THOMAS YANG vs. THE HONORABLE MARCELINO R. VALDEZG.R. No. 73317 August 31, 199!ACTS"Respondent spouses Ricardo and Milagros Morante broughtan action againstpetitioner Thomas Yang and ManuelYaphockun before the RTC of GeneralSantosCity for the recovery of possession of two (! "su#u$cargo trucks alleging that%a! that they had actualuse and possession of the two (! cargo trucks& havingac'uired them during the period from ()* to ()*+, b! The truckswere& however& registered in the name of petitioner Thomas Yangwho was the Treasurer in the Morante spouses- business of buying and sellingcorn, c!that they were deprived of possession of the vehicles in the morning of ./anuary ()*0& when petitioner Yang had the vehicles taken from where theywereparkedinfront of theCoca$Cola1lant inGeneral SantosCity& tothewarehouse of Manuel Yaphockun and there they were thereafter held, 2espiterepeated demands& the complaint alleged& petitioner Yang refused to releasethe trucks to respondent spouses,To obtain immediate possession of the "su#u trucks& respondent spouses applied fora writ of replevin and put up a replevin bondof 1034&444,44 e5ecuted byrespondent Milagros Moranteand6tty, 7ayani Calon#o(counsel for respondentspouses!,The respondent 8udge issued an order of sei#ure directing the 1rovincialSheri9 of South Cotabato to take immediate possession and custody of the vehiclesinvolved which was carried out by the sheri9,Conse'uently& Manuel Yaphockun :led a motion seeking repossession of the cargotrucks& and posted a replevin counter$bond of 1034&444,44 e5ecuted by himself andone ;arciso Mirabueno, The respondent spouses reacted by amending their complaint on (. /anuary ()*0bye5cludingManuel Yaphockunasparty$defendant, Thefollowingday& i,e,& (+/anuary()*0& therespondentssubmittedanoppositiontoYaphockun-scounter$bond& contending that since Manuel Yaphockun was merely a nominal defendant& hehadnostandingtodemandthereturnof thecargotrucks,Respondent 8udgedisapproved the counter$bond :led by Manuel Yaphockun& since the latter had beendroppedas party$defendant andaccordingly nolonger hadanypersonalitytolitigate in the replevin suit, The trial court also ordered the immediate release anddelivery of the cargo trucks to respondent spouses,1etitioner Yang movedfor an e5tension of :fteen ((0! days within which to :le ananswer to the complaint for replevin, secondly& that the replevinbond was defective considering that it had been :led by only one of the two (!privaterespondentsandthat thebondsmenthereonhadfailedbyitstermstoundertaketoreturnthecargotruckstopetitioner shouldhe(thepetitioner! bead8udged lawfulowner thereof> thirdly& since the respondent spouses are not theregistered owners of the cargo trucks involved& the writ of replevin should not havebeen issued and lastly& that the dropping of Manuel Yaphockun as party$defendantin the amended complaint was fraudulently intended to deprive him (Yaphockun! ofthe right to demand the return of the vehicles in disputeISS%E"?hether or notrespondent 8udge had committed a grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lack or e5cess of 8urisdiction in approving the replevin bondof respondent spousesandre8ectingpetitioner-scounter$bondonthegroundofprescription@HELD" NO.1etitioner-s right to :le a counterbond had already prescribed,6 bond that is re'uired to be given by law is commonly understood to refer to anobligation or undertaking in writing that is suAciently secured, & "t is notindispensablynecessary& however& thattheobligationofthebondbesecuredorsupported by cash or personal property or real property or the obligation of a suretyother than the person giving the bond, Most generally understood& a =bond= is anobligationreducedtowritingbindingtheobligortopayasumof moneytotheobligee under speci:ed conditions,The suAciency of a bond is a matter that is addressed to the sound discretion of thecourt which must approve the bond, I' t() *+s) +t ,+-, t() -)./)v0' ,o'1 g0v)',2 t() -)s.o'1)'t Mo-+'t) s.ous)s 3+s .-o.)-/2 s)*u-)1 ,2 t() su-)t0)st()4s)/v)s3(o1)*/+-)1t()0-so/v)'*2+'1*+.+*0t2to+'s3)-5o-t()u'1)-t+60'g +ssu4)1& through an 6Adavit of /usti:cation, This sworn declarationof solvencywhichwassubmittedtothe8udgetogetherwiththebond& ine9ectsecured the replevin bond,?e note also that the sureties or bondsmen under thebond included not only Milagros Morante who was party$plainti9 below& but also athirdperson&6tty, 7ayani B,Calon#owho was not a party$litigant, 1etitioner Yangnever put in issue the :nancial capability of these two (! sureties, "t follows thatthe approval of the replevin bond by respondent 8udge& before whomit waspresentedandwhowasinabetter positionthanthis Court toappreciatethe:nancial standing of the sureties& is not a grave abuse of discretion,6 defendantinareplevinsuitmaydemandreturnofpossessionofthepropertyreplevied by :ling a redelivery bond within the periods speci:ed in Sections 0 and 3of Rule 34%Section 0, 1etitioner may =at any time before the delivery of the property to theplainti9= re'uire the return of the property> in Section 3& he may do so& =within :ve(0! days after the taking of the property by the oAcer,= Bot( t()s) .)-0o1s +-)4+'1+to-2 0' *(+-+*t)-, 9 T(us, + /o3)- *ou-t 3(0*( +..-ov)s + *ou't)-7,o'1 8/)1 ,)2o'1 t() st+tuto-2 .)-0o1s, +*ts 0' )9*)ss o5 0ts :u-0s10*t0o',"n the instant case& the cargo trucks were t+6)' 0'to *usto12 ,2 t() S()-0; o' 7