Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

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 1, THE SHERIFF of Quezon City, and LUCILA ABELLO, respondents.

Coronel Law Office for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

RELOVA, J.:

Subject matter of this case is a 1968 model Volkswagen, 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.

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 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.

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.- petition.

2. That the aforesaid property was seized from her against her will not for a tax assessment or fine 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.

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 (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

GUTIERREZ, Jr., J., concurring:

It is not clear that the car really belongs to Lt. Walter Bala who has not intervened to assert his supposed
ownership.

Separate Opinions

GUTIERREZ, Jr., J., concurring:

It is not clear that the car really belongs to Lt. Walter Bala who has not intervened to assert his supposed
ownership.
CASE DIGEST

Facts:

 The case involves a 1968 Volkswagen, allegedly owned by Lt. Walter A. Bala of Clark Airbase,
Angeles City.
 The car was reported stolen from Lt. Bala's residence on June 29, 1970.
 The Manila Adjustment Company reported the theft to the Office of the Commission on Land
Transportation on August 25, 1970.
 On February 2, 1971, agents of the Anti-Carnapping Unit (ANCAR) identified the car in Lucila
Abello's possession and seized it as stolen property.
 Romeo F. Edu, then Commissioner of Land Transportation, also seized the car under Section 60
of Republic Act 4136.
 Lucila Abello filed a complaint for replevin with damages on February 15, 1971, seeking the car's
return.
 The court issued an order for the car's seizure on February 18, 1971.
 The Solicitor General argued that the car belonged to Lt. Bala and was stolen.
 The court found that Lucila Abello had purchased the car from Marcelino Guansing for P9,000.00
under a notarial deed of absolute sale dated August 11, 1970.
 Abello had been in possession of the car until it was seized on February 3, 1971.
 The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Abello, stating she was the car's owner and it was
wrongfully seized from her.

Issue:

1. Can a possessor in good faith be compelled to surrender possession of a stolen car or be

required to institute an action for its recovery?
2. Does the Land Transportation Commission have the right to seize and impound the car under
Section 60 of Republic Act 4136?

Ruling:

 No, a possessor in good faith cannot be compelled to surrender possession of a stolen car or be
required to institute an action for its recovery.
 No, the Land Transportation Commission does not have the right to seize and impound the car
under Section 60 of Republic Act 4136.

Ratio:

 The Supreme Court ruled that a possessor in good faith, such as Lucila Abello, is entitled to be
respected and protected in her possession as if she were the true owner until a competent court
rules otherwise.
 The possessor in good faith cannot be compelled to surrender possession or be required to
institute an action for the recovery of the chattel, regardless of whether an indemnity bond is
issued in her favor.
 The filing of an information charging that the chattel was illegally obtained through estafa does
not justify disturbing the possession of the chattel against the will of the possessor.
 Section 60 of Republic Act 4136 only allows the Land Transportation Commission to seize and
impound motor vehicles for the enforcement of liens related to unpaid registration fees and fines.
 The Commission's right to seize and impound is limited to the collection of such unpaid fees and
fines and does not extend to cases involving stolen property.
 The petition was denied, and the decision of the lower court in favor of Lucila Abello was upheld.