Edu vs.

Gomez
GR No. L-33397

Background:
Petitioner: Romeo F. Edu capacity as Commissioner of Land Transportation; Eduardo
Domingo, Carlos Rodriguez and Patricio Yambao as ANCAR agents;

Respondents: Judge Amador Gomez CFI and Lucila Abello Purchaser in good faith
Facts of the Case:

On 29 June 1970, the 1968 model Volkswagen owned by Lt. Walter A. Bala was stolen.
On 2 February 1971, the stolen car was herein saw 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). On 15 February 1971, Ms. Abello filed a
complaint for replevin with damages in the respondent court, docketed as Civil Case
No. 82215. 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. A brief discussion
about the requisites of Replevin was stated as follows:
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 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; and
4. That the plaintiff was ready to put up a bond in double the value of the movable
property.

Issue: W/N the ANCAR agents are justified in the seizure of the car despite Abello being
a purchaser in good faith

Decision:
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 favour. The filling of an
information charging that the chattel was illegally obtained thru 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.