Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    Romeo F. Edu v. Amador E. Gomez

    Uploaded by

    Rosanne Solite
    1) In 1971, ANCAR agents seized a 1968 Volkswagen owned by Lucila Abello, claiming it was stolen in 1970 from its original owner. However, Abello produced documents showing she purchased the car in good faith from its registered owner in August 1970. 2) The court ruled in favor of Abello, as an acquirer or purchaser in good faith of movable property is entitled to possession of that property until a court rules otherwise. 3) While the Land Transportation Commission can seize vehicles for unpaid registration fees, this seizure was invalid as the Commission's lien did not apply in this case where Abello was found to be a purchaser in good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Romeo F. Edu v. Amador E. Gomez

    Uploaded by

    Rosanne Solite
    85 views2 pages
    1) In 1971, ANCAR agents seized a 1968 Volkswagen owned by Lucila Abello, claiming it was stolen in 1970 from its original owner. However, Abello produced documents showing she purchased the car in good faith from its registered owner in August 1970. 2) The court ruled in favor of Abello, as an acquirer or purchaser in good faith of movable property is entitled to possession of that property until a court rules otherwise. 3) While the Land Transportation Commission can seize vehicles for unpaid registration fees, this seizure was invalid as the Commission's lien did not apply in this case where Abello was found to be a purchaser in good faith.

    Original Description:

    evidence case digest

    Original Title

    Romeo f. Edu v. Amador e. Gomez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) In 1971, ANCAR agents seized a 1968 Volkswagen owned by Lucila Abello, claiming it was stolen in 1970 from its original owner. However, Abello produced documents showing she purchased the car in good faith from its registered owner in August 1970. 2) The court ruled in favor of Abello, as an acquirer or purchaser in good faith of movable property is entitled to possession of that property until a court rules otherwise. 3) While the Land Transportation Commission can seize vehicles for unpaid registration fees, this seizure was invalid as the Commission's lien did not apply in this case where Abello was found to be a purchaser in good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    85 views2 pages

    Romeo F. Edu v. Amador E. Gomez

    Uploaded by

    Rosanne Solite
    1) In 1971, ANCAR agents seized a 1968 Volkswagen owned by Lucila Abello, claiming it was stolen in 1970 from its original owner. However, Abello produced documents showing she purchased the car in good faith from its registered owner in August 1970. 2) The court ruled in favor of Abello, as an acquirer or purchaser in good faith of movable property is entitled to possession of that property until a court rules otherwise. 3) While the Land Transportation Commission can seize vehicles for unpaid registration fees, this seizure was invalid as the Commission's lien did not apply in this case where Abello was found to be a purchaser in good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ROMEO F. EDU v. AMADOR E.

    GOMEZ

    Keywords: Carnapping Incident

    One Liner/s: A person in possession of a thing in the concept of an owner is presumed to be the owner
    and she cannot be compelled to prove her title.

    The acquirer or the purchaser in good faith of a chattel of movable property is entitled to be respected
    and protected in his possession as if he were the true owner until a competent court rules otherwise.

    Facts:

    On 29 June 1970, the 1968 model Volkswagen bantam car, owned by Lt. Walter A. Bala was stolen. On 2
    February 1971, the stolen car was herein seen in the possession of respondent Lucila Abello and was
    immediately seized and impounded the car as stolen property by agents of Anti-Carnapping Unit
    (ANCAR). 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 15 February 1971, Ms. Abello filed a complaint for replevin with damages in the respondent court. It
    was found out that the car was purchased by Abello from its registered owner, Marcelino Guansing for
    PhP9,000.00 dated 11 August 1970. CFI ruled in favor of Respondent Abello.

    Issue:

    W/N the ANCAR agents are justified in the seizure of the car despite Abello being a purchaser in good
    faith? NO.

    Ruling:

    There is no merit in the petition considering that the acquirer or the purchaser in good faith of a chattel
    of 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.

    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.

    You might also like