Edu vs. Gomez

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-33397. June 22, 1984.]
ROMEO F. EDU, in his capacity as Commissioner of Land

Transportation, EDUARDO DOMINGO, CARLOS RODRIGUEZ and
PATRICIO YAMBAO in their capacity as ANCAR Agents , petitioners,
vs. HONORABLE AMADOR E. GOMEZ, in his capacity as Judge of the
Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, THE SHERIFF of Quezon
City, and LUCILA ABELLO , respondents.
Coronel Law Office for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL LAW; PROPERTY; POSSESSION; RIGHT OF PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH OF

CHATTEL OR MOVABLE PROPERTY. The acquirer or purchaser in good faith of a chattel
or movable property is entitled to be respected and protected in his possession as if he
were the true owner thereof until a competent court rules otherwise. In the meantime, as
the true owner, the possessor in good faith can not be compelled to surrender possession
nor to be required to institute an action for the recovery of the chattel, whether or not an
indemnity bond is issued in his favor. The filing of an information charging that the chattel
was illegally obtained through estafa from its true owner by the transferor of the bona fide
possessor does not warrant disturbing the possession of the chattel against the will of the
possessor.
2. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; POWER OF THE
COMMISSIONER TO SEIZE AND IMPOUND MOTOR VEHICLES; BASIS FOR EXERCISE
THEREOF. The provision of Section 60 of Republic Act 4136 of the right of the
Commissioner of Land Transportation to seize and impound subject property is only good
for the proper enforcement of lien upon motor vehicles. The Land Transportation
Commission may issue a warrant of constructive or actual distraint against motor vehicle
for collection of unpaid fees for registration re-registration or delinquent registration of
vehicles.
DECISION
RELOVA , J : p
Subject matter of this case is a 1968 model Volkwagen, bantam car, Engine No. H-
5254416, Chassis No. 118673654, allegedly owned by Lt. Walter A. Bala of Clark Airbase,
Angeles City, under whose name the car was allegedly registered on May 19, 1970 at the
Angeles City Land Transportation Commission Agency, under File No. 2B-7281. prcd
The Office of the Commission on Land Transportation received a report on August 25,
1970 from the Manila Adjustment Company that the abovementioned car was stolen on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
June 29, 1970 from the residence of Lt. Bala, at 63 Makiling Street, Plaridel Subdivision,
Angeles City. Petitioners Eduardo Domingo, Carlos Rodriguez, and Patricio Yambao,
agents of Anti-Carnapping Unit (ANCAR) of the Philippine Constabulary, on detail with the
Land Transportation Commission, on February 2, 1971, recognized subject car in the
possession of herein private respondent Lucila Abello and immediately seized and
impounded the car as stolen property. Likewise, herein petitioner Romeo F. Edu, then
Commissioner of Land Transportation, seized the car pursuant to Section 60 of Republic
Act 4136 which empowers him to seize the motor vehicle for delinquent registration aside
from his implicit power deducible from Sec. 4(5), Sec. 5 and 31 of said Code, "to seize
motor vehicles fraudulently or otherwise not properly registered."
On February 15, 1971, herein private respondent Lucila Abello filed a complaint for replevin
with damages in respondent court, docketed as Civil Case No. 82215, impleading herein
petitioners, praying for judgment, among others, to order the sheriff or other proper officer
of the court to take the said property (motor vehicle) into his custody and to dispose of it
in accordance with law.
On February 18, 1971, respondent judge of the then Court of First Instance of Manila
issued the order for the seizure of the personal property. Solicitor Vicente Torres,
appearing for the herein petitioners, submits that the car in question legally belongs to Lt.
Walter A. Bala under whose name it is originally registered at Angeles City Land
Transportation Commission Agency; that it was stolen from him and, upon receipt by the
Land Transportation Commissioner of the report on the theft case and that the car upon
being recognized by the agents of the ANCAR in the possession of private respondent
Lucila Abello, said agents seized the car and impounded it as stolen vehicle. With respect
to the replevin filed by private respondent Lucila Abello, respondent Court of First Instance
Judge found that the car in question was acquired by Lucila Abello by purchase from its
registered owner, Marcelino Guansing, for the valuable consideration of P9,000.00, under
the notarial deed of absolute sale, dated August 11, 1970; that she has been in possession
thereof since then until February 3, 1971 when the car was seized from her by the
petitioners who acted in the belief that it is the car which was originally registered in the
name of Lt. Walter A. Bala and from whom it was allegedly stolen sometime in June 1970. llcd
Finding for the private respondent, respondent judge held that

