View full case

WILLIAM ANGHIAN SIY v. ALVIN TOMLIN

FACTS:

The petitioner filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Replevin against the respondent, alleging that the respondent wrongfully detained a Range Rover owned by the petitioner. The trial court granted the writ of replevin and the vehicle was seized by the sheriff. The respondent filed an omnibus motion questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court and claiming that the writ of replevin was improperly served. The trial court denied the respondent's motion.

The respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to the petitioner's failure to pay the correct docket fees and the defective complaint. The CA granted the petition and ordered the dismissal of the case. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA.

The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision. The CA had ruled that the writ of replevin was wrongly issued because the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of the rules. The petitioner argued that the sheriff's service of the writ, together with the complaint, affidavit, and bond, should be sufficient. The petitioner also claimed that the respondent is a buyer and possessor in bad faith, and that there is a pending criminal case involving the subject vehicle. The respondent argued that the petition should be dismissed due to issues of fact and alleged intentional fraud by the petitioner.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner has shown that he is the owner or entitled to the possession of the vehicle sought to be recovered.

  2. Whether the respondent wrongfully detained the subject vehicle.

  3. Whether or not the petitioner is the rightful owner of the subject vehicle and entitled to its possession.

  4. Whether or not the respondent is a buyer in bad faith.

RULING:

  1. The Petition must be denied. The petitioner failed to convincingly show that he is either the owner or entitled to the possession of the subject vehicle. The Court ruled that in a complaint for replevin, the claimant must demonstrate that he is the owner or clearly entitled to possession of the object being sought. The plaintiff does not necessarily have to be the owner, as long as he can specify his right to possession and provide a legal basis for such right.

  2. The petitioner is not the rightful owner of the subject vehicle and is not entitled to its possession. Since the petitioner appointed the respondent as his agent to sell the vehicle, and the respondent was able to sell it to a third party, the petitioner ceased to be the owner and lost his right of possession over the vehicle. The petitioner's right of action is only against the agent for collection of the proceeds of the sale.

  3. The respondent is not a buyer in bad faith. Despite being aware of the petitioner's earlier report of the vehicle as "Failed to Return Vehicle," the respondent still proceeded with the purchase and registration of the vehicle. However, this is irrelevant because the petitioner was no longer the owner of the vehicle at the time he filed the report.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In a complaint for replevin, the claimant must convincingly show that he is either the owner or clearly entitled to the possession of the object sought to be recovered, and that the defendant wrongfully detains the same.

  • Rule 60 of the Rules of Court allows a plaintiff to apply for a writ of replevin if he is the owner of the property claimed or entitled to its possession. The plaintiff need not be the owner, as long as he can specify his right to possession and provide a legal basis for such right.

  • Replevin is a possessory action, and the right of possession is dependent on a legal basis that often looks to the ownership of the object sought to be replevied.

  • An affidavit or other evidence must establish that the plaintiff is the owner of the property claimed or entitled to its possession, particularly describing the property. A mechanistic averment of wrongful detention is not sufficient to support the issuance of a writ of replevin.

  • The basis of agency is representation, which can be constituted expressly or impliedly. In an implied agency, the principal can be bound by the acts of the implied agent.

  • In an implied or oral agency, the agent's acceptance of the agency can be implied from his acts which carry out the agency or from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances.

  • The owner of a vehicle who appoints an agent to sell the vehicle loses his ownership and right of possession over the vehicle once the agent sells it to a third party.

  • The rightful owner of a vehicle is entitled to its possession.

  • A buyer is not considered in bad faith if he proceeds with the purchase and registration of a vehicle despite being aware of the previous report of the vehicle as "Failed to Return Vehicle" if the person who filed the report was no longer the owner of the vehicle at the time.