Siy v. Tomlin

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 824 10/14/22, 2:27 PM
G.R. No. 205998. April 24, 2017.*
WILLIAM ANGHIAN SIY, petitioner, vs. ALVIN TOMLIN,

respondent.
Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Replevin; 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, who is in actual or legal
possession thereof, wrongfully detains the same.·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, who is in actual or legal
possession thereof, wrongfully detains the same.‰ „Rule 60 x x x
allows a plaintiff, in an action for the recovery of possession of
personal property, to apply for a writ of replevin if it can be shown
that he is Âthe owner of the prop-
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183d52c7c73eefecbf7000d00d40059004a/p/AUF854/?username=Guest Page 1 of 22
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
107
VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 107

Siy vs. Tomlin
erty claimed . . . or is entitled to the possession thereof.Ê The

plaintiff need not be the owner so long as he is able to specify his
right to the possession of the property and his legal basis therefor.
Civil Law; Agency; In many cases as well, busy vehicle owners
selling their vehicles actually leave them, together with all the
documents of title, spare keys, and deeds of sale signed in blank,
with secondhand car traders they know and trust, in order for the
latter to display these vehicles for actual viewing and inspection by
prospective buyers at their lots, warehouses, garages, or showrooms,
and to enable the traders to facilitate sales on-the-spot, as-is-where-
is, without having to inconvenience the owners with random
viewings and inspections of their vehicles. For this kind of
arrangement, an agency relationship is created between the vehicle
owners, as principals, and the car traders, as agents.·In many
cases as well, busy vehicle owners selling their vehicles actually
leave them, together with all the documents of title, spare keys, and
deeds of sale signed in blank, with secondhand car traders they
know and trust, in order for the latter to display these vehicles for
actual viewing and inspection by prospective buyers at their lots,
warehouses, garages, or showrooms, and to enable the traders to
facilitate sales on-the-spot, as-is-where-is, without having to
inconvenience the owners with random viewings and inspections of
their vehicles. For this kind of arrangement, an agency relationship
is created between the vehicle owners, as principals, and the car
traders, as agents. The situation is akin to an owner of jewelry who
sells the same through an agent, who receives the jewelry in trust
and offers it for sale to his/her regular clients; if a sale is made, the
agent takes payment under the obligation to remit the same to the
jewelry owner, minus the agreed commission or other compensation.
Same; Same; Implied Agency; The basis of agency is

representation and the same may be constituted expressly or
impliedly. In an implied agency, the principal can be bound by the
acts of the implied agent. The same is true with an oral agency.·
The basis of agency is representation and the same may be
constituted expressly or impliedly. In an implied agency, the
principal can be bound by the acts of the implied agent. The same is
true with an oral agency. Acting for and in petitionerÊs behalf by
virtue of the implied or oral agency, Ong was thus able to sell the
vehicle to Chua, but he failed to remit the proceeds thereof to
petitioner; his guarantee checks bounced as well.
108
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Siy vs. Tomlin
This entitled petitioner to sue for estafa through abuse of

confidence. This is exactly what petitioner did: on May 18,
2011, he filed a complaint for estafa and carnapping
against Ong before the Quezon City ProsecutorÊs Office.
Since Ong was able to sell the subject vehicle to Chua,
petitioner thus ceased to be the owner thereof. Nor is he
entitled to the possession of the vehicle; together with his
ownership, petitioner lost his right of possession over the
vehicle. His argument that respondent is a buyer in bad
faith, when the latter nonetheless proceeded with the
purchase and registration of the vehicle on March 7, 2011,
despite having been apprised of petitionerÊs earlier
November, 2010 „Failed to Return Vehicle‰ report filed with
the PNP-HPG, is unavailing. Petitioner had no right to file
said report, as he was no longer the owner of the vehicle at
the time; indeed, his right of action is only against Ong, for
collection of the proceeds of the sale.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
SCOT Law Firm for petitioner.
Quiason, Makalintal, Barot, Torres, Ibarra & Sison for

respondent.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the

October 9, 2012 Decision2 and February 19, 2013
Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which respectively
granted the respondentÊs Petition for Certiorari and denied
petitionerÊs Motion for Reconsideration4 in C.A.-G.R. S.P.
No. 124967.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 12-37.

