Controversial LTO order based on ‘little-known’ anti-carnapping law

So much kerfuffle has been generated by Administrative Order No. AO-VDM-2024-046 (AO) issued by the Land Transportation Office (LTO) on Aug. 30, 2024, regarding the mandatory registration of used or pre-owned motor vehicles within five days (for sellers to report) and within 20 days (for buyers to register and transfer ownership) from date of purchase and the penalty of a fine in the whopping amount of P20,000 each for non-compliance therewith. In response to the public outrage that followed, the LTO relented and “suspended” that order “until further notice.”

That AO was based on Republic Act No. 10883 or the New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 which mandates such LTO registration of any conveyance/purchase/acquisition of a motor vehicle, and further provides that: “A motor vehicle xxx not registered with the LTO shall be presumed a carnapped vehicle” (Section 8). Under Sec. 3, once “presumed carnapped,” the buyer faces the prospect of being prosecuted and jailed up to 30 years.

Truth to tell, very little was known about that law other than the notion that it was targeting only criminals committing carnapping. Practically no one imagined it would also impact innocent buying and selling of motor vehicles. Even the Supreme Court seemed never to have thought of it as making criminals out of hundreds of thousands—perhaps, millions—of car-loving Filipinos.

In Siy v. Tomlin (April 24, 2017), the high court rightly took judicial notice of “the practice by many vehicle buyers and second-hand car traders of not transferring registration and ownership over vehicles purchased from their original owners, and rather instructing the latter to execute and sign in blank deeds of sale covering these vehicles, so that these buyers and dealers may freely and readily trade or re-sell the vehicles in the second-hand car market without difficulty.

“This way, multiple transfers, sales, or trades of the vehicle using these undated deeds signed in blank become possible, until the latest purchaser decides to actually transfer the certificate of registration in his name. For many car owners-sellers, this is an easy concession …

“In many cases as well, busy vehicle owners selling their vehicles actually leave them, together with all the documents of title, spare keys, and deeds of sale signed in blank, with second-hand car traders they know and trust … For this kind of arrangement, an agency relationship is created between the vehicle owners, as principals, and the car traders, as agents. The situation is akin to an owner of jewelry who sells the same through an agent, who receives the jewelry in trust and offers it for sale to his/her regular clients; if a sale is made, the agent takes payment under the obligation to remit the same to the jewelry owner, minus the agreed commission or other compensation.”

Apparently, the Supreme Court could not in conscience presume all those car dealers to be “carnappers,” as it sanctioned their practice of not registering with the LTO their inventory of used cars for sale as “akin” to jewelry trading and therefore legally kosher being just a species of agency, never mind their actual purchase thereof via blank deeds of sale. Apparently, too, the Supreme Court looked the other way from the blatant violation of the notarial law which unequivocally frowns upon “blank deeds of sale” which could lead to falsification of public documents.

If, indeed, Supreme Court decisions are to be deemed “part of the law of the land,” any violation of RA 10883 should be looked upon in the same light as it has—with abundant pragmatism. Or better yet, a right-thinking Congress could put the kibosh on the public discombobulation by amending or repealing that ill-conceived law forthwith, unless it really wants to “presume” a vast number of Filipino car owners are criminals.

Steve L. Monsanto,
lexsquare.firm@gmail.com