G.R. No. L-9605
September 30, 1957
GAUDIOSO EREZO, ET AL., plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGUEDO E!TE, defendant-appellant.
Gesolgon, Matti Aguedo Y. Jepte in his own behalf.
and
Custodio
for
appellees.
LA"RADOR, J.:
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering defendant to pay plaintiff Gaudioso Ereo !",### on the death of Ernesto Ereo, son of plaintiff Gaudioso Ereo. $efendant-appellant is the registered o%ner of a si& 'y si& truc( 'earing plate )o. *C-+". n August, /, +/0/, %hile the same %as 'eing driven 'y 1odolfo Espino y Garcia, it collided %ith a ta&ica' at the intersection of 2an Andres and $a(ota 2treets, Manila. As the truc( %ent off the street, it hit Ernesto Ereo and another, and the former suffered injuries, as a result of %hich he died. *he driver %as prosecuted for homicide through rec(less negligence in criminal case )o. +#33" of the Court of First Instance of Manila. *he accused pleaded guilty and %as sentenced to suffer imprisonment and to pay the heirs of Ernesto Ereo the sum of !",###. As the amount of the judgment could not 'e enforced against him, plaintiff 'rought this action against the registered o%ner of the truc(, the defendant-appellant. *he circumstances material to the case are stated 'y the court in its decision. *he defendant does not deny at the time of the fatal accident the cargo truc( driven 'y 1odolfo Espino y Garcia %as registered in his name. 4e, ho%ever, claims that the vehicle 'elonged to the !ort 5ro(erage, of %hich he %as the 'ro(er at the time of the accident. 4e e&plained, and his e&planation %as corro'orated 'y !olicarpio Franco, the manager of the corporation, that the truc(s of the corporation %ere registered in his name as a convenient arrangement so as to ena'le the corporation to pay the registration fee %ith his 'ac(pay as a pre-%ar government employee. Franco, ho%ever, admitted that the arrangement %as not (no%n to the Motor 6ehicle ffice. *he trial court held that as the defendant-appellant represented himself to 'e the o%ner of the truc( and the Motor 6ehicle ffice, relying on his representation, registered the vehicles in his name, the Government and all persons persons affected 'y the representation representation had the right right to rely on his declaration declaration of o%nership o%nership and registration registration.. It, therefore, held that the defendant-appellant is lia'le 'ecause he cannot 'e permitted to repudiate his o%n declaration. 72ection 38 9a:, 1ule +", and Art. +0"+, )e% Civil Code.;. Against the judgment, the defendant has prosecuted this appeal claiming that at the time of the accident the relation of employer and employee 'et%een the driver and defendant-appellant %as not esta'lished, it having 'een proved at the trial that the o%ner of the truc( %as the !ort 5ro(erage, of %hich defendant-appellant %as merely a 'ro(er. ue vs. Mali'ay *ransit Inc.,+ G. 1. )o. ?- 83+, )ovem'er +8,+/= 6da. de Medina vs. Cresencia, // !hil., #3, ff. Ga., 9+#:, 03#3.;*he 03#3.;*he principle principle upon %hich this doctrine doctrine is 'ased is that in dealing dealing %ith vehicles vehicles registered registered under the !u'lic 2ervice ?a%, the pu'lic has the right to assume or presume that the registered o%ner is the actual o%ner thereof, for it %ould 'e difficult for the pu'lic to enforce the actions that they may have for injuries caused to them 'y the vehicles 'eing negligently operated if the pu'lic should 'e re>uired to prove %ho the actual o%ner is. 4o% %ould the pu'lic or third persons (no% against %hom to enforce their rights in case of su'se>uent transfers of the vehicles@