2 Id., at pp. 42-52; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-
Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and
Edwin D. Sorongon.
3 Id., at pp. 39-40.
4 Id., at pp. 274-287.
109
VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 109

Siy vs. Tomlin
Factual Antecedents
In July 2011, petitioner William Anghian Siy filed before

the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC) a Complaint
for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Replevin5
against Frankie Domanog Ong (Ong), Chris Centeno
(Centeno), John Co Chua (Chua), and herein respondent
Alvin Tomlin. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-
11-69644 and assigned to RTC Branch 224.
In his Complaint, petitioner alleged that he is the owner
of a 2007 model Range Rover with Plate Number ZMG 272
which he purchased from Alberto Lopez III (Lopez) on July
22, 2009; that in 2010, he entrusted the said vehicle to
Ong, a businessman who owned a secondhand car sales

showroom („Motortrend‰ in Katipunan, Quezon City), after
the latter claimed that he had a prospective buyer therefor;
that Ong failed to remit the proceeds of the purported sale
nor return the vehicle; that petitioner later found out that
the vehicle had been transferred to Chua; that in December
2010, petitioner filed a complaint before the Quezon City
Police DistrictÊs Anti-Carnapping Section; that Ong, upon
learning of the complaint, met with petitioner to arrange
the return of the vehicle; that Ong still failed to surrender
the vehicle; that petitioner learned that the vehicle was
being transferred to respondent; and that the vehicle was
later impounded and taken into custody by the PNP-
Highway Patrol Group (HPG) at Camp Crame, Quezon
City after respondent attempted to process a PNP
clearance of the vehicle with a view to transferring
ownership thereof. Petitioner thus prayed that a writ of
replevin be issued for the return of the vehicle to him, and
that the defendants be ordered to pay him P100,000.00
attorneyÊs fees and the costs of suit.
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 62-71.
110

Siy vs. Tomlin
After hearing the application, the trial court issued a

July 29, 2011 Order6 decreeing as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, and with the

ADMISSION of the plaintiff Ês Documentary Exhibits in support of
this Application, issue a Writ of Replevin in favor of the plaintiff
subject to the posting of the bond in the amount of EIGHT
MILLION PESOS (Php8,000,000.00) to be executed in favor of the
defendants for the return of the said property if such return be
adjudged, and for the payment to the adverse parties of such sum as
they may recover from the applicant in this action.
SO ORDERED.7
Petitioner posted the required P8 million bond8 which

was approved by the trial court.9 A Writ of Replevin10 was
then issued.
The subject vehicle was seized by the court-appointed
special sheriff who then filed the corresponding Sheriffs
Return.11
On August 17, 2011, respondent filed an Omnibus
Motion12 seeking to quash the Writ of Replevin, dismiss the
Complaint, and turn over or return the vehicle to him.
Respondent claimed that he is the lawful and registered
owner of the subject vehicle, having bought the same and
caused registration thereof in his name on March 7, 2011;
that the Complaint in Civil Case No. Q-11-69644 should be
dismissed for failure to pay the correct amount of docket
fees; that the Complaint is defective for failing to allege the
correct and material facts
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 91-92; penned by Presiding Judge Tita Marilyn Payoyo-

Villordon.
7 Id., at p. 92.
8 Id., at p. 93.
9 Id., at p. 94.
10 Id., at pp. 95-96.
11 Id., at pp. 99-100.
12 Id., at pp. 101-134.
111
VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 111

Siy vs. Tomlin
as to ownership, possession/detention by defendant,
warranty against distraint/levy/seizure, and actual value of

the vehicle; and that the implementation of the writ was
attended by procedural irregularities.
Particularly, respondent argued that petitioner could not
prove his ownership of the vehicle as the only pieces of
evidence he presented in this regard were a managerÊs
check and cash voucher as proof of payment, and the
affidavit of Lopez attesting to the sale between him and
petitioner which are insufficient; that in fact, he is the
registered owner of the vehicle, as shown by the Official
Receipt and Certificate of Registration13 dated March 7,
2011 issued in his name by the Land Transportation Office
(LTO); that it has not been shown that he wrongfully
detained the vehicle, as petitioner was never in possession
thereof, since the same was already detained and seized by
the HPG at the time; that petitioner failed to allege, as
required under Section 2 of Rule 60 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure14 (1997 Rules), that the vehicle
_______________
13 Id., at pp. 397-398.

