Case Summary (G.R. No. 205998)
Petitioner
Alleges purchase of the vehicle from Alberto Lopez III on July 22, 2009, retained possession and title documents, entrusted the vehicle and signed blank deed of sale to Ong in 2010 for sale through Ong’s second‑hand showroom, later discovered transfers to Chua and then to respondent, and filed replevin in July 2011 after filing police complaints and after PNP‑HPG impounded the vehicle when respondent attempted to obtain PNP clearance and effect transfer.
Respondent
Claims he legally bought the vehicle from Chua and caused registration and issuance of certificate of registration and official receipt in his name on March 7, 2011; argues plaintiff misdeclared value to evade correct docket fees, that the complaint omitted required allegations under Rule 60, and that procedural irregularities (service of writ and execution) tainted the replevin.
Key Dates (excluding Supreme Court decision date)
Purchase alleged by petitioner: July 22, 2009.
Registration in respondent’s name: March 7, 2011.
Petitioner’s police complaints and PNP activity: late 2010–June 2011.
Replevin complaint filed (RTC): July 2011.
RTC order issuing writ and requiring Php8,000,000 bond: July 29, 2011.
Respondent’s Omnibus Motion: August 17, 2011.
RTC denial of Omnibus Motion: November 21, 2011.
CA decision granting certiorari: October 9, 2012.
CA resolution denying reconsideration: February 19, 2013.
Applicable Law and Governing Constitution
Governing constitution for the decision: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date falls after 1990; legal context governed thereby).
Primary procedural and substantive provisions applied or discussed: Rule 60, Sections 2 and 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (replevin affidavit and bond requirements); Civil Code provisions on agency (Articles 1869–1870) as they relate to implied/oral agency; rules on replevin as a possessory remedy; authorities cited in the proceedings (precedents referenced in the record).
Factual Background
Petitioner alleges he purchased the Range Rover in 2009, kept title documents and an undated deed of sale signed in blank, and entrusted the vehicle to Ong in 2010 to sell on his behalf. According to petitioner, Ong failed to remit proceeds, purportedly sold the vehicle to Chua, and Chua later sold to respondent, who registered the vehicle in his name. Petitioner filed police complaints for estafa and carnapping and a replevin action in July 2011. The RTC issued a writ of replevin after petitioner posted the required bond, and the vehicle was seized under court process.
Trial Court Proceedings and Writ Implementation
RTC Branch 224 issued an order on July 29, 2011 admitting petitioner’s documentary exhibits and directing issuance of a writ of replevin conditioned upon an Php8,000,000 bond. Petitioner posted and the court approved the bond; a writ issued and was executed by the court‑appointed special sheriff, who seized the vehicle. Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion to quash the writ, to dismiss the complaint, and to return the vehicle, alleging among others: (a) he is the lawful registered owner; (b) misdeclaration of value to avoid correct docket fees; (c) defective complaint for failing to allege material facts required by Rule 60; and (d) procedural irregularities in service and seizure.
RTC Ruling on Omnibus Motion
On November 21, 2011 the trial court denied respondent’s Omnibus Motion. The RTC held that respondent’s proper remedy to recover the vehicle was to post a counterbond within the period allowed by Rule 60; that dismissal for alleged defective pleadings or undervaluation was premature and better resolved at trial; and that undervaluation did not divest the court of jurisdiction. Respondent moved for reconsideration, which the RTC again denied.
CA Proceedings and Ruling
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging lack of jurisdiction due to misdeclaration of value (thus wrong docket fees), defective complaint for failure to meet Rule 60 requirements, improper service and seizure, and other irregularities. On October 9, 2012 the CA granted the petition: it found that petitioner misdeclared the vehicle’s value (stated as Php2 million when market value was around Php4.5–5 million), that petitioner failed to comply with Section 2, Rule 60 (including allegations that the property was not distrainted or in custodia legis), and that the writ was improperly served (copy served the day after seizure rather than prior). The CA held the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, reversed the RTC orders, dismissed Civil Case No. Q‑11‑69644 for want of jurisdiction, and ordered the vehicle returned to the PNP‑HPG (a point later modified by the Supreme Court). The CA denied injunctive relief as moot. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by resolution dated February 19, 2013.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Petitioner raised three principal assignments of error: (I) whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the replevin complaint; (II) whether petitioner failed to allege material facts required under Sections 2 and 4, Rule 60 and in the affidavit of merit; and (III) whether the sheriff properly implemented the writ of replevin by service on any person in possession.
