CHIAO LIONG TAN v.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 106251 November 19, 1993

Facts:
Petitioner claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle, relying on the Certificate of
Registration under his name. He sent the respondent to look and purchase a car
which the latter did. However, respondent is now claiming ownership on the van.

Respondent contended that the purchase money was from the loan acquired from a
friend-lender. He gave the downpayment to the petitioner and asked to purchase the
van. This led the reason why the car was registered under petitioners name.
However, the balance will still be paid by respondent himself. The friend-lender
and an Isuzu Motors employee corroborated the claim of the respondent.

Petitioner files action of replevin before the RTC Manila, but fails to convice the
court to decide in their favor. The RTC's decision was affirmed by the CA citing
that petitioner fails 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 defendants 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. 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.