nder the same principle the registered o%ner of any vehicle, even if not used for a pu'lic service, should primarily 'e responsi'le to the pu'lic or to third persons for injuries caused the latter %hile the vehicle is 'eing driven on the high%ays or streets. *he mem'ers of the Court are in agreement that the defendant-appellant should 'e held lia'le to plaintiff-appellee for the injuries occasioned to the latter 'ecause of the negligence of the driver even if the defendant-appellant %as no longer the o%ner of the vehicle at the time of the damage 'ecause he had previously sold it to another. uirement that each machine must carry a registration num'er, conspicuously displayed, is one of the precautions ta(en to reduce the danger of injury to pedestrians and other travelers from the careless management of automo'iles, and to furnish a means of ascertaining the identity of persons violating the la%s and ordinances, regulating the speed and operation of machines upon the high%ays 7 1. C. ?. ++3;. )ot only are vehicles to 'e registered and that no motor vehicles are to 'e used or operated %ithout 'eing properly registered for the current year, 'ut that dealers in motor vehicles shall furnish the Motor 6ehicles ffice a report sho%ing the name and address of each purchaser of motor vehicle during the previous month and the manufacturerBs serial num'er and motor num'er. 72ection 9c:, Act. )o. "//, as amended.;. 1egistration is re>uired not to ma(e said registration the operative act 'y %hich o%nership in vehicles is transferred, as in land registration cases, 'ecause the administrative proceeding of registration does not 'ear any essential relation to the contract of sale 'et%een the parties 7Chinchilla vs. 1afael and 6erdaguer, "/ !hil. 888;, 'ut to permit the use and operation of the vehicle upon any pu'lic high%ay 7section 9a:, Act )o. "//, as amended;.*he main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the o%ner so that if any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused 'y the vehicles on the pu'lic high%ays, responsi'ility therefore can 'e fi&ed on a definite individual, the registered o%ner. Instances are numerous %here vehicles running on pu'lic high%ays caused accidents or injuries to pedestrians or other vehicles %ithout positive identification of the o%ner or drivers, or %ith very scant means of identification. It is to forestall those circumstances, so inconvenient or prejudicial to the pu'lic, that the motor vehicle registration is primarily ordained, in the interest of the determination of persons responsi'le for damages or injuries caused on pu'lic high%ays. ne of the principal purposes of motor vehicles legislation is identification of the vehicle and of the operator, in case of accident= and another is that the (no%ledge that means of detection are al%ays availa'le may act as a deterrent from la& o'servance of the la% and of the rules of conservative and safe operation. uestion that defendant-appellant poses is should not 'e registered o%ner 'e allo%ed at the trial to prove %ho the actual and real o%ner is, and in accordance %ith such proof escape or evade responsi'ility and lay the same on the person actually o%ning the vehicle@ uence of registration.
done. A victim of rec(lessness on the pu'lic high%ays is usually %ithout means to discover or identify the person actually causing the injury or damage. 4e has no means other than 'y a recourse to the registration in the Motor 6ehicles ffice to determine %ho is the o%ner. *he protection that the la% aims to e&tend to him %ould 'ecome illusory %ere the registered o%ner given the opportunity to escape lia'ility 'y disproving his o%nership. If the policy of the la% is to 'e enforced and carried out, the registered o%ner should 'e allo%ed to prove the contrary to the prejudice of the person injured that is, to prove that a third person or another has 'ecome the o%ner, so that he may there'y 'e relieved of the responsi'ility to the injured person. 1âwphïl.nêt
*he a'ove policy and application of the la% may appear >uite harsh and %ould seem to conflict %ith truth and justice. uires. In synthesis, %e hold that the registered o%ner, the defendant-appellant herein, is primarily responsi'le for the damage caused to the vehicle of the plaintiff-appellee, 'ut he 7defendant-appellant; has a right to 'e indemnified 'y the real or actual o%ner of the amount that he may 'e re>uired to pay as damage for the injury caused to the plaintiff-appellant. 1âwphïl.nêt
Bengon, !aras, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Monte(a$or, J., concurs in the result.
Con"ep"ion,
#e$es,
J.
B.
%.,
and
&eli',
JJ., concur.