MACHINERY & ENGINEERING SUPPLIES, INC. V. CA, G.R. No.

L-7057 October 29, 1954

Facts:

On March 13, 1953, the MACHINERY & ENGINEERING SUPPLIES, INC., (petitioner) filed a
complaint for replevin in the Court of First Instance of Manila, against Ipo Limestone Co., Inc., and
Dr. Antonio Villarama, (defendants) for the recovery of the machinery and equipment sold and
delivered to said defendants at their factory in barrio Bigti, Norzagaray, Bulacan. Trial court issued,
upon application ex-parte of the petitioner company, and upon approval of petitioner's bond, an order
commanding the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan to seize and take immediate possession of the
properties specified in the order.

Two deputy sheriffs of Bulacan proceeded to Bigti, for the purpose of carrying the court's
order into effect. Leonardo Contreras, Manager of the respondent Company handed to the sheriffs a
letter protesting against the seizure of the properties in question, on the ground that they are not
personal properties. Contending that the Sheriff's duty is merely ministerial, they went to the factory
and dismantled the equipment on his own responsibility, alleging that the bond was posted for such
eventuality, the deputy sheriffs directed that some of the supports thereof be cut.

On March 20, 1953, the defendant Company filed an urgent motion, with a counter-bond for
the return of the properties seized by the deputy sheriffs. On the same day, the trial court issued an
order, directing the return the machinery and equipment to the place where they were installed at the
time of the seizure.

The deputy sheriffs returned the properties seized, by depositing them along the road, near
the quarry, of the defendant Company, at Bigti, without the benefit of inventory and without re-
installing hem in their former position and replacing the destroyed posts, which rendered their use
impracticable.

The Provincial Sheriff filed an urgent motion in court, manifesting that Roco had been asked
to furnish the Sheriff's office with the expenses, laborers, technical men and equipment, to carry into
effect the court's order, to return the seized properties in the same way said Roco found them on the
day of seizure, but said Roco absolutely refused to do so, and asking the court that the Plaintiff
therein be ordered to provide the required aid or relieve the said Sheriff of the duty of complying with
the said order dated March 20, 1953.

The trial court ordered the Provincial Sheriff and the Plaintiff to reinstate the machinery and
equipment removed by them in their original condition in which they were found before their removal
at the expense of the Plaintiff.

Petitioner instituted a civil case before the Court of Appeals questioning the trial court’s order
which ordered petitioner to furnish the provincial sheriff of Bulacan "with necessary funds, technical
men, laborers, equipment and materials, to effect the installation of the machinery and equipment
Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of merit.

Issue: (1) Whether or not replevin is applicable to the properties subject of the case.

(2) Whether or not petitiner should be responsible for the expenses in the restitution of the
subject properties.

Ruling:
 (1)No. The special civil action known as replevin, governed by Rule 62 of Court, is applicable
only to "personal property". Ordinarily replevin may be brought to recover any specific personal
property unlawfully taken or detained from the owner thereof, provided such property is capable of
identification and delivery; but replevin will not lie for the recovery of real property or incorporeal
personal property.

When the sheriff repaired to the premises of respondent, Ipo Limestone Co., Inc., machinery
and equipment in question appeared to be attached to the land, particularly to the concrete
foundation of said premises, in a fixed manner, in such a way that the former could not be separated
from the latter "without breaking the material or deterioration of the object." Hence, in order to
remove said outfit, it became necessary, not only to unbolt the same, but , also, to cut some of its
wooden supports. Moreover, said machinery and equipment were "intended by the owner of the
tenement for an industry" carried on said immovable and tended." For these reasons, they were
already immovable property pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 5 of Article 415 of Civil Code of the
Philippines.

(2) Yes. Petitioner's agent and president, Mr. Ramon Roco, insisted "on the dismantling
at his own responsibility," stating that, precisely, "that is the reason why plaintiff posted a bond ." In
this manner, petitioner clearly assumed the corresponding risks.

Such assumption of risk becomes more apparent when we consider that, pursuant to Section
5 of Rule 62 of the Rules of Court, the defendant in an action for replevin is entitled to the return of
the property in dispute upon the filing of a counterbond, as provided therein. In other words,
petitioner knew that the restitution of said property to respondent company might be ordered under
said provision of the Rules of Court, and that, consequently, it may become necessary for petitioner
to meet the liabilities incident to such return.

Inasmuch as the machinery and equipment involved in this case were duly installed and
affixed in the premises of respondent company when petitioner's representative caused said
property to be dismantled and then removed, it follows that petitioner must also do everything
necessary to the reinstallation of said property in conformity with its original condition.