may be refused or dissolved when:
hours from issuance, within which judge must
comply with service of summons, complaint,
Complaint is insufficient;
affidavit and bond, and hold summary hearing to
Defendant is permitted to post a counterbond it
determine whether TRO should be extended for
appearing that he would sustain great and
20 days. In no case can TRO be longer than 20
irreparable injury if injunction granted or
days including 72 hours.
continued while plaintiff can be fully
compensated;
8. No TRO, preliminary injunction or preliminary
Plaintiff’s bond is insufficient or defective
mandatory injunction may issue against the
4. No Preliminary Injunction or TRO may be
government in cases involving implementation
issued without posting of bond and notice to
of government infrastructure projects. (Garcia
adverse party and hearing.
vs. Burgos, reiterated in Administrative Circular
no. 7-99, promulgated June 25,1999)
5. PRINCIPLE OF PRIOR OR CONTEMPORARY
JURISDICTION:
Rule 59 Receivership
1. When receiver may be appointed:
2. When receivership may be denied/lifted
Party has an interest in the property or fund
subject of the action and such is in danger of
being lost, removed, or materially injured;
Action by mortgagee for foreclosure of mortgage
when the property is in danger of being wasted
or materially injured and that its value is
probably insufficient to discharge the mortgage
debt, OR that the parties have stipulated in the
contract of mortgage;
After judgment, to preserve the property during
the pendency of the appeal, or to dispose of it,
or to aid in execution when execution has been
returned unsatisfied or the judgment debtor
refuses to apply his property to satisfy judgment,
or to carry out the judgment.
When appointing one is the most convenient
and feasible means to preserve, administer, or
dispose of the property in litigation.
Appointment sought is without sufficient cause;
Adverse party files sufficient bond for damages;
Applicant or receiver’s bond is insufficient.
3. Both the applicant for the receivership and
the receiver appointed must file separate bonds.
4. In claims against the bond, it shall be filed,
ascertained and granted under the same
procedure as Section 20, Rule 57, whether is be
damages against the applicant’s bond for the
unlawful appointment of the receiver or for
enforcing the liability of the sureties of the
receiver’s bond by reason of the receiver’s
management (in the latter case, no longer need
to file a separate action).
Rule 60 Replevin
1. Replevin
2. Defendant entitled to return of property
taken under writ if:
Available only where the principal relief sought
in the action is the recovery of possession of
personal property;
Can be sought only where the defendant is in the
actual or constructive possession of the personal
property involved.
Extends only to personal property capable of
manual delivery;
Available to recover personal property even if
the same is NOT being concealed, removed, or
disposed of;
Cannot be availed of if property is in custodia
legis, as where is it under attachment, or was
seized under a search warrant or distrained for
tax assessment.
He seasonably posts redelivery bond
Plaintiff’s bond is insufficient or defective
Property is not delivered to plaintiff for any
reason.
à Replevin bond is only intended to indemnify
defendant against any loss that he may suffer by
being compelled to surrender the possession of
the disputed property pending trial of the action.
Thus, surety not liable for payment of judgment
for damages rendered against plaintiff on a
counterclaim for punitive damages for
fraudulent or wrongful acts committed by the
plaintiffs which are unconnected with the
defendant’s deprivation of possession by the
plaintiff.
Special Civil Actions
1. Types of Special Civil Actions
Mandamus
Interpleader
Certiorari
Contempt
Prohibition
Eminent Domain
Declaratory Relief
Quo warranto
Partition of real estate
Foreclosure of mortgage
Unlawful detainer
Forcible Entry