CHIAO LIONG TAN V. COURT OF APPEALS

Replevin is possessory in character and determines nothing more than the right of possession. However, when the title to the property is distinctly put in issue by the defendant’s plea and by reason of the policy to settle in one action all the conflicting claims of the parties to the possession of the property in controversy, the question of ownership may be resolved in the same proceeding.

FACTS:

Petitioner claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle, Isuzu Elf van, relying on the Certificate of Registration in his name. He claims that he sent his brother to look and purchase a car which the latter did. However, the brother is claiming ownership on the van.

The brothers contention is that the purchase money was from the loan he acquired from a friend-lender. He asked petitioner to purchase the van and gave him the downpayment (P5,000). This is the reason why the car is registered in petitioner’s name. However, the balance (P133,000) was paid by respondent himself. The friend-lender and an Isuzu Motors employee corroborated the claim of the respondent.

Petitioner files action of replevin. He lost in the lower courts. He appeals to overturn the order of replevin by proving ownership

ISSUE:

W/N ownership may be decided in a proceeding for replevin.

RULING:

YES. (still in this case, the petitioner lost because the SC affirmed the findings of the lower court)

1) A certificate of registration creates a strong presumption of ownership. But such is rebuttable by competent proof.

2) In this case, it is undeniable that an IMPLIED TRUST has been created in the name of petitioner (The court was able to conclude this because it affirmed the allegations of respondent).

3) Replevin is possessory in character and determines nothing more than the right of possession. However, when the title to the property is distinctly put in issue by the defendant’s plea and by reason of the policy to settle in one action all the conflicting claims of the parties to the possession of the property in controversy, the question of ownership may be resolved in the same proceeding. In this case, the ownership was established through evidence and testimonies presented by defendant.

4) Also, replevin is sufficiently flexible to authorize a settlement of all equities between the parties, arising from or growing out of the main controversy. Hence, the winning party may in the same court procure relief for the return of the property.