VILLACORTA vs.

THE INSURANCE COMMISSION

FACTS:
1. Villacorta had her Colt Lancer car insured with
Empire Insurance Company against Own Damage,
Theft, and 3rd Party Liability.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. This was upheld by the Insurance Commission
further stating that the car was of 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: WON the insurer company should pay the said

claim, considering the driver in question was not
authorized by the insured owner.- YES
RULING:
1. Where the insureds car is wrongfully taken
without the insureds consent form the car service
and repair shop to whom it had been entrusted
from check-up and repairs, respondent insurer is
liable and must pay insured for the total loss of
the insured vehicle under the Theft Clause of the
policy.
2. Assuming,
despite
the
totally
inadequate
evidence, that the taking was temporary and for
a joyride, 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
persona; property belonging to another and using
it, his intent to gain is evident since he derives
there from utility, satisfaction, enjoyment, and
pleasure.