ROMEO F. EDU, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF LAND TRANSPORTATION, EDUARDO DOMINGO, CARLOS RODRIGUEZ AND PATRICIO YAMBAO IN THEIR CAPACITY AS ANCAR AGENTS, PETITIONERS, VS. H…

Subject matter of this case is a 1968 model Volks­wagen, bantam car,
Engine No. H-5254416, Chassis No. 118673654, allegedly owned by Lt.
Walter A. Bala of Clark Airbase, Angeles City, under whose name the car
was allegedly registered on May 19, 1970 at the Angeles City Land
Transportation Commission Agency, under File No. 2B-7281.

The Office of the Commission on Land Transportation received a report on
August 25, 1970 from the Manila Adjustment Company that the
abovementioned car was stolen on June 29, 1970 from the residence of Lt.
Bala, at 63 Makiling Street, Plaridel Subdivision, Angeles City.
Petitioners Eduardo Domingo, Carlos Rodriguez, and Patricio Yambao,
agents of Anti-Carnapping Unit (ANCAR) of the Philippine Constabulary,
on detail with the Land Transportation Commission, on February 2, 1971,
recognized subject car in the possession of herein private respondent
Lucila Abello and immediately seized and impounded the car as stolen
property. Likewise, herein petitioner Romeo F. Edu, then Commissioner of
Land Transportation, seized the car pursuant to Section 60 of Republic
Act 4136 which empowers him to seize the motor vehicle for delinquent
registration aside from his implicit power deducible from Sec. 4(5),
Sec. 5 and 31 of said Code, “to seize motor vehicles fraudulently or
otherwise not properly registered.”

On February 15, 1971, herein private respondent Lucila Abello filed a
complaint for replevin with damages in respondent court, docketed as
Civil Case No. 82215, impleading herein petitioners, praying for
judgment, among others, to order the sheriff or other proper officer of
the court to take the said property (motor vehicle) into his custody and
to dispose of it in accordance with law.

On February 18, 1971, respondent judge of the then Court of First
Instance of Manila issued the order for the seizure of the personal
property. Solicitor Vicente Torres, appearing for the herein
petitioners, submits that the car in question legally belongs to Lt.
Walter A. Bala under whose name it is originally registered at Angeles
City Land Transportation Commission Agency; that it was stolen from him
and, upon receipt by the Land Transportation Commissioner of the report
on the theft case and that the car upon being recognized by the agents
of the ANCAR in the possession of private respondent Lucila Abello, said
agents seized the car and impounded it as stolen vehicle. With respect
to the replevin filed by private respondent Lucila Abello, respondent
Court of First Instance Judge found that the car in question was
acquired by Lucila Abello by purchase from its registered owner,
Marcelino Guansing, for the valuable consideration of P9,000.00, under
the notarial deed of absolute sale, dated August 11, 1970; that she has
been in possession thereof since then until February 3, 1971 when the
car was seized from her by the petitioners who acted in the belief that
it is the car which was originally registered in the name of Lt. Walter
A. Bala and from whom it was allegedly stolen sometime in June 1970.

Finding for the private respondent, respondent judge held that –

“The complaint at bar is for replevin, or for the delivery of
personal property, based on the provisions of Rule 60, Sections 1 and 2
of the Rules of Court. All the requirements of the law are present in
the verified averments in the complaint, viz:

“1. That plaintiff is the owner of the automobile in question.

“2. That the aforesaid property was seized from her against her will not for a tax assessment or fine pursuant to law, not under a writ of execution or attachment against her properties;

“3. That the property is wrongfully detained by the defendants, who allegedly seized it from her on February 3, 1971, ‘allegedly for the purpose of verifyng the same’ (see par. 3, Complaint), but have refused since then until now to return the same to the plaintiff.

“4. That plaintiff was ready to put up a bond in double the
value of the car, and has in fact already put up an P18,000.00 bond to
the defendants for the return thereof to the latter, if that shall be
the ultimate judgment of the court, and to pay defendants damages that
they may incur.

“The issuance therefore, by this Court of the order of seizure of
the said chattel by the sheriff and for the latter to take it into his
custody, is precisely pursuant to the existing law, governing the
subject.

“If defendants object to the seizure, the remedy provided for by
law is set out in Section 5 of Rule 60 and that is for them to put up a
counter-bond for the same amount of P18,000.00, which is double the
value of the car in question. Defendants may not ignore the law under
the claim that, on complaint of a certain party, the Manila Adjustment
Company, they have a right to seize the same as it appears to be the
property that was stolen from Lt. Walter A. Bala several months ago.”
(p. 19, Rollo)

There is no merit in the petition considering that the acquirer or the
purchaser in good faith of a chattel or movable property is entitled to
be respected and protected in his possession as if he were the true
owner thereof until a competent court rules otherwise. In the meantime,
as the true owner, the possessor in good faith cannot be compelled to
surrender possession nor to be required to institute an action for the
recovery of the chattel, whether or not an indemnity bond is issued in
his favor. The filing of an information charging that the chattel was
illegally obtained through estafa from its true owner by the transferor
of the bona fide possessor does not warrant disturbing the possession of the chattel against the will of the possessor.

Finally, the claim of petitioners that the Commission has the right to
seize and impound the car under Section 60 of Republic Act 4136 which
reads:

“Sec. 60. The lien upon motor vehicles. – Any balance of
fees for registration, re-registration or delinquent registration of a
motor vehicle, remaining unpaid and all fines imposed upon any vehicle
owner, shall constitute a first lien upon the motor vehicle concerned.”

is untenable. It is clear from the provision of said Section 60 of
Republic Act 4136 that the Commissioner’s right to seize and impound
subject property is only good for the proper enforcement of lien upon
motor vehicles. The Land Transportation Commission may issue a warrant
of constructive or actual distraint against motor vehicle for collection
of unpaid fees for registration, re-registration or delinquent
registration of vehicles.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankeee, (Chairman), Melencio- Herrera, Plana, Gutierrez, Jr., and De La Fuente, JJ., concur.