GR 91461; (February, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91461 ; February 25, 1991
NORMAL HOLDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and J.R. HEAVY EQUIPMENT CENTER, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Normal Holdings engaged private respondent J.R. Heavy Equipment Center, Inc. (JRHECI) to repair and rebuild its heavy equipment. Normal ceased paying progress billings, leading to an unpaid obligation. JRHECI asserted a mechanic’s lien over the equipment. Normal filed an action for accounting and damages, later amending its complaint to include a prayer for a writ of replevin to recover possession of its equipment from JRHECI. The trial court granted the writ.
During implementation, the deputy sheriff, with Normal’s representative, seized not only the twelve units of heavy equipment specified in the writ but also various detached component parts, spare parts, and assemblies. JRHECI moved to quash the writ, arguing the seizure exceeded its scope and included properties belonging to JRHECI and other entities. The trial court partially granted the motion, ordering Normal to return all equipment parts not attached to the specifically described units.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in partially quashing the writ of replevin and ordering the return of the detached parts.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The writ of replevin was properly quashed as to the detached parts because the sheriff’s seizure exceeded the authority granted by the writ. A writ of replevin is strictly confined to the properties particularly described in the applicant’s affidavit and the court order. The sheriff and Normal’s agent acted without legal basis in carting away component parts and assemblies not specified in the writ, rendering their acts unlawful.
The Court rejected Normal’s argument that JRHECI bore the burden to prove the seized items did not belong to Normal. The law places the burden on the applicant for the writ to prove ownership or right of possession over the property claimed, as required under Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. The factual findings of the lower courts—that the seized detached parts were not attached to the equipment described in the writ—are binding. Furthermore, JRHECI’s immediate filing of a motion to quash negated any claim of waiver regarding the writ’s defective implementation. The order to return the wrongfully seized properties was a proper redress for the illegal disturbance of JRHECI’s possession.