Parties’ Contentions
Petitioner argued that he valued the vehicle in good faith (considering depreciation and condition), that inadequate docket fees are not a jurisdictional ground for dismissal and remedial opportunities to correct exist, that strict verbatim recitation of Rule 60 language is not required so long as circumstances and facts are pleaded, and that service of the writ was sufficient as respondent received copy of the writ, complaint, affidavit and bond. In reply, petitioner emphasized that respondent was a buyer in bad faith, criminal charges for estafa were pending against Ong, and that petitioner had an actionable proprietary/possessory claim. Respondent maintained that petitioner intentionally misdeclared the value to defraud, that Rule 60 required specific allegations which petitioner failed to include, that petitioner failed to show ownership or wrongful detention, and that respondent was a buyer in good faith for value with a certified registration in his name.
Legal Standards on Replevin and Agency Applied
The Court reaffirmed established principles: replevin is a possessory remedy requiring the claimant to show ownership or entitlement to possession and that the defendant wrongfully detains the property. A plaintiff need not be the owner provided he specifies his right to possession and the legal basis. Rule 60 requires that the applicant’s affidavit state (a) ownership or entitlement to possession with particular description; (b) that the property is wrongfully detained and the cause; (c) whether it has been distrained, seized, or placed under custodia legis and, if so, exemption; and (d) the actual market value; and a bond must be posted. Civil Code agency principles (Articles 1869–1870) recognize express or implied agency, and an implied/oral agency may bind the principal where facts show acceptance and acts of agency.
Supreme Court’s Factual and Legal Analysis
The Court found and accepted the factual sequence that petitioner delivered the vehicle, title documents, and a signed blank deed to Ong as agent to sell; Ong accepted and acted on that authority (including providing guarantee checks), then sold to Chua who in turn sold to respondent and registered the vehicle in respondent’s name. The Court noted the common commercial practice of undated signed deeds used to facilitate quick resale in the second‑hand market, and held that the facts showed an agency relationship between petitioner (principal) and Ong (agent). Because Ong sold the vehicle to Chua and failed to remit proceeds to petitioner, petitioner’s remaining cause of action was essentially a criminal or civil claim against Ong for recovery of the sale proceeds (estafa/collection), not a possessory claim against subsequent buyers in good faith who have registered the vehicle. The Court concluded petitioner ceased to be owner or rightful possessor at the time of filing the replevin action.
Conclusions on Rule 60, Valuation, Service, and Remedy
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 205998)
Procedural History
- July 2011: Petitioner William Anghian Siy filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Replevin (Civil Case No. Q-11-69644) against Frankie Domanog Ong, Chris Centeno, John Co Chua, and Alvin Tomlin before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 224.
- July 29, 2011: RTC issued an Order admitting plaintiff’s documentary exhibits and directing issuance of a Writ of Replevin subject to the posting of a bond in the amount of Eight Million Pesos (Php8,000,000.00).
- Petitioner posted the approved Php8,000,000.00 bond; a Writ of Replevin issued; the subject vehicle was seized by the court-appointed special sheriff and the sheriff filed the corresponding Sheriffs Return.
- August 17, 2011: Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion to quash the Writ of Replevin, dismiss the Complaint, and return the vehicle, asserting ownership, defective complaint, incorrect docket fees, and procedural irregularities.
- November 21, 2011: RTC denied respondent’s Omnibus Motion for lack of merit and held the proper remedy was posting a counterbond; respondent’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.
- Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA-G.R. SP No. 124967).
- October 9, 2012: CA granted respondent’s Petition for Certiorari, reversed and set aside the RTC orders, dismissed Civil Case No. Q-11-69644 for want of jurisdiction, ordered the Range Rover returned to the PNP-Highway Patrol Group, and denied the prayer for a TRO/PI as moot.
- February 19, 2013: CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- November 10, 2014: Supreme Court resolved to give due course to petitioner’s Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 205998).
- April 24, 2017: Supreme Court issued its Decision denying the Petition, affirming the CA decision and resolution with modification by ordering return of the vehicle to respondent Alvin Tomlin as registered owner.
Factual Antecedents
- July 22, 2009: Petitioner alleged he purchased a 2007 Range Rover (Plate ZMG 272) from Alberto Lopez III.
- 2010: Petitioner entrusted the vehicle to Frankie Domanog Ong (owner of Motortrend, Katipunan) to assist in selling it; petitioner surrendered the vehicle, all documents of title, and a deed of sale signed in blank to Ong.
- Ong represented there was a prospective buyer but failed to remit proceeds and did not return the vehicle. Ong allegedly issued two guarantee checks totaling P4.95 million which later bounced.
- Ong sold the vehicle to John Co Chua by leveraging the deed of sale signed in blank; Chua later sold the vehicle to respondent Alvin Tomlin by a Deed of Sale of Motor Vehicle dated December 7, 2010.
- March 7, 2011: Respondent caused registration of the vehicle in his name with the Land Transportation Office (Official Receipt and Certificate of Registration dated March 7, 2011).
- November 2010: Petitioner filed a “Failed to Return Vehicle” report with the Quezon City Anti-Carnapping Unit; parties later appeared February 23, 2011 at Camp Karingal and were requested to surrender the vehicle, but surrender proved futile.
- May 18, 2011: Petitioner filed complaints/charges for estafa and carnapping against Ong and Centeno with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
- June 15, 2011: Petitioner filed a carnapping complaint with the PNP-HPG in Camp Crame.
- At the time respondent sought to obtain PNP clearance to effect transfer, the vehicle was impounded and taken into custody by the PNP-Highway Patrol Group (HPG) at Camp Crame.
- Petitioner prayed for issuance of a writ of replevin for the return of the vehicle, and for P100,000.00 in attorney’s fees plus costs of suit.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Replevin.
- Whether the petitioner failed to allege all material facts in the complaint for replevin and affidavit of merit under Sections 2 and 4, Rule 60 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Whether the sheriff properly implemented the writ of replevin by serving the same to any person in possession of the property.
Petitioner’s Arguments (summary)
- Trial court acquired jurisdiction because petitioner paid docket fees based on a valuation reached in good faith, considering depreciation, condition, and year model.
- Payment of an inadequate docket fee is not a ground for dismissal; trial court may allow completion of correct docket fees within a reasonable time.
- Petitioner later acceded to the court’s valuation of P4,000,000 and was willing to pay the bond and corresponding docket fee, demonstrating good faith.
- There is no requirement under the 1997 Rules to verbatim copy the elements of Section 2, Rule 60 into the complaint; it suffices that the complaint or affidavit show the circumstances.
- The writ of replevin was properly served by the sheriff by furnishing respondent a copy of the writ with complaint, affidavit, and bond; petitioner conceded respondent’s constructive possession as registered owner.
- In his Reply, petitioner asserted the petition raised questions of law, argued respondent was a buyer in bad faith, and noted pending criminal cases for estafa against Ong, Chua, and Centeno. Petitioner contended the sale from Lopez to Chua was anomalous and that respondent should have filed a counterbond.
Respondent’s Arguments (summary)
- Petition should be dismissed as it raises factual issues and petitioner intentionally misdeclared the vehicle’s value to defraud the government and avoid correct docket fees.
- Even if not verbatim, the elements of Section 2, Ru