14 Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond.·The applicant must show by his own
affidavit or that of some other person who personally knows the facts:
(a) That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed,
particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof;
(b) That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party,
alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief;
(c) That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax
assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution
or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under custodia legis, or if
so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody; and
(d) The actual market value of the property.
The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the adverse party in
double the value of the property as stated in the affidavit
aforementioned, for the return of the property to the adverse party if
112

Siy vs. Tomlin
has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a

fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or
preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under
custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such
seizure or custody; and that petitioner failed to allege the
actual market value (P4 million) of the vehicle, and
instead, he intentionally understated its value at only P2
million in order to avoid paying the correct docket fees.
As for the alleged procedural defects, respondent
claimed that the sheriff implemented the writ against the
HPG, which is not a party to the case; that the Complaint
must be dismissed for failure to pay the correct docket fees
based on the actual value of the vehicle; and that the trial
court acted with undue haste in granting the writ of
replevin.
Finally, respondent argued that he is the true owner of
the subject vehicle as he was able to register the transfer in
his favor and obtain a certificate of registration in his
name; and that as between petitionerÊs documentary
evidence and his official registration documents, the latter
should prevail.
Petitioner filed his Opposition/Comment15 to the
omnibus motion.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On November 21, 2011, the trial court issued an Order16

denying respondentÊs Omnibus Motion for lack of merit. It
held that respondentÊs remedy is not to move to quash the
writ of replevin, but to post a counterbond within the
reglementary period allowed under the 1997 Rules; that for
failure to post said counterbond, respondentÊs prayer for
the return of the vehicle to him is premature; that the
issues of ownership
_______________
such return be adjudged, and for the payment to the adverse party of
such sum as he may recover from the application in the action.
15 Rollo, pp. 137-171.

16 Id., at pp. 195-198.
113
VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 113

Siy vs. Tomlin
and insufficiency of the allegations in the complaint are

best determined during trial; and that an allegation of
undervaluation of the vehicle cannot divest the court of
jurisdiction.
Respondent moved for reconsideration, but he was
rebuffed just the same.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari17 before the CA

docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 124967 claiming as he did in
his Omnibus Motion that the trial court should have
dismissed Civil Case No. Q-11-69644 on account of failure
to pay the correct docket fees, defective complaint,
procedural irregularities in the service of the writ of
replevin, the fact that he is the registered owner of the
subject vehicle, and for the reason that the trial court
irregularly took cognizance of the case during the period for
inventory of its cases. Respondent sought injunctive relief
as well.
On October 9, 2012, the CA rendered the assailed
Decision granting the Petition. It held that the trial court
did not acquire jurisdiction over the instant case for failure
of petitioner to pay the correct docket fees, since petitioner
misdeclared the value of the subject vehicle at only P2
million in his Complaint, when the market value thereof
was around P4.5 million to P5 million; that this
misdeclaration was undertaken with the clear intention to
defraud the government; and that petitioner failed to
comply with the requirements under Section 2, Rule 60 of
the 1997 Rules, in that he gave a grossly inadequate value
for the subject vehicle in the Complaint and failed to allege

therein that the vehicle has not been distrained or taken
for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized
under a writ of execution or preliminary attachment, or
otherwise placed under custodia legis.
_______________
17 Id., at pp. 201-245.
114

Siy vs. Tomlin
The CA added that it was improper for the sheriff to

serve a copy of the writ of replevin upon the respondent on
the day following the seizure of the subject vehicle, and not
prior to the taking thereof; that the trial court is deemed to
have acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it
seized and detained the vehicle on the basis of an
improperly served writ; and that respondent was correct in
moving to quash the writ, as the proper remedy in case of
an improperly served writ of replevin is to file a motion to
quash the same or a motion to vacate the order of seizure,
and not to file a counterbond as the trial court declared.
The CA thus decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for

Certiorari is hereby GRANTED with the following effects:
1) [T]he Order dated 21 November 2011 rendered by the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE;
2) [T]he Order dated 13 March 2012 similarly rendered by the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE;
3) Civil Case No. Q-11-69644 pending before the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 224 is hereby DISMISSED for
want of jurisdiction;
4) The subject Range Rover with plate number ZMG 272 should
be RETURNED to the Philippine National Police-Highway
Patrol Group for its proper disposition and finally;
5) Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Preliminary Injunction is DENIED for being moot and
academic.
115
VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 115

