YANG V. VALDEZ (REMEDIAL)

A bond that is required to be given by law is commonly understood to refer to an obligation or undertaking in writing that is sufficiently secured. It is not indispensably necessary, however, that the obligation of the bond be secured or supported by cash or personal property or real property or the obligation of a surety other than the person giving the bond.

The sufficiency of a bond is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court which must approve the bond. In the case at bar, the replevin bond given by respondent spouses was properly secured by the sureties themselves who declared their solvency and capacity to answer for the undertaking assumed.

The provisional remedy of REPLEVIN is in the nature of a possessory action and the applicant who seeks immediate possession of the property involved need not be holder of the legal title to the property. It suffices if at the time he applies for a writ of replevin, he is entitled to the possession thereof.

A defendant in a replevin suit may demand return of possession of the property replevied by filing a REDELIVERY BOND within the periods specified in Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 60. Under Section 5, petitioner may at any time before the delivery of property to the plaintiff, require the return of the property; in Section 6, he may do so within 5 days after the taking of the property by the officer. Both periods are mandatory in character.

The decisional principle on the filing of counter replevin bond to entitle the defendant to the redelivery or retaining possession of the property, is compliance with all the conditions precedent pursuant to the rules, and failure to comply therewith entitles plaintiff to possession and the initial steps in obtaining redelivery must be taken within the time limit provided therein.

A defendant in a replevin suit may demand return of possession of the property replevied by filing a redelivery bond within 5 days; otherwise, the sheriff will release the property to the third party claimant.