GR L 61688; (October, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-61688 October 28, 1987
VLASONS ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ALFREDO CRUZ, JR., et al. respondents.
FACTS
Florencio Sosuan filed a civil action for recovery of possession of two salvaged bronze propeller pieces. The propellers were seized from Sosuan by METROCOM agents in June 1979 via a search warrant issued by Judge Maximo Maceren’s branch, acting on Vlasons’ claim of ownership. Vlasons alleged the propeller was stolen from a sunken vessel it owned. The City Fiscal later dismissed criminal complaints for theft and violation of the Anti-Fencing Law against the involved parties. In the pending civil case before Judge Alfredo Cruz Jr.’s branch, Sosuan moved for repossession of the propeller pieces pendente lite. Judge Cruz granted the motion in March 1982, ordering the METROCOM to release the propellers to Sosuan upon posting a bond.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Cruz, presiding over the civil case for recovery of possession, had the authority to order the release of property seized under a search warrant issued by another co-equal court.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and nullified Judge Cruz’s order. The legal logic is anchored on the provisional nature of seizure under a search warrant and the proper forum for determining ownership. A search warrant proceeding is merely interlocutory; it does not adjudicate permanent ownership. The property seized is considered in the custody of the law (in custodia legis) of the court that issued the warrant, pending the outcome of a related criminal action. Here, although the criminal complaints were dismissed by the fiscal, the seizure originated from Judge Maceren’s judicial order. Therefore, custody remained with that branch. The determination of ultimate ownership and rightful possession is a final adjudication that can only be made after a full trial on the merits. Judge Cruz’s interlocutory order for release in the civil case prematurely disposed of the property and interfered with the jurisdiction of the issuing court. The proper procedure was for the civil court to await the final judgment in the civil case, and any interim custody issue should have been resolved by application to the court that issued the search warrant. The case was remanded for trial.