"The complaint at bar is for replevin, or for the delivery of personal property, based
on the provisions of Rule 60, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court. All the
requirements of the law are present in the verified averments in the complaint, viz:
"1. That plaintiff is the owner of the automobile in question.

"2. That the aforesaid property was seized from her against
her will not for a tax assessment or ne pursuant to law, not under a
writ of execution or attachment against her properties;
"3. That the property is wrongfully detained by the
defendants, who allegedly seized it from her on February 3, 1971,
'allegedly for the purpose of verifying the same' (see par. 3, Complaint),
but have refused since then until now to return the same to the plaintiff.
"4. That plaintiff was ready to put up a bond in double the
value of the car, and has in fact already put up an P18,000.00 bond to
the defendants for the return thereof to the latter, if that shall be the
ultimate judgment of the court, and to pay defendants damages that
they may incur.
"The issuance therefore, by this Court of the order of seizure of the said chattel by
the sheriff and for the latter to take it into his custody, is precisely pursuant to the
existing law, governing the subject.
"If defendants object to the seizure, the remedy provided for by law is set out in
Section 5 of Rule 60 and that is for them to put up a counter-bond for the same
amount of P18,000.00, which is double the value of the car in question.
Defendants may not ignore the law under the claim that, on complaint of a certain
party, the Manila Adjustment Company, they have a right to seize the same as it
appears to be the property that was stolen from Lt. Walter A. Bala several months
ago." (p. 19, Rollo)
There is no merit in the petition considering that the acquirer or the purchaser in good faith
of a chattel of movable property is entitled to be respected and protected in his
possession as if he were the true owner thereof until a competent court rules otherwise. In
the meantime, as the true owner, the possessor in good faith cannot be compelled to
surrender possession nor to be required to institute an action for the recovery of the
chattel, whether or not an indemnity bond is issued in his favor. The filing of an information
charging that the chattel was illegally obtained through estafa from its true owner by the
transferor of the bona fide possessor does not warrant disturbing the possession of the
chattel against the will of the possessor. LLpr
Finally, the claim of petitioners that the Commission has the right to seize and impound the
car under Section 60 of Republic Act 4136 which reads:
"Sec. 60. The lien upon motor vehicles. Any balance of fees for registration,
re-registration or delinquent registration of a motor vehicle, remaining unpaid and
all fines imposed upon any vehicle owner, shall constitute a first lien upon the
motor vehicle concerned."
is untenable. It is clear from the provision of said Section 60 of Republic Act 4136 that
the Commissioner's right to seize and impound subject property is only good for the
proper enforcement of lien upon motor vehicles. The Land Transportation Commission
may issue a warrant of constructive or actual distraint against motor vehicle for
collection of unpaid fees for registration, re-registration or delinquent registration of
vehicles.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Melencio-Herrera, Plana and De la Fuente, JJ ., concur.
Separate Opinions
Gutierrez, Jr. , J ., concurring :
I concur. It is not clear that the car really belongs to Lt. Walter Bala who has not intervened
to assert his supposed ownership.

Edu vs. Gomez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edu vs. Gomez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edu vs. Gomez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-33397. June 22, 1984.]

ROMEO F. EDU, in his capacity as Commissioner of Land

Coronel Law Office for petitioners.

1. CIVIL LAW; PROPERTY; POSSESSION; RIGHT OF PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH OF

Finding for the private respondent, respondent judge held that

"1. That plaintiff is the owner of the automobile in question.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like