8/19/2019 Replevin, SPL

1/3

G.R. No. 182963 June 3, 2013 SPOUSES DEO AGNER and MARICON AGNER, Petitioners,vs.BPI AMI!" SA#INGS BAN$, INC.,

 Respondent.AC%S&On February 15, 2001, the petitioners executed a Promissory Note with hatte!"ort#a#e in $avor o$itimotors, %nc. &he contract provides, amon# others, that' $orreceivin# the amount o$ Php()*,+(.00, petitioners sha!! pay Php 1+,)-1.00 every 15thday o$ each succeedin# month unti! $u!!ypaid the !oan is secured by a 2001 "itsubishi/dventure uper port and an interest o$ permonth sha!! be imposed $or $ai!ure topay each insta!!ment on or be$ore the stated due date.On the same day, itimotors,%nc. assi#ned a!! its ri#hts, tit!e and interests in the Promissory Notewithhatte! "ort#a#e to /N /"RO avin#s an3, %nc., which, on "ay )1, 2002, !i3ewiseassi#nedthe same to respondent P% Fami!y avin#s an3, %nc. pouses /#ner $ai!ed to

pay $our successive insta!!ments $rom "ay 15, 2002 to /u#ust 15, 2002,respondent,throu#h counse!, sent to petitioners a demand !etter dated /u#ust 2-, 2002,dec!arin#the entire ob!i#ation as due and demandab!e and re4uirin# to payPhp5+,*.0*, or surrender themort#a#ed vehic!e immediate!y upon receivin# the!etter. ettin# no response, respondent 6!ed onOctober *, 2002 an action $or Rep!evinand 7ama#es be$ore the "ani!a Re#iona! &ria! ourt. / writ o$ rep!evin was issued.ut sti!!, the sub8ect vehic!e was not sei9ed. &ria! on the meritssucceeded./u#ust 11, 2005, the "ani!a R& r. )) ru!ed in $avor o$ P% Fami!y avin#s an3, %nc.and ordered pouses /#ner to 8oint!y and severa!!y pay the amount o$ Php5+,*.0*p!us interestat the rate o$ +2 per annum $rom /u#ust 20, 2002 unti! $u!!y paid, and thecosts o$ suit. Petitioners appea!ed the decision to the

ourt o$ /ppea!s, but the / a:rmed the !ower court;sdecision and, subse4uent!y, denied the motion $or reconsideration.

%'?1@ Ahether or Not the Respondent have cause o$ action, because the 7eedo$ /ssi#nmentexecuted in its $avor did not speci6ca!!y mention /N /"RO;saccount receivab!e $rompetitioners?2@ Ahether or Not petitioners can be considered to have de$au!ted in payment $or !ac3o$competent proo$ that they received the demand !etter?)@Ahether or Not Respondent;s remedy o$ resortin# to both a

ctions o$ rep!evin and co!!ectiono$ sum o$ money is contrary to the provision o$ /rtic!e1*(* o$ the ivi! ode.

R

8/19/2019 Replevin, SPL

2/3

?2@ No, petitioners cannot be considered to have de$au!ted in payment. ecause even i$ there isno demand !etter sent by respondent, there is rea!!y no need $or it becausepetitioners !e#a!!ywaived the necessity o$ notice or demand in the Promissory Note withhatte! "ort#a#e,which they vo!untari!y and 3nowin#!y si#ned in $avor o$ respondent;s predecessor

DinDinterest.&he ivi! ode in /rtic!e 11- provides that one incurs in de!ay oris in de$au!t $rom the timethe ob!i#or demands the $u!6!!ment o$ the ob!i#ation $romthe ob!i#ee. Eowever, the !awexpress!y provides that demand is not necessary undercertain circumstances, and one o$these circumstances is when the parties express!ywaive demand. Eence, since the coDsi#nors express!y waived demand in thepromissory notes, demand was unnecessary $orthem to be in de$au!t.

