Chiao Liong Tan v.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 106251; November 19, 1993

Concept: Replevin; Possession: Issue of ownership of car may be resolved in action for replevin
which is generally a possessory action only if ownership issue raised.—It is true that the judgment
in a replevin suit must only resolve in whom is the right of possession. Primarily, the action of
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.

Although, a “replevin” action is primarily one for possession of personality, yet it is

sufficiently flexible to authorize a settlement of all equities between the parties, arising from or
growing out of the main controversy. Thus, in an action for replevin where the defendant is
adjudged entitled to possession, he need not go to another forum to procure relief for the return
of the replevied property or secure a judgment for the value of the property in case the adjudged
return thereof could not be had. Appropriately, the trial court rendered an alternative judgment.

Facts:
Petitioner (Chiao Long Tan) claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle, an Isuzu Elf van,
relying on the Certificate of Registration under his name. He sent the respondent (Tan Ban Yong
– his brother) to look for and purchase a car, which the latter did. However, the respondent later
on claimed ownership of the said van.

Respondent contended that the purchase money was from the loan acquired from a friend-
lender (Tan Pit Sin). He gave the down payment to the petitioner and asked to purchase the van.
This was the reason why the car was registered under the petitioner’s name. However, the
balance will still be paid by the respondent himself. Tan Pit Sin, the friend-lender; and Gina Lu,
Isuzu Motors employee, corroborated the claim of the respondent.

Petitioner filed an action of replevin before the RTC of Manila, but failed to convince the
court to decide in their favor. The RTC's decision was affirmed by the CA, citing that the petitioner
failed overturn the order of replevin by proving ownership.

Issue:
Whether or not ownership may be decided in a proceeding for replevin.

Held:
Yes, as an action for 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 the defendant. A certificate of registration creates a strong presumption of ownership. But such
is rebuttable by competent proof, but which the petitioner fails to overcome this presumption.