ANGHIAN SIY vs. TOMLIN
G.R. No. 205998 April 24, 2017
(Agency)
On July 2011, Siy filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Replevin against Ong,
Centeno, Chua, and respondent Tomlin. The petition which was filed before the Quezon City RTC,
alleged the following:
Petitioner is the owner of a 2007 model Range Rover with Plate Number ZMG 272 which he purchased
from Alberto Lopez on July 22, 2009.
In 2010, he entrusted the said vehicle to Ong, a businessman who owned a second-hand car sales
showroom, after the latter claimed that he had a prospective buyer. Ong failed to remit the proceeds of the
purported sale nor return the vehicle. Siy found out that the vehicle had been transferred to Chua, and
later learned that the vehicle was being transferred to Tomlin.
On August 17, 2011, Tomlin filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to quash the Writ of Replevin, dismiss the
Complaint, and turn over the vehicle to him. Tomlin argued that that petitioner failed to show that he is
the owner of the vehicle or that he is entitled to its possession, and that the vehicle is wrongfully detained
by him, and that it has not been distrained, seized or placed under custodia legis; and that he is a buyer in
good faith and for value.
Was the issuance of the Writ of Replevin proper?
Answer:
No, the issuance of the Writ of Replevin was not proper.
The Supreme Court has held that in a complaint of replevin, the claimant must convincingly show that he
is the owner or clearly entitled to the possession of the object sought to be recovered, and that the
defendant, who is in actual or legal possession thereof, wrongfully detains the same (Superlines
Transportation Company, Inc. v. Philippine National Construction Company, 2007).
Also, under the Civil Code on agency, Article 1869, agency may be express, or implied from the acts of
the principal, from his silence or lack of action, or his failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that
another person is acting on his behalf without authority.
Here, Siy constituted and appointed Ong as his agent to sell the vehicle, surrendering to the latter the
vehicle, all documents of title pertaining thereto, and a deed of sale signed in blank. Acting for and in
petitioner’s behalf by virtue of the implied or oral agency, Ong was thus able to sell the vehicle to Chua,
Siy thus ceased to be the owner thereof.
It was Tomlin who obtained the vehicle from Chua and registered the transfer with the Land
Transportation Office, who is the rightful owner thereof, and as such, he is entitled to its possession.
Hence the issuance of the Writ of Replevin was not proper.