SIY v.

TOMLIN (2017)
Topic: Implied/Oral Agency

PARTIES:
 Petitioners: William Anghian Siy
 Respondents: Alvin Tomlin

FACTS:
 In July 2011, petitioner William Siy filed before the RTC a Complaint for Recovery of
Possession with Prayer for Replevin against Ong, Centeno, Chua and Tomlin. Siy alleged
that he is the owner of a 2007 model Range Rover which he purchased from Alberto
Lopez III 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.
 After Ong claimed that he had a respective buyer, Ong failed to remit the proceeds of
the purported sale nor the return of the vehicle; that petitioner later found out that the
vehicle had been transferred to Chua.
 Siy filed a complaint before the QCPD’s Anti-Carnapping Section; and that Ong, upon
learning of the complaint, met with Siy to arrange the return of the vehicle, but Ong still
failed to surrender the vehicle. Siy learned that the vehicle was being transferred to
Tomlin and that the vehicle was later impounded and taken into custody by the PNP
Highway Patrol Group at Camp Crame after Tomlin attempted to process a PNP
clearance of the vehicle with a view to transferring ownership thereof. Siy thus prayed
that a writ of replevin be issued for the return of the vehicle to him, which was granted
by the RTC.
 The Range Rover was seized by the court-appointed sheriff. Tomlin filed an Omnibus
Motion seeking to quash the Writ of Replevin, dismiss the complaint and turn over or
return the vehicle to him. Tomlin claims that he is the lawful and registered owner of the
subject vehicle, having bought the same and caused registration thereof in his name.
Respondent argues that Siy could not prove his ownership of the vehicle as the only
pieces of evidence he presented were a manager’s check and cash voucher as proof of
payment, and the affidavit of Lopez attesting to the sale between him and Siy which
were insufficient.
 Tomlim argues that he is the registered owner of the vehicle, as shown by the Official
Receipt and Certificate of Registration issued in his name by the LTO and that it has not
been shown that he wrongfully detained the vehicle, as Siy was never in possession
thereof, since the same was already detained and seized by the HPG at the time.
 The RTC denied Tomlin’s Omnibus Motion for lack of merit, holding that Tomlin’s
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.
 The CA granted Tomlin’s appeal, holding that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
over the case for failure of Siy to pay the correct docket fees, since Siy misdeclared the
value of the vehicle at only P2M when the market value was around P4.5M to P5M; that
this misdeclaration was undertaken with the clear intention to defraud the gov’t.
 The petitioner argues that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the replevin case
considering the payment of the docket fees based on a valuation of the subject vehicle
arrived at in good faith by petitioner, who in estimating the vehicle’s 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.
  The respondent counters that the petition should be dismissed as it raises issues of fact;
that Siy 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.

ISSUES/HELD:
 W/N petitioner Siy is the rightful owner/possessor of the subject vehicle and is thus
entitled to be issued a Writ of Replevin.
o NO. Complaint must be dismissed. “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.” 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.
o Petitioner admits that he purchased the vehicle from Lopez in 2009, who
executed and signed in blank a Deed of Sale and surrendered all documents of
title to him; that he did not register the sale in his favor, such that the vehicle
remained in the name of Lopez; that in Sept. 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 (Ong) as
broker/secondhand car dealer; that Ong appears to have issued in his favor two
guarantee checks amounting to P4.95 million that that these checks bounced.
o The 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 signed in blank deeds of sale covering these vehicles, so that
these buyers and dealers may freely and readily trade/resell the vehicles in the
secondhand car market without difficulty.
o 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 deeds in blank and surrender them to the buyers or dealers; and
for the latter, it is convenient since they can “flip”or resell the vehicles to the
public many times over with ease, using these blank deeds of sale.
o In many cases, 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, without having to inconvenience the owners with
random viewings and inspections of their vehicles.
o For this kind of arrangement, an agency relationship is created between the
vehicle owners, as principals, and the car traders, as agents. This 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.
 o The petitioner 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
P4.95M. All these gave Ong the authority to act for and in behalf of petitioner.
(See: Art. 1869 and 1870)
o Acting for and in Siy’s 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 Siy; his guarantee checks bounced as well. This entitled Siy to sue for estafa
through abuse of confidence. (Siy did file for estafa and carnapping against Ong
before the QC prosecutor’s office).
o Since Ong was able to sell the subject vehicle to Chua, Siy thus ceased to be the
owner thereof. Nor is he entitled to the possession of the vehicle; together with
his ownership, Siy 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 Siy’s earlier “Failed to Return Vehicle” report filed, is
unavailing. Siy had no right to file such 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.
o Considering that Siy was no longer the owner/rightful possessor of the subject
vehicle at the time he filed the civil case, Siy may not seek a return of the same
through replevin.
o Tomlin, who obtained the vehicle from Chua and registered the transfer with
the LTO, is the rightful owner thereof, and as such, he is entitled to its
possession.

DOCTRINE:
 “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.
 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.

JUDGMENT: Petition is DENIED.