Case Digest (G.R. No. 143572)
Facts:
Gregorio "George" Amante, and Vicente Amante, petitioners, v. Bibiano Serwelas, respondent, G.R. No. 143572, September 30, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.Danilo Bicomong was the registered owner of a 1990 Isuzu Jitney (motor no. 139328, chassis no. SPMM 35092-90-C, plate no. DHH 230) as shown by Certificate of Registration No. 00567641. Bicomong, employed as plant supervisor of Amante Motors, purportedly sold the vehicle on July 17, 1992 to respondent Bibiano Serwelas by deed of absolute sale; respondent registered the vehicle in his name on October 7, 1992 (Certificate of Registration No. 14058314) and thereafter operated it as a common carrier under a boundary system.
On December 9, 1993, petitioner Gregorio Amante, manager of Amante Motors, requested police assistance and the highway patrol group seized the vehicle without a warrant in General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite. The vehicle was taken to Camp Vicente Lim, Laguna, subjected to a macro-etching examination by SPO1 Elfin B. Rico of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service, and subsequently released to petitioner Gregorio Amante. Respondent demanded return of the vehicle but was refused, so he filed a replevin action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Imus, Cavite, Branch 21; petitioner Vicente Amante, proprietor of Amante Motors, intervened asserting ownership.
On April 29, 1996, the RTC (Judge Roy S. del Rosario) ruled for respondent, declaring him lawful owner and awarding P103,200 as unrealized earnings and P37,963 as premium for the replevin bond. The Court of Appeals (Thirteenth Division), in a decision penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz (concurred in by Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Marina L. Buzon) dated December 28, 1999, affirmed the trial court's judgment declaring respondent owner and upheld the unrealized-earnings award but deleted the replevin bond premium for lack of an express claim in the complaint.
Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, challenging principally the factual findings that respondent was a buyer in good faith and the admissibility/weight of the macro-etching ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court overturn the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals in this case?
- Was respondent Bibiano Serwelas the lawful owner of the disputed vehicle, i.e., did the certificate of registration create a presumption of ownership that petitioners successfully rebutted by proof of theft or respondent's bad faith?
- Are petitioners liable for damages, specifically the unrealized rentals a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)