Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 812 views

    6 Sergio Products Inc. vs. Pci Leasing Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Elaine Bercenio
    Petitioners challenged a writ of seizure issued by the RTC to enforce a writ of replevin granted to PCI Leasing to recover machinery leased to Petitioners. Petitioners argued the machinery had become immobilized and part of their factory, making them immovable property. However, the lease agreement explicitly stated the machinery would remain personal property. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court upheld the writ of seizure, finding the parties agreed to treat the machinery as personal property in the lease agreement, estopping Petitioners from claiming otherwise.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    6 Sergio Products Inc. vs. Pci Leasing Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Elaine Bercenio
    812 views2 pages
    Petitioners challenged a writ of seizure issued by the RTC to enforce a writ of replevin granted to PCI Leasing to recover machinery leased to Petitioners. Petitioners argued the machinery had become immobilized and part of their factory, making them immovable property. However, the lease agreement explicitly stated the machinery would remain personal property. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court upheld the writ of seizure, finding the parties agreed to treat the machinery as personal property in the lease agreement, estopping Petitioners from claiming otherwise.

    Original Description:

    case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners challenged a writ of seizure issued by the RTC to enforce a writ of replevin granted to PCI Leasing to recover machinery leased to Petitioners. Petitioners argued the machinery had become immobilized and part of their factory, making them immovable property. However, the lease agreement explicitly stated the machinery would remain personal property. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court upheld the writ of seizure, finding the parties agreed to treat the machinery as personal property in the lease agreement, estopping Petitioners from claiming otherwise.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    812 views2 pages

    6 Sergio Products Inc. vs. Pci Leasing Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Elaine Bercenio
    Petitioners challenged a writ of seizure issued by the RTC to enforce a writ of replevin granted to PCI Leasing to recover machinery leased to Petitioners. Petitioners argued the machinery had become immobilized and part of their factory, making them immovable property. However, the lease agreement explicitly stated the machinery would remain personal property. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court upheld the writ of seizure, finding the parties agreed to treat the machinery as personal property in the lease agreement, estopping Petitioners from claiming otherwise.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SERGS PRODUCTS, INC., and SERGIO T. GOQUIOLAY, petitioners, vs.

    PCI LEASING AND


    FINANCE, INC., respondent. [G.R. No. 137705. August 22, 2000]
    Summary: Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the
    RTCs decision and its Resolution denying reconsideration. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
    City issued a Writ of Seizure and denied petitioners Motion for Special Protective Order, praying that the
    deputy sheriff be enjoined from seizing immobilized or other real properties in (petitioners) factory in
    Cainta, Rizal and to return to their original place whatever immobilized machineries or equipments he may
    have removed.
    FACTS: PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. (PCI) filed with the RTC-QC a complaint for sum of money with an
    application for a writ of replevin. Respondent judge issued a writ of replevin directing its sheriff to seize and
    deliver the machineries and equipment to PCI Leasing after 5 days and upon the payment of the necessary
    expenses. In implementation of said writ, the sheriff proceeded to petitioners factory, seized one machinery
    with word that he return for the other machineries. Petitioners filed a motion for special protective order,
    praying for a directive for the sheriff to defer enforcement of the writ of replevin. PCI Leasing opposed on
    the ground that the properties were personal and therefore still subject to seizure and a writ of replevin. In
    their Reply, petitioners asserted that the properties sought to be seized were immovable as defined in
    Article 415 of the Civil Code, the parties agreement to the contrary notwithstanding. The sheriff again
    sought to enforce the writ of seizure and take possession of the remaining properties and he was able to
    take two more machineries. The parties appealed. The appellate court, citing the Agreement of the parties,
    held that the subject machines were personal property, and that they had only been leased, not owned, by
    petitioners; and ruled that the words of the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the true intention of
    the contracting parties.
    ISSUE: WOR the said machineries are personal, not immovable and may be the subject of replevin.
    HELD: The SC ruled that the machines are personal property and therefore can be the subject of replevin.
    Pursuant to Rule 60 sec. 3 of the Rules of Court only personal properties may be the subject of replevin.
    However, petitioners contend that the subject machines used in their factory were not proper subjects of
    the Writ issued by the RTC, because they were in fact real property. Under Art. 415 par. 5 of the Civil code:
    machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry
    or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the
    needs of the said industry or works, are immovable properties. In the present case, the machines that were
    the subjects of the Writ of Seizure were placed by petitioners in the factory built on their own land and were
    essential and principal elements of their chocolate-making industry. Hence, although each of them was
    movable or personal property on its own, all of them have become immobilized by destination because
    they are essential and principal elements in the industry. However, the Court has held that contracting
    parties may validly stipulate that a real property be considered as personal. After agreeing to such
    stipulation, they are consequently estopped from claiming otherwise. Under the principle of estoppel, a
    party to a contract is ordinarily precluded from denying the truth of any material fact found therein.
    In the case, the Lease Agreement clearly provides that the machines in question are to be considered as
    personal property. Specifically, Section 12.1 of the Agreement states: The PROPERTY is, and shall at all
    times be and remain, personal property notwithstanding that the PROPERTY or any part thereof may now
    be, or hereafter become, in any manner affixed or attached to or embedded in, or permanently resting
    upon, real property or any building thereon, or attached in any manner to what is permanent. Clearly then,
    petitioners are estopped from denying the characterization of the subject machines as personal
    property. Under the circumstances, they are proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure.

    You might also like