Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    (Replevin) AGNER vs. BPI SAVINGS

    Uploaded by

    Alan Buenaventura
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute between spouses Deo and Maricon Agner and BPI Family Savings Bank over a vehicle that was mortgaged. The court ruled that 1) a prior demand is not required before filing an action for a writ of replevin, and 2) in this case, the bank pursuing both replevin of the vehicle and payment of the sum of money was not contrary to legal precedent, since the vehicle was never recovered despite the writ of replevin. Allowing collection of the sum of money did not result in double recovery for the bank.

    Copyright:

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

    (Replevin) AGNER vs. BPI SAVINGS

    Uploaded by

    Alan Buenaventura
    29 views5 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute between spouses Deo and Maricon Agner and BPI Family Savings Bank over a vehicle that was mortgaged. The court ruled that 1) a prior demand is not required before filing an action for a writ of replevin, and 2) in this case, the bank pursuing both replevin of the vehicle and payment of the sum of money was not contrary to legal precedent, since the vehicle was never recovered despite the writ of replevin. Allowing collection of the sum of money did not result in double recovery for the bank.

    Original Description:

    remedial law 2 case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute between spouses Deo and Maricon Agner and BPI Family Savings Bank over a vehicle that was mortgaged. The court ruled that 1) a prior demand is not required before filing an action for a writ of replevin, and 2) in this case, the bank pursuing both replevin of the vehicle and payment of the sum of money was not contrary to legal precedent, since the vehicle was never recovered despite the writ of replevin. Allowing collection of the sum of money did not result in double recovery for the bank.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    29 views5 pages

    (Replevin) AGNER vs. BPI SAVINGS

    Uploaded by

    Alan Buenaventura
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute between spouses Deo and Maricon Agner and BPI Family Savings Bank over a vehicle that was mortgaged. The court ruled that 1) a prior demand is not required before filing an action for a writ of replevin, and 2) in this case, the bank pursuing both replevin of the vehicle and payment of the sum of money was not contrary to legal precedent, since the vehicle was never recovered despite the writ of replevin. Allowing collection of the sum of money did not result in double recovery for the bank.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 5

    SPOUSES DEO AGNER

    AND MARICON AGNER


    vs.
    BPI FAMILY SAVINGS
    BANK, INC.

    G.R. NO. 182963 | June 03, 2013 | PERALTA, J.


    ISSUE

    WON Demand is necessary prior to filing an action for


    replevin
     WON Respondent’s remedy of resorting to both actions of
    replevin and collection of sum of money is contrary to the
    provision of Article 1484 of the Civil Code and the Elisco
    Tool Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of Appeals
    ruling.
    RULING
     1st Issue: NO
     The Court even ruled in Navarro v. Escobido that prior demand is not a
    condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin, since there is nothing
    in Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court that requires the applicant to
    make a demand on the possessor of the property before an action for a writ
    of replevin could be filed.
     Also, petitioners’ representation that they have not received a demand letter
    is completely inconsequential as the mere act of sending it would suffice as
    provided for in the promissory note with ChattelMortgage executed between
    Agner and Citimotors ( Citimotors assigned their rights to to ABN AMRO
    Savings Bank, Inc. which assigned them to BPI Family Savings Bank)
    RULING
     2nd Issue: NO
     In Elisco, the Court therein ruled:
     The remedies provided for in Art. 1484 are alternative,
    not cumulative. The exercise of one bars the exercise
    of the others. This limitation applies to contracts
    purporting to be leases of personal property with
    option to buy by virtue of Art. 1485.
    RULING
     Compared with Elisco, the vehicle subject matter of this case was never recovered
    and delivered to respondent despite the issuance of a writ of replevin. As there
    was no seizure that transpired, it cannot be said that petitioners were deprived of
    the use and enjoyment of the mortgaged vehicle or that respondent pursued,
    commenced or concluded its actual foreclosure. The trial court, therefore,
    rightfully granted the alternative prayer for sum of money, which is equivalent to
    the remedy of “exacting fulfillment of the obligation.” Certainly, there is no
    double recovery or unjust enrichment to speak of.

    You might also like