?)@No, the Respondent;s remedy is not vio!ative o$  /rtic!e 1*(* o$ the ivi! ode. omparedwith the =!isco ase, the vehic!e sub8ectmatter o$ this case was never recovered andde!ivered to respondent despite theissuance o$ a writ o$ rep!evin. /s there was no sei9urethat transpired, it cannot be said

that petitioners were deprived o$ the use and en8oyment o$the mort#a#ed vehic!e orthat respondent pursued, commenced or conc!uded its actua!$orec!osure. &he tria!court, there$ore, ri#ht$u!!y #ranted the a!ternative prayer $or sum o$money, which ise4uiva!ent to the remedy o$ exactin# $u!6!!ment o$ the ob!i#ation. ertain!y,there is nodoub!e recovery or un8ust enrichment to spea3 o$ 

G.R. No. 18''9'CA!DERON #S RO(ASAC%S&Pet it ioner "a. arminia . a!deron and pr ivate respondent Go

se /n to ni o F. Roxa s, we remarried on 7ecember *, 1-(5 and theirunion produced $our hi!dren. On Ganuary 1, 1--(, petitioner 6!ed acomp!aint $or the dec!aration o$ nu!!ity o$ their marria#e on the#round o$ psycho!o#ica! incapacity. Ahi!e the action was pendin#, the tria!court #ranted a!deron;s re4uest $or support pende !ite ?whi!e the action $ornu!!ity is pendin#@.On "ay 1, 2005, the tria! court rendered itsdecision dec!arin# the marria#e nu!! and void, awardin# custody o$ thechi!dren to the mother and orderin# Roxas to provide support to thechi !dren.evera! act ions were raised in court , wi th Roxas as3in# $or a decrease o$ themonth!y support whi!e a!deron as3in# $or an increase in

the amount and Roxas; payment onhis arrears $or support.

ISSUE& &his petition is raised by a!deron not to assai! the nu!!ity o$ their marria#e but,r a t h e r , i s p r e m i s e d o n w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e m a t t e ro $ s u p p o r t p e n d e n t ! i t e i s a ! re a d y inter!ocutory and 6na!)E!D&

8/19/2019 Replevin, SPL

3/3

Pet it ioner contends that the / $a i !ed to reco#ni9e that the inter!ocutory aspect o$ theassai!ed orders pertains on!y to privaterespondent;s motion to reduce support which was#ranted, and to herown motion to increase support, which was denied. Petitioner points outthatthe ru!in# on support in arrears which have remained unpaid, as we!! as

her prayer $or reimbursement>payment were in the nature o$ 6na!ordersassai!ab!e by ordinary appea!. disa#rees./n inter!ocutory ordermere!y reso!ves incidenta! matters and !eaves somethin# more to bedone toreso!ve the merits o$ the case. %n contrast, a 8ud#ment or order is considered6na! i$ the order disposes o$ the action or proceedin# comp!ete!y, orterminates a particu!ar sta#e o$ the same act ion.!ear !y , whether an order or reso!ut ion is 6 na! or inter !ocutory is no tdependent on comp!iance or noncomp!iance by a party to itsdirective, as what petitioner su##ests. "oreover, private respondent;sob!i#ation to #ive month!y support in the amount 6xed by the R& in theassai!ed orders may be en$orced by the court itse!$, as what transpired in the

ear!y sta#e o$ the proceedin#s when the court cited the privaterespondent in contempt o$ court and ordered him arrested $or hisre$usa!>$ai!ure to comp!y with the order #rantin# support pendente!ite. / $ew years !ater, private respondent 6!ed a motion to reducesupport whi!e petitioner 6!ed her own motion to increase the same, and inaddition sou#ht spousa! support and support in arrears. &his $act underscoresthe provisiona! character o$ the order #rantin# support pendente !ite.P e t i t i o n e r ; s t h e o r y t h a t t h e a s s a i ! e d o r d e r s h a v e c e a s e dt o b e p r o v i s i o n a ! d u e t o t h e arreara#es incurred by privaterespondent is there$ore untenab!e. &he remedy a#ainst an inter!ocutoryorder not sub8ect o$ an appea! is an appropriate specia! civi! action under

Ru!e 5 provided that the inter !ocutory order is renderedwithout or in excess o$ 8urisdiction or with #rave abuse o$ discretion