Siy vs. Tomlin
SO ORDERED.18
Petitioner moved to reconsider, but in its assailed

February 19, 2013 Resolution, the CA remained
unconvinced. Hence, the present Petition.
In a November 10, 2014 Resolution,19 this Court
resolved to give due course to the Petition.
Issues
Petitioner pleads the following assignment of errors:
I
WHETHER X X X THE TRIAL COURT HAS ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
COMPLAINT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION WITH PRAYER
FOR REPLEVIN.
II.
WHETHER X X X THE PETITIONER FAILED TO ALLEGE ALL
THE MATERIAL FACTS IN THE COMPLAINT FOR REPLEVIN
AND AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT UNDER SECTIONS 2 & 4, RULE 60
OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT.
III.
WHETHER X X X THE SHERIFF PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED
THE WRIT OF REPLEVIN BY SERVING THE SAME TO ANY
PERSON WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY
SUBJECT THEREOF.20
PetitionerÊs Arguments
Praying that the assailed CA dispositions be reversed

and set aside and that, instead, Civil Case No. Q-11-69644
be
_______________
18 Id., at p. 51.
19 Id., at pp. 435-436.
20 Id., at p. 27.
116

Siy vs. Tomlin
reinstated, petitioner argues that the trial court acquired

jurisdiction over the replevin case considering the payment
of docket fees based on a valuation of the subject vehicle
arrived at in good faith by petitioner, who in estimating the
vehicleÊs value took into consideration various factors such
as depreciation, actual condition, year model, and other
circumstances; that the payment of an inadequate docket
fee is not a ground for dismissal of a case, and the trial
court may simply allow the plaintiff to complete the
payment of the correct docket fees within a reasonable
time;21 and that his eventual submission to the trial courtÊs
valuation of P4 million and his willingness to pay the bond
and corresponding docket fee proves his good faith and
sincerity.
On the issue relating to his supposed defective
complaint on account of insufficient allegations made
therein, petitioner contends that there is nothing in the
1997 Rules which requires him to copy the requirements in
Section 2 of Rule 60 and incorporate them to the letter in
his complaint, as the rule merely requires an applicant in
replevin to show the circumstances in his complaint or

affidavit of merit, which he claims he did.
Finally, petitioner insists that the writ of replevin was
properly served upon respondent. He did not address the
issue relating to the sheriff Ês service of summons, the writ
of replevin, and the corresponding order of the trial court
on the day following the seizure and detention of the
subject vehicle, arguing rather sweepingly that it is
sufficient for the sheriff to have served respondent with a
copy of the writ of replevin, together with the complaint,
affidavit, and bond. He conceded that respondent was in
constructive possession of the vehicle, as he was the
registered owner thereof.
_______________
21 Citing Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion, 252 Phil.

280; 170 SCRA 274 (1989) and United Overseas Bank (formerly Westmont
Bank) v. Ros, 556 Phil. 178; 529 SCRA 334 (2007).
117
VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 117

Siy vs. Tomlin
In his Reply,22 petitioner retorts that the Petition is

grounded on questions of law; that even though respondent
was able to register the vehicle in his name, he is
nonetheless a buyer and possessor in bad faith, and thus,
the transfer of ownership over the subject vehicle in his
favor is illegal; that a criminal case for estafa relative to
the vehicle is pending against Ong, Chua, and Centeno;
that LopezÊs purported sale to Chua was anomalous; and
that respondent should have filed a counterbond.
RespondentÊs Arguments
In his Comment,23 respondent essentially counters that

the Petition should be dismissed as it raises issues of fact;
that a liberal application of the rule requiring the payment

of correct docket fees cannot apply to petitionerÊs case since
he intentionally defrauded the court in misdeclaring the
value of the subject vehicle; that while they need not be
stated verbatim, the enumeration of required allegations
under Section 2 of Rule 60 must still be specifically
included in a complaint for replevin or in the accompanying
affidavit of merit; 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.
Our Ruling
The Petition must be denied.

„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
_______________
22 Rollo, pp. 410-427.

