G.R. No. 165895; June 5, 2009
TERLYNGRACE RIVERA, Petitioner, vs. FLORENCIO L. VARGAS, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Florencio Vargas filed a complaint for recovery of a 150 T/H rock crushing plant against petitioner Terlyngrace Rivera before the RTC. Vargas claimed ownership, alleging the equipment was entrusted to petitioner’s deceased husband and not returned. He prayed for a writ of replevin. Summons was served on petitioner through her secretary at her residence. However, the writ of replevin was served upon and signed by a security guard, Joseph Rejumo, at the plant’s location in Sariaya, Quezon, contrary to the sheriff’s return stating it was served upon Rivera. Petitioner filed an answer and a motion for acceptance of a redelivery bond. The RTC disapproved the bond, finding it filed beyond the five-day period from seizure under Rule 60. The CA denied petitioner’s certiorari petition.

ISSUE

What is the effect of a writ of replevin that has been improperly served?

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. A writ of replevin must be served upon the adverse party, not merely upon a person in possession of the property who is not the party or their agent. Service upon the security guard was invalid. This invalid service violates statutory procedure and constitutional due process safeguards against unreasonable seizures. Consequently, the mandatory five-day period for filing a redelivery bond never commenced. The trial court acted without jurisdiction in the ancillary replevin action. The proper remedy was to file a motion to quash the writ, but filing for a redelivery bond did not waive the right to question the improper service. The parties must be restored to their former positions: the seized property must be returned to petitioner, respondent’s replevin bond discharged, and the trial on the main action shall proceed. Respondent may file a new application for replevin if he so chooses.