REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 38, SAN JOSE CITY

AIMEE JEM AMIRA B. RIVAS,

Plaintiff,

- versus -
CIVIL CASE NO. 2014-507-P
For: Damages
JESSA M. CRUZADO, ALLTECH
BIOTECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
DR. DAVID MORPETH,
Defendants.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam
MANIFESTATION WITH
URGENT MOTION FOR RELEASE OF VEHICLE

By way of special appearance, and without submitting to this

Honorable Court’s jurisdiction, Defendant Alltech Biotechnology
Corporation (“Defendant Alltech”), by counsel, respectfully states:

1. Defendant Alltech is the registered owner of a pyrenese

black Mitsubishi Strada GLX 4X2 MT bearing plate number WIN 798
(“Subject Vehicle”).

2. The Subject Vehicle is mentioned in the Complaint dated

10 November 2014 (“Complaint”) and the Plaintiff Aimee Jem Amira
Rivas (“Plaintiff”) attached the Subject Vehicle’s Certificate of
Registration and Official Receipt.1 The Plaintiff also attached pictures
of the Subject Vehicle as part of its evidence in chief.2 The Police
Report3 and Certificate of Blotter4 attached to the Complaint mention
that the Subject Vehicle was in a state of total wreck.

3. The Subject Vehicle is currently in the custody of the

Philippine National Police (“PNP”) at the Dipaculao Police Station in
Aurora. When Defendant Alltech requested the release of the Subject

1 Complaint dated 10 November 2014 (“Complaint”), par. 6; Annexes “A” and “A-1”.
2 Ibid., par. 8; Annexes “C” to “C-10”.
3 Id., par. 8; Annex “B”.
4 Id., par. 8; Annex “B-1”.
Vehicle, the PNP refused to release the same because it is allegedly
subject of this pending case.

4. With all due respect, the pendency of this case should not
be a reason to impound the Subject Vehicle. The Subject Vehicle
should be released to Defendant Alltech.

5. First, the body of the Subject Vehicle is not material to this

case. Records show that the Plaintiff has obtained pictures of the
Subject Vehicle and has in fact attached the same as part of her
Complaint. 5 Further, the Police Report and Certificate of Blotter both
describe the Subject Vehicle as a total wreck.6

6. Second, there is no legal basis and reason for the PNP to

retain possession of the Subject Vehicle. In fact, this Honorable Court
did not direct the PNP to retain possession of the Subject Vehicle.

7. It is important to note that the case filed by the Plaintiff is

one seeking compensation for damages, a civil case. As such, there is
no basis for the PNP to seize the same because it is not enforcing any
criminal laws.7

8. The Subject Vehicle cannot be considered in custodia legis

which would bar recovery of possession by Defendant Alltech. In
Tamisin v. Odejar,8 the Supreme Court held that a thing can only be
considered in custodia legis if it is the subject of execution of a legal
writ, thus:

“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. Only when property is lawfully taken by
virtue of legal process is it considered in the custody of
the law, and not otherwise.”9

9. In fact, in Superlines Transportation Company, Inc., v.

Philippine National Construction Company,10 the Supreme Court
ordered the return of the bus, which figured in an accident, to its

5 Id., par. 8; Annexes “C” to “C-10”.

6 Id., par. 8; Annexes “B” and “B-1”.
7 77 C.J.S. 28.
8 G.R. No. 126850, 28 April 2004, 428 SCRA 79.
9 Ibid., at 85-86.
10 G.R. No. 169596, 28 March 2007, 519 SCRA 432.

2
owner as the same was being detained upon the mere orders of the
police – without any legal authority or basis.

10. Furthermore, none of the situations allowing for the

impoundment of a vehicle under the Department of Transportation
and Communication Memorandum Circular 89-105, Section 7311 are
attendant.

11. Third, it is axiomatic that the right to possess a property

follows ownership.12 Possession of a thing is one of the basic rights of
ownership as provided in the Civil Code, thus:

“Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and

dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those
established by law.

The owner has also a right of action against the

holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it. “

“Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his

property except by competent authority and for public
use and always upon payment of just compensation.

Should this requirement be not first complied with,

the courts shall protect and, in a proper case, restore the
owner in his possession.”

“Art. 559. xxx Nevertheless, one who has lost any

movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may
recover it from the person in possession of the same. xxx”

12. Given the foregoing it is clear that Defendant Alltech has

the right to enjoy possession of the thing and should not have been
unreasonably deprived of its custody of the Subject Vehicle.

13. Defendant Alltech thus respectfully prays that this

Honorable Court direct the PNP to release the Subject Vehicle which
is presently detained at the Dipaculao Police Station without any
authority under the law.

11 A list of the violations found in Section 73 is attached hereto as Annex “A” and is made
an integral part hereof.
12 Edralin v. Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 168523, 9 March 2011, 645 SCRA 75, 76.

3
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defendant Alltech respectfully prays that this

Honorable Court order the Dipaculao Police Station to release from
its impoundment, the pyrenese black Mitsubishi Strada GLX 4X2 MT
bearing plate number WIN 798 which belongs to Defendant Alltech.

Defendant Alltech likewise prays for other relief in law and

equity.

Taguig for San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, 15 April 2015.