23 Id., at pp. 302-320.
118

Siy vs. Tomlin
the defendant, who is in actual or legal possession thereof,

wrongfully detains the same.‰24 „Rule 60 x x x allows a
plaintiff, in an action for the recovery of possession of
personal property, to apply for a writ of replevin if it can be
shown that he is Âthe owner of the property claimed . . . or
is entitled to the possession thereof.Ê The plaintiff need not
be the owner so long as he is able to specify his right to the
possession of the property and his legal basis therefor.‰25

In Filinvest Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals,26
this Court likewise held that ·
x x x It is not only the owner who can institute a replevin suit. A

person „entitled to the possession‰ of the property also can, as
provided in the same paragraph cited by the trial court, which
reads:
Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond.·Upon applying for such order
the plaintiff must show . . .
(a) That the plaintiff is the owner of the property claimed,
particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession
thereof; x x x
As correctly cited by respondent in his Comment:27
x x x [A] party praying for the recovery of possession of personal

property must show by his own affidavit or that of some other
person who personally knows the
_______________
24 Superlines Transportation Company, Inc. v. Philippine National

Construction Company, 548 Phil. 354, 364; 519 SCRA 432, 443 (2007).
25 BA Finance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 716, 726-
727; 258 SCRA 102, 112-113 (1996), citing Servicewide Specialists,
Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, 321 Phil. 427; 251 SCRA 70 (1995).
26 318 Phil. 653, 669; 248 SCRA 549, 562 (1995).
27 Rollo, p. 310.
119
VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 119

Siy vs. Tomlin
facts that he is the owner of the property claimed, particularly

describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof. It must be
borne in mind that replevin is a possessory action the gist of which
focuses on the right of possession that, in turn, is dependent on a
legal basis that, not infrequently, looks to the ownership of the

object sought to be replevied. Wrongful detention by the defendant
of the properties sought in an action for replevin must be
satisfactorily established. If only a mechanistic averment thereof is
offered, the writ should not be issued.28
Petitioner admits and claims in his pleadings that on

July 22, 2009, he purchased the subject vehicle from Lopez,
who executed and signed in blank a deed of sale and
surrendered all documents of title to him;29 that he did not
register the sale in his favor, such that the vehicle
remained in the name of Lopez;30 that in September 2010,
he delivered the subject vehicle, together with all its
documents of title and the blank deed of sale, to Ong, with
the express intention of selling the vehicle through the
latter as broker/secondhand car dealer; that Ong appears
to have issued in his favor two guarantee checks
amounting to P4.95 million; and that these checks
bounced.31 Thereafter, Ong was able to sell the vehicle
using the deed of sale executed and signed in blank by
Lopez to Chua, who secured a certificate of registration in
his name.32 Chua then sold the vehicle, via a Deed of Sale
of Motor Vehicle dated December 7, 2010, to respondent,
who caused registration of the vehicle in his name on
March 7, 2011.33 Apparently, Ong did not remit ChuaÊs
payment to petitioner, prompting the latter to file formal
complaints/charges for 1)
_______________
28 Twin Ace Holdings Corporation v. Rufina and Company, 523 Phil.

766, 779; 490 SCRA 368, 377-378 (2006).
29 Rollo, pp. 16, 74-75.
30 Id., at p. 19.
31 Id., at pp. 145, 179, 181.
32 Id., at pp. 387, 389.
33 Id., at pp. 393, 397-398.
120

