REPLEVIN: PRIOR DEMAND IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO AN ACTION FOR A WRIT OF REPLEVIN

In Navarro vs. Hon. Escobido, the Supreme Court explained that plaintiff erred in arguing that prior demand is required before an action for a writ of replevin is filed since we cannot liken a replevin action to an unlawful detainer.

          For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the applicant must do is to file an affidavit and bond, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules, which states:

“Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond.

The applicant must show by his own affidavit or that of some other person who personally knows the facts:

(a)      That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed, particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof;

(b)      That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party, alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief;

(c)      That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody; and

(d) The actual market value of the property.

The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the adverse party in double the value of the property as stated in the affidavit aforementioned, for the return of the property to the adverse party if such return be adjudged, and for the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he may recover from the applicant in the action” (emphasis supplied).

          The Supreme Court held that there is nothing in the afore-quoted provision which requires the applicant to make a prior demand on the possessor of the property before he can file an action for a writ of replevin. Thus, prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin.

          More importantly, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff is no longer in the position to claim that a prior demand is necessary, as he has already admitted in his Answers that he had received the letters that defendant sent him, demanding that he either pay his unpaid obligations or return the leased motor vehicles. Accordingly, plaintiff’s position that a demand is necessary and has not been made is totally unmeritorious. (ROGER V. NAVARRO, vs. HON. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO, G.R. No.  153788, November 27, 2009, BRION, J.).