Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

43) Paramount Insurance, Corp. vs. Sps. Yves and Maria Teresa 2. In People v.

2. In People v. Bustinera, it was held that when one takes the motor
Remondeulaz vehicle of another without the latter’s consent even if the motor
G.R. No. 173773 November 28, 2012 vehicle is later returned, there is theft – there being intent to gain as
Peralta, J. | Topic: Theft Clause the use of the thing unlawfully taken constitutes gain.
Digested By: Lopez, A. 3. Meanwhile, in Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, it
was held that taking of a vehicle by another person without the
Facts: permission or authority from the owner thereof is sufficient to place it
1. Respondents Sps. Remondeulaz insured with petitioner Paramount within the ambit of the word theft as contemplated in the policy, and
Insurance, Corp. their Corolla sedan. is therefore, compensable.
2. During the said Policy, respondents’ car was unlawfully taken as a 4. In Santos vs. People, the Court clarified the distinction between the
certain Ricardo Sales (Sales) took possession of the subject vehicle crime of Estafa and Theft, wherein if he was entrusted only with the
to add accessories and improvements, but Sales failed to return the material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing, his
subject vehicle. misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if he has the
3. Respondents notified Paramount to claim for the reimbursement of juridical possession of the thing his conversion of the same
their lost vehicle, but Paramount refused to pay. constitutes embezzlement or estafa.
4. Accordingly, respondents filed a complaint for a sum of money 5. In the instant case, Sales did not have juridical possession over the
against Paramount before the RTC. vehicle. Hence, it is apparent that the taking of repondents’ vehicle
5. RTC: dismissed the complaint. by Sales is without any consent or authority from the former.
6. CA: reversed the RTC. 6. [DOCTRINE] Since theft can also be committed through
7. Hence, this petition. Paramount argued that the loss of the vehicle is misappropriation, the fact that Sales failed to return the subject
not a peril covered by the policy. It maintains that it is not liable for vehicle to respondents constitutes Qualified Theft. Hence, since
the loss, since the car cannot be classified as stolen since repondents’ car is undeniably covered by a Comprehensive Motor
respondents entrusted the possession to another person. Vehicle Insurance Policy that allows for recovery in cases of theft,
Paramount is liable under the policy for the loss of respondents’
Issue: W/N Paramount is liable under the insurance policy for the loss vehicle under the "theft clause."

Held: Yes. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.

1. Under the Policy, it states that:


1. The Company will, subject to the Limits of Liability, indemnify the
insured against loss of or damage to the Scheduled Vehicle and its
accessories and spare parts whilst thereon: –
(a) by accidental collision or overturning, or collision or
overturning consequent upon mechanical breakdown or consequent
upon wear and tear;
(b) by fire, external explosion, self-ignition or lightning or
burglary, housebreaking or theft;
(c) by malicious act;
(d) whilst in transit (including the process of loading and
unloading) incidental to such transit by road, rail, inland waterway, lift
or elevator.”