Siy vs. Tomlin
estafa and carnapping on May 18, 2011 before the Office of

the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, and 2) carnapping on
June 15, 2011 before the PNP-HPG in Camp Crame,
Quezon City against Ong and Centeno.34 It appears as well
that prior to the filing of these formal complaints, or
sometime in November 2010, petitioner appeared before
the Quezon City Anti-Carnapping Unit based in Camp
Karingal, Quezon City and, claiming that the subject
vehicle was carnapped, filed a „Failed to Return Vehicle‰
report; that on February 23, 2011, petitioner, respondent,
Ong, and Chua appeared at Camp Karingal to shed light on
the claimed carnapping; that the parties were requested to
voluntarily surrender the subject vehicle, but the request
proved futile; and that petitioner was instead advised to
file appropriate charges and file a complaint with the PNP-
HPG in order to include the subject vehicle in the „hold
order list.‰
This Court is not unaware of the practice by many
vehicle buyers and secondhand car traders of not
transferring registration and ownership over vehicles
purchased from their original owners, and rather
instructing the latter to execute and sign in blank deeds of
sale covering these vehicles, so that these buyers and
dealers may freely and readily trade or resell the vehicles
in the secondhand car market without difficulty. This way,
multiple transfers, sales, or trades of the vehicle using
these undated deeds signed in blank become possible, until
the latest purchaser decides to actually transfer the
certificate of registration in his name. For many car
owners-sellers, this is an easy concession; so long as they
actually receive the sale price, they will sign sale deeds in
blank and surrender them to the buyers or dealers; and for
the latter, this is convenient since they can „flip‰ or resell
the vehicles to the public many times over with ease, using
these blank deeds of sale.
_______________
34 Id., at pp. 77-82.
121
VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 121

Siy vs. Tomlin
In many cases as well, busy vehicle owners selling their

vehicles actually leave them, together with all the
documents of title, spare keys, and deeds of sale signed in
blank, with secondhand car traders they know and trust, in
order for the latter to display these vehicles for actual
viewing and inspection by prospective buyers at their lots,
warehouses, garages, or showrooms, and to enable the
traders to facilitate sales on-the-spot, as-is-where-is,
without having to inconvenience the owners with random
viewings and inspections of their vehicles. For this kind of
arrangement, an agency relationship is created between
the vehicle owners, as principals, and the car traders, as
agents. The situation is akin to an owner of jewelry who
sells the same through an agent, who receives the jewelry
in trust and offers it for sale to his/her regular clients; if a
sale is made, the agent takes payment under the obligation
to remit the same to the jewelry owner, minus the agreed
commission or other compensation.
From petitionerÊs 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, with full
understanding that Ong would offer and sell the same to
his clients or to the public. In return, Ong accepted the
agency by his receipt of the vehicle, the blank deed of sale,
and documents of title, and when he gave bond in the form
of two guarantee checks worth P4.95 million. All these gave
Ong the authority to act for and in behalf of petitioner.
Under the Civil Code on agency,
Art. 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.
Agency may be oral, unless the law requires a specific form.
122

Siy vs. Tomlin
Art. 1870. Acceptance by the agent may also be express, or

implied from his acts which carry out the agency, or from his
silence or inaction according to the circumstances. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
„The basis of agency is representation and the same may

be constituted expressly or impliedly. In an implied agency
the principal can be bound by the acts of the implied
agent.‰35 The same is true with an oral agency.
Acting for and in petitionerÊs behalf by virtue of the
implied or oral agency, Ong was thus able to sell the vehicle
to Chua, but he failed to remit the proceeds thereof to
petitioner; his guarantee checks bounced as well. This
entitled petitioner to sue for estafa through abuse of
confidence. This is exactly what petitioner did: on May 18,
2011, he filed a complaint for estafa and carnapping
against Ong before the Quezon City ProsecutorÊs Office.
Since Ong was able to sell the subject vehicle to Chua,
petitioner thus ceased to be the owner thereof. Nor is he
entitled to the possession of the vehicle; together with his
ownership, petitioner lost his right of possession over the
vehicle. His argument that respondent is a buyer in bad
faith, when the latter nonetheless proceeded with the
purchase and registration of the vehicle on March 7, 2011,
despite having been apprised of petitionerÊs earlier
November, 2010 „Failed to Return Vehicle‰ report filed with
the PNP-HPG, is unavailing. Petitioner had no right to file
said report, as he was no longer the owner of the vehicle at
the time; indeed, his right of action is only against Ong, for
collection of the proceeds of the sale.
Considering that he was no longer the owner or rightful
possessor of the subject vehicle at the time he filed Civil

Case No. Q-11-69644 in July 2011, petitioner may not seek
a return
_______________
35 M.V. Casaclang Construction and Supply v. Hora, G.R. No. 149881,

Resolution of the Court dated July 26, 2006.
123
VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 123

