[G.R. No. L-28772. September 21, 1983.

ASSOCIATION OF BAPTISTS FOR WORLD EVANGELISM, INC., Plaintiff, v.

FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. MERCANTILE LAW; INSURANCE; COMPREHENSIVE POLICY; UNLAWFUL

AND WRONGFUL TAKING OF VEHICLE FOR A JOY RIDE CONSTITUTES THEFT
WITHIN THE MEANING OF INSURANCE POLICY; RECOVERY FOR DAMAGE
NOT BARRED BY THE ILLEGAL USE OF THE VEHICLE. — The Comprehensive
Policy issued by the insurance company includes loss of or damage to the motor vehicle
by "burglary . . . or theft." It is settled that the act of Catiben in taking the vehicle for a
joy ride to Toril, Davao City, constitutes theft within the meaning of the insurance
policy and that recovery for damage to the car is not barred by the illegal use of the car
by one of the station boys.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; LIABILITY OF INSURER UNDER THE THEFT CLAUSE OF AN
INSURANCE POLICY; PRIOR CONVICTION NOT REQUIRED IN AN ACTION FOR
RECOVERY ON AN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE; CASE AT BAR. — There need be
no prior conviction for the crime of theft to make an insurer liable under the theft clause
of the policy. Upon the facts stipulated by the parties it is admitted that Catiben had
taken the vehicle for a joy ride and while the same was in his possession he bumped it
against an electric post resulting in damages. That act is theft within a policy of
insurance. In a civil action for recovery on an automobile insurance, the question
whether a person using a certain automobile at the time of the accident stole it or not is
to be determined by a fair preponderance of evidence and not by the rule of criminal
law requiring proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Villacorta v. Insurance
Commission, 100 SCRA 467 [1980]). Besides, there is no provision in the policy
requiring prior criminal conviction for theft.

RESOLUTION

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

This case for "Indemnity for Damages and Attorney’s Fees" was elevated to this
Tribunal by the then Court of Appeals on a question of law.

The Stipulation of Facts submitted by the parties before the Court of First Instance of
Davao, Branch I, in Case No. 3789, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"COMES the parties in the above entitled case, through their respective counsels and to
this Honorable Court respectfully submit the following stipulations of facts:chanrob1es
virtual 1aw library
‘1. That plaintiff is a religious corporation duly organized and registered under the laws
of the Philippines, while defendant is also a domestic corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the Philippines;

‘2. That plaintiff, having an insurable interest in a Chevrolet Carry-all, 1955 Model, with
Motor No. 032433272555 and Plate No. E-73317 covered by Registration Certificate No.
288141 Rizal, issued by the Davao Motor Vehicles Office Agency No. 20 and owned by
Reverend Clinton Bonnel, insured said vehicle with the defendant under Fieldmen’s
Insurance Co., Inc. Private Car Comprehensive Policy No. 22 Jl 1107, attached hereto as
Annex ‘A’ to ‘A-2’ against loss or damage up to the amount of P5,000.00;

‘3. That in the latter part of 1961, through plaintiff’s representative, Dr. Antonio Lim, the
aforementioned Chevrolet Carry-all was placed at the Jones Monument Mobilgas
Service Station at Davao City, under the care of said station’s operator, Rene Te so that
said carry-all could be displayed as being for sale, with the understanding that the latter
or any of his station boys would receive a 2% commission should they sell said vehicle.

‘4. That on the night of January 18, 1962, Romeo Catiben one of the boys at the
aforementioned Jones Monument Service Station and a nephew of the wife of Rene Te
who is residing with them, took the aforementioned chevrolet carry-all for a joy ride to
Toril, Davao City, without the prior permission, authority or consent of either the
plaintiff or its representative Dr. Antonio Lim, or of Rene Te, and on its way back to
Davao City, said vehicle, due to some mechanical defect accidentally bumped an
electric post causing actual damages valued at P5,518.61.

‘5. That the issue before the Honorable Court is whether or not for the damage to the
abovementioned Chevrolet Carry-all to be compensable under the aforementioned
Fieldmen’s Private Car Comprehensive Policy No. 22 JL 11107, there must be a prior
criminal conviction of Romeo Catiben for theft.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court render judgment on

the facts and issues above stipulated after the parties shall have submitted their
respective memoranda."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Trial Court rendered judgment based on the facts stipulated and ordered defendant
insurance company to pay plaintiff association the amount of P5,000.00 as indemnity for
the damage sustained by the vehicle, P2,000.00 for attorney’s fees, and costs.
Dissatisfied, the insurance company interposed an appeal to the Appellate Court,
docketed as CA-G.R. No. 33543-R, which as above stated, elevated it to this
instance.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

We affirm. The Comprehensive Policy issued by the insurance company includes loss of
or damage to the motor vehicle by "burglary . . . or theft." It is settled that the act of
Catiben in taking the vehicle for a joy ride to Toril, Davao City, constitutes theft within
the meaning of the insurance policy and that recovery for damage to the car is not
barred by the illegal use of the car by one of the station boys.
". . . where a car is admittedly as in this case unlawfully and wrongfully taken by some
people, be they employees of the car shop or not to whom it had been entrusted, and
taken on a long trip to Montalban without the owner’s consent or knowledge, such
taking constitutes or partakes of the nature of theft as defined in Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code, viz.’(W)ho are liable for theft. — Theft is committed by any person
who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor
force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent,’
for purposes of recovering the loss under the policy in question."cralaw virtua1aw
library

". . . the Court sustains as the better view that which holds that when a person, either
with the object of going to a certain place, or learning how to drive, or enjoying a free
ride, takes possession of a vehicle belonging to another, without the consent of its
owner, he is guilty of theft because by taking possession of the personal property
belonging to another and using it, his intent to gain is evident since he derives
therefrom utility, satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure. Justice Ramon C. Aquino cites in
his work Groizard who holds that the use of a thing constitutes gain and Cuello Calon
who calls it ‘hurto de uso.’ 1

There need be no prior conviction for the crime of theft to make an insurer liable under
the theft clause of the policy. Upon the facts stipulated by the parties it is admitted that
Catiben had taken the vehicle for a joy ride and while the same was in his possession he
bumped it against an electric post resulting in damages. That act is theft within a policy
of insurance. In a civil action for recovery on an automobile insurance, the question
whether a person using a certain automobile at the time of the accident stole it or not is
to be determined by a fair preponderance of evidence and not by the rule of criminal
law requiring proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 2 Besides, there is no provision in
the policy requiring prior criminal conviction for theft.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

ACCORDINGLY, finding no error in the judgment appealed from, the same is hereby
affirmed.

Costs against defendant Fieldmen’s Insurance Co., Inc.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes: