ANGHIAN SIY v. TOMLIN

WILLIAM ANGHIAN SIY, petitioner vs. ALVIN TOMLIN, respondent.

G.R. No. 205998

April 24, 2017

Facts:

On July 2011, petitioner William Anghian Siy filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Replevin against Frankie Domanog Ong (Ong), Chris Centeno (Centeno), John Co Chua (Chua), and respondent Alvin 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.  The petitioner found out that the vehicle had been transferred to Chua, and later learned that the vehicle was being transferred to respondent.

On August 17, 2011, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to quash the Writ of Replevin, dismiss the Complaint, and turn over the vehicle to him.

The RTC denied respondent’s Omnibus Motion while the CA reversed it.

Issue:

Whether or not the Writ of Replevin be issued for the return of the vehicle to petitioner.

Held:

No. “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, 548 Phil. 354,364).

From petitioner’s own account, he 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, petitioner thus ceased to be the owner thereof. Quite the contrary, respondent who obtained the vehicle from Chua and registered the transfer with the Land Transportation Office, is the rightful owner thereof, and as such, he is entitled to its possession.

Hence, the Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals.