G.R. No.
79021 (May 17, 1993)
ROMEO S. CHUA, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DENNIS CANOY, and ALEX DE LEON,
respondents.
FACTS
After examining 2Lt. Dennis P. Canoy and two (2) other witnesses, Judge Lauro
V. Francisco of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City Branch XIII issued a search
warrant directing the immediate search of the premises of R.R. Construction located at
M.J. Cuenco Avenue, Cebu City, and the seizure of an Isuzu dump truck with plate
number GAP-175. At twelve noon of the same date, respondent Canoy seized the
aforesaid vehicle and took custody thereof.
A civil action for Replevin/Sum of Money for the recovery of possession of the
same Isuzu dump truck was later filed by petitioner against respondent Canoy and one
"John Doe" in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City Branch VIII, presided by Judge
Leonardo B. Cañares alleging among other things, petitioner's lawful ownership and
possession of the subject vehicle; that he has not sold the subject vehicle to anyone;
that he has not stolen nor carnapped it, and that he has never been charged of the
crime of carnapping or any other crime for that matter. Further, petitioner questioned the
validity of the search warrant and the subsequent seizure of the subject vehicle on the
strength of the aforesaid search warrant.
On the same date, Judge Canares of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City
Branch VIII directed the issuance of a writ of replevin upon the posting of a bond. The
writ of replevin was also issued on the same date, and the subject vehicle was seized
by the Deputy Sheriff.
Respondent Canoy filed a motion for the dismissal of the complaint and for the
quashal of the writ of replevin which were subsequently denied. A motion for
reconsideration was filed and was denied by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu Branch
VIII which directed the delivery of the subject vehicle to petitioner.
Meanwhile, a case for Carnapping entitled "Alex De Leon, Complainant, vs.
Romeo Chua, Respondent" pending preliminary investigation before the Office of the
City Fiscal of Cebu City was provisionally dismissed upon motion of Romeo Chua with
the following reservation: "without prejudice to its reopening once the issue of ownership
is resolved", (Rollo, p. 62).
The Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City Branch VIII,
ordered the dismissal of the Replevin action, and directed that possession of the subject
vehicle be restored to Canoy. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the decision, but
the respondent court denied the same. Thus, petitioner filed this appeal by certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether or not the validity of a seizure made pursuant to a search warrant issued by a
court can be questioned in another branch of the same court, where the criminal action
filed in connection with which the search warrant was issued, had been dismissed
provisionally
RULING
We find no merit in the main issue presented before Us.
It is a basic tenet of civil procedure that replevin will not lie for property in custodia legis.
A thing is in custodia legis when it is shown that it has been and is subjected to the
official custody of a judicial executive officer in pursuance of his execution of a legal writ
(Bagalihog vs. Fernandez, 198 SCRA 614 [1991]). The reason posited for this principle
is that if it was otherwise, there would be interference with the possession before the
function of the law had been performed as to the process under which the property was
taken. Thus, a defendant in an execution or attachment cannot replevy goods in the
possession of an officer under a valid process, although after the, levy is discharged, an
action to recover possession will lie (Francisco, Revised Rules of Court in the
Philippines: Provisional Remedies, p. 402 [1985]).
Construing the Pagkalinawan case together with the Vlasons case, we rule that where
personal property is seized under a search warrant and there is reason to believe that
the seizure will not anymore be followed by the filing of a criminal action, and there are
conflicting claims over the seized property, the proper remedy is the filing of an action
for replevin, or an interpleader filed by the Government in the proper court, not
necessarily the same one which issued the search warrant; however, where there is still
a probability that the seizure will be followed by the filing of a criminal action, as in the
case at bar where the case for carnapping was "dismissed provisionally, without
prejudice to its reopening once the issue of ownership is resolved in favor of
complainant" (emphasis supplied), or the criminal information has actually been
commenced, or filed, and actually prosecuted, and there are conflicting claims over the
property seized, the proper remedy is to question the validity of the search warrant in
the same court which issued it and not in any other branch of the said court.
Thus, the Regional Trial Court of Cebu Branch VIII erred when it ordered the transfer of
possession of the property seized to petitioner when the latter filed the action for
replevin. It should have dismissed the case since by virtue of the "provisional dismissal"
of the carnapping case there is still a probability that a criminal case would be filed,
hence a conflict in jurisdiction could still arise. The basic principle that a judge who
presides in one court cannot annul or modify the orders issued by another branch of the
same court because they are co-equal and independent bodies acting coordinately,
must always be adhered to.
