Brown is a composite color.

In the CMYK color model used in printing or painting, brown is made by

combining red, black, and yellow,[1][2] or red, yellow, and blue.[3] In the RGB color model used to
project colors onto television screens and computer monitors, brown is made by combining red
and green, in specific proportions. In painting, brown is generally made by adding black to orange.
Mixing red-green-blue pigments makes mud color. The brown color is seen widely in nature, in
wood, soil, human hair color, eye color and skin pigmentation. Brown is the color of dark wood or
rich soil.[4] According to public opinion surveys in Europe and the United States, brown is the least
favorite color of the public; the color is most often associated with plainness, the rustic and poverty.[

Villacorta v. Insurance Commission

G.R. No. L-54171, 28 October 1980, 100 SCRA 467

FACTS:

Villacorta had her Colt Lancer car insured with Empire Insurance Company against own damage, theft
and 3rdparty liability. While the car was in the repair shop, one of the employees of the said repair
shop took it out for a joyride after which it figured in a vehicular accident. This resulted to the death of
the driver and some of the passengers as well as to extensive damage to the car. Villacorta filed a
claim for total loss with the said insurance company. However, it denied the claim on the ground that
the accident did not fall within the provisions of the policy either for the Own Damage or Theft coverage,
invoking the policy provision on “Authorized Driver Clause”. This was upheld by the Insurance
Commission further stating that the car was not stolen and therefore not covered by the Theft Clause
because it is not evident that the person who took the car for a joyride intends to permanently deprive
the insured of his/ her car.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the insurer company should pay the said claim.

HELD:

Yes. Where the insured’s car is wrongfully taken without the insured’s consent from the car service
and repair shop to whom it had been entrusted for check-up and repairs (assuming that such taking
was for a joy ride, in the course of which it was totally smashed in an accident), respondent insurer is
liable and must pay insured for the total loss of the insured vehicle under the Theft Clause of the policy.
Assuming, despite the totally inadequate evidence, that the taking was “temporary” and for a “joy ride”,
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.
ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision is set aside and judgment is hereby rendered sentencing
private respondent to pay petitioner the sum of P35,000.00 with legal interest from the filing of the
complaint until full payment is made and to pay the costs of suit.