Siy vs. Tomlin
of the same through replevin. 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. For this reason, the CA was
correct in decreeing the dismissal of Civil Case No. Q-11-
69644, although it erred in ordering the return of the
vehicle to the PNP-HPG, which had no further right to hold
the vehicle in its custody. As the registered and rightful
owner of the subject vehicle, the trial court must return the
same to respondent.
Petitioner cannot be allowed to cut his losses by
ostensibly securing the recovery of the subject vehicle in
lieu of its price, which Ong failed and continues to fail to
remit. On the other hand, OngÊs declarations contained in
his Affidavit,36 to the effect that petitioner remains the
owner of the vehicle, and that Chua came into illegal
possession and ownership of the same by unlawfully
appropriating the same for himself without paying for it,
are unavailing. Faced with a possible criminal charge for
estafa initiated by petitioner for failing or refusing to remit
the price for the subject vehicle, OngÊs declarations are
considered self-serving, that is, calculated to free himself
from the criminal charge. The premise is that by helping
petitioner to actually recover his vehicle by insisting that
the same was unlawfully taken from him, instead of

remitting its price to petitioner, Ong expects that he and
petitioner may redeem themselves from their bad
judgment; for the petitioner, the mistake of bestowing his
full faith and confidence upon Ong, and blindly
surrendering the vehicle, its documents of title, and a deed
of sale executed and signed in blank, to the latter; and for
Ong, his failure to remit the proceeds of the sale to
petitioner; and petitioner might then opt to desist from
pursuing the estafa and other criminal charges against
him.
_______________
36 Rollo, pp. 177-178.
124

Siy vs. Tomlin
Having disposed of the case in the foregoing manner,

there is no need to discuss the other issues raised by the
parties.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The October
9, 2012 Decision and February 19, 2013 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 124967 are
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that the subject
Land Rover Range Rover, with Plate Number ZMG 272 and
particularly described in and made subject of these
proceedings, is ORDERED RETURNED to respondent
Alvin Tomlin as its registered owner.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Perlas-

Bernabe and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with

modification.
Notes.·Agency can 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. (Oliver vs.
Philippine Savings Bank, 788 SCRA 189 [2016])
Replevin is an action whereby the owner or person
entitled to repossession of goods or chattels may recover
those goods or chattels from one who has wrongfully
distrained or taken, or who wrongfully detains such goods
or chattels. (Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. vs.
Alibudbud, 791 SCRA 134 [2016])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Siy v. Tomlin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Siy v. Tomlin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Siy v. Tomlin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 824 10/14/22, 2:27 PM

G.R. No. 205998. April 24, 2017.*

WILLIAM ANGHIAN SIY, petitioner, vs. ALVIN TOMLIN,

Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Replevin; In a complaint

VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 107

erty claimed . . . or is entitled to the possession thereof.Ê The

Same; Same; Implied Agency; The basis of agency is

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

This entitled petitioner to sue for estafa through abuse of

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

Quiason, Makalintal, Barot, Torres, Ibarra & Sison for

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the

1 Rollo, pp. 12-37.

VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 109

In July 2011, petitioner William Anghian Siy filed before

Ong, a businessman who owned a secondhand car sales

5 Id., at pp. 62-71.

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

After hearing the application, the trial court issued a

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, and with the

Petitioner posted the required P8 million bond8 which

6 Id., at pp. 91-92; penned by Presiding Judge Tita Marilyn Payoyo-

VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 111

as to ownership, possession/detention by defendant,

warranty against distraint/levy/seizure, and actual value of

13 Id., at pp. 397-398.

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On November 21, 2011, the trial court issued an Order16

15 Rollo, pp. 137-171.

VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 113

and insufficiency of the allegations in the complaint are

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari17 before the CA

for the subject vehicle in the Complaint and failed to allege

17 Id., at pp. 201-245.

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The CA added that it was improper for the sheriff to

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for

VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 115

Petitioner moved to reconsider, but in its assailed

Petitioner pleads the following assignment of errors:

Praying that the assailed CA dispositions be reversed

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

reinstated, petitioner argues that the trial court acquired

replevin to show the circumstances in his complaint or

21 Citing Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion, 252 Phil.

VOL. 824, APRIL 24, 2017 117

In his Reply,22 petitioner retorts that the Petition is

In his Comment,23 respondent essentially counters that

that a liberal application of the rule requiring the payment

The Petition must be denied.

22 Rollo, pp. 410-427.

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the defendant, who is in actual or legal possession thereof,

possession of the property and his legal basis therefor.‰25

x x x It is not only the owner who can institute a replevin suit. A