Facts: Florencio Sosuan purchased
two pieces of salvaged bronze propeller from Lo Bu. Thereafter, he filed a
civil action in the CFI of Manila for the recovery of possession of the same
against Lo Bu and also against persons from whom Lo Bu purchased the same,
Alfonso Calixto and Ernesto Valenzuela; and alternatively against Vlasons
Enterprises.
A few months before, the same propellers had been
seized by virtue of a search warrant issued by another branch of the CFI of
Manila presided over by Judge Maceren. It was issued at the instance of Vlasons
Enterprises who claimed that a certain Calixto stole the propellers from their
vessel that sunk in Bataan. The complaints for theft against Calixto and Valenzuela,
as well as the complaint for
Anti-Fencing against Sosuan, were dismissed.
Upon Sosuan’s motion in the civil action for
recovery, Judge Cruz authorized Sosuan to take possesson of the propellers
pending action. The order pointed out that no criminal action had been filed in
connection with the seizure of the propellers in question.
Issues: Whether Judge Cruz erred
in 1) authorizing the release of the propellers considering that it was under
the custody of Judge Maceren’s court; 2) in ordering the transfer of the
propellers to Sosuan pending action?
Held: 1) NO. Where personalty
has been seized under a search warrant, and it appears reasonably definite that
the seizure will not be followed by the filing of any criminal action for the
prosecution of the offenses in connection with which the warrant was issued,
the public prosecutors having pronounced the absence of basis therefor, and
there are, moreover, conflicting claims asserted over the seized property, the
appropriate remedy is the institution of an ordinary civil action by any
interested party, or of a special civil action of interpleader by the
Government itself.
The ordinary action and the interpleader are
cognizable not only by the court issuing the search warrant (in this case Judge
Maceren’s branch) but by any other competent court to which it may be assigned
by raffle. In such a case, the seizing court shall transfer custody of the
seized articles to the court having jurisdiction of the civil action at any
time, upon due application by an interested party. Thus, it was proper for
Judge Cruz to order the transfer of the propeller’s to his branch. There is no
conflict of jurisdiction because there was no pending criminal action and Judge
Maceren’s court was merely acting as custodian of the seized property.
This case is different from the Pagkalinawan case. In Pagkalinawan the same property was being
seized at the same time by different courts upon different writs: one by search
warrant, the other by writ of seizure issued in a replevin action. There was
then a palpable and real conflict in jurisdiction. And the Pagkalinawan ruling
was laid down precisely to avoid that conflict in jurisdiction. In the instant
case, however, since it was fairly certain that no criminal action could possibly
ensue subsequent to or in connection with the search warrant, no such conflict
in jurisdiction or in the ultimate disposition of the seized property could be
expected to arise.
2) YES. The absence of any criminal prosecution in
the Maceren Branch in relation to the propeller has no relevance whatever to
the question of whether or not in the civil suit before the Cruz Branch the
plaintiff, who claims to be the owner of the propeller, is entitled to its
possession pending action as against defendant Vlasons, who also claims to be
the owner thereof. Non sequitur. It
merely makes necessary the civil suit to precisely resolve that issue. It does
not of itself furnish basis for or warrant the transfer of possession from one
party to the other in the civil action.
Nothing in the record therefore justifies the Order
of Judge Cruz transferring possession of the property in controversy to the
plaintiff pendente lite. That relief can be awarded only after trial, by final
judgment declaring in whom the title to said property rests. What may be done
in the meantime, as already above pointed out, is simply the transfer by the
Maceren Branch, upon proper application, of custody over the property to the
Cruz Branch, there to await the outcome of the suit
No comments:
Post a Comment