YANG

Vs.
VALDEZ
G.R. No. 73317 August 31, 1989
FACTS:

Respondent Spouses Ricardo and Milagros Morante applied for a Writ of

Replevin against Petitioner to recover possession of two (2) Isuzu-cargo trucks.
Respondents alleged that they had actual use and possession of the trucks but the
same were illegally detained by Petitioner and even succeeded registering it in his
favor. Respondent judge granted the Writ and rejected the counter-bond of Petitioner by
being filed out of time. Petitioner contended that the replevin bond was defective for it
was merely an undertaking of the Respondent’s bondsmen to pay the sum of
P560,000.00, and that no tangible security such as cash, property or surety was placed
thereby at the disposal and custody of the court. Moreover, Petitioner contended that
Respondents are not the registered owners of trucks and thus, the Writ should not have
been issued.

ISSUE:
Whether the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the Writ.
HELD:
NO. The judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The sufficiency of a
bond is a matter that is addressed to the sound discretion of the court which must
approve the bond. It is not necessary that the obligation of the bond be supported by
cash or personal property or real property or the obligation of a surety other than the
person giving the bond. A sworn declaration as found in this case is sufficient. A bond
can be merely a written obligation under seal, commercial matter, secured by a
mortgage on real property, the mortgagee may be the obligee or a third party surety
whose personal credit is added to that of the principal obligor under the bond. This
Court finds the Respondents need not be holder of the legal title over the property
because under Rule 60, Section 2, it suffices that he is "entitled to the possession
thereof.