N.M. Stat. » Chapter 66 — Motor Vehicles
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 66-3-12 (2026)

Evidential value of certificate

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A certificate of title issued by the division shall be received in evidence as prima facie evidence of the ownership of the vehicle named in the certificate and as prima facie evidence of all liens and encumbrances against said vehicle appearing on the certificate.

History: 1953 Comp., § 64-3-12, enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 35, § 32.

ANNOTATIONS

Being "record" owner. — The fact that plaintiff's son was the "record" owner of the car at the time of the collision was prima facie evidence of ownership, and the appellate court was thereby precluded from overturning the finding of plaintiff's son's ownership of the car as being without support in the evidence. Forsythe v. Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., 1973- NMSC-001, 84 N.M. 461, 505 P.2d 56.

Certificate of title was prima facie evidence of ownership of automobile, and of the lien of the bank, until that was discharged. Wray v. Pennington, 1956-NMSC-120, 62 N.M. 203, 307 P.2d 536.

Evidential effect given no matter who claims ownership. — Title provisions of Motor Vehicle Code provide for certificates of title and state that they shall be prima facie evidence of ownership. When ownership is an issue, whether between opposing claimants of title or between father and child, there is no reason for denying the certificate the effect clearly directed by the legislature. Cortez v. Martinez, 1968-NMSC- 153, 79 N.M. 506, 445 P.2d 383, overruled on other grounds by McGeehan v. Bunch, 1975-NMSC-055, 88 N.M. 308, 540 P.2d 238. Certificate of title is only prima facie evidence of ownership under Section 64-3-10, 1953 Comp. (similar to this section) and true ownership may be shown by other proof. Western States Collection Co. v. Marable, 1968-NMSC-020, 78 N.M. 731, 437 P.2d 1000.

Title may be shown by other proof. — The title transfer provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code are not to be interpreted as providing an exclusive method for transferring title. This conclusion is strongly supported by the provision (64-3-10, 1953 Comp., similar to this section) that the certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership. Such language clearly indicates an intention that the certificate of title is only evidence of ownership and that the same may be shown by other proof. Schall v. Mondragon, 1964-NMSC-107, 74 N.M. 348, 393 P.2d 457; Clovis Fin. Co. v. Sides, 1963-NMSC- 065, 72 N.M. 17, 380 P.2d 173.

Parent presumed to be owner. — This section creates a presumption that the owner listed in the certificate of title to an automobile, who is also the parent of a driver involved in an accident, is, in fact, the real owner. It is then necessary for the factfinder to determine for purposes of a negligence suit against the parent under the Family Purpose Doctrine, whether the presumption is rebutted by counter evidence. Shryock v. Madrid, 1987-NMCA-083, 106 N.M. 589, 746 P.2d 1121, rev'd on other grounds, 1987- NMSC-106, 106 N.M. 467, 745 P.2d 375.

Prima facie evidence of minor's co-ownership. — Where title to an automobile was in the names of three persons, although one was a minor, the fact that she was a record owner of the automobile was prima facie evidence of her co-ownership of the automobile. Lee v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co., 1987-NMSC-047, 106 N.M. 22, 738 P.2d 516.

Evidence contrary to record title does not rebut presumption of ownership. Fernandez v. Ford Motor Co., 1994-NMCA-063, 118 N.M. 100, 879 P.2d 101, cert. denied, 118 N.M. 90, 879 P.2d 91.

When title passes. — Since New Mexico does not require an exclusive or mandatory method of transferring title to an automobile, it therefore follows that title and ownership pass when the parties intend it to pass. Schall v. Mondragon, 1964-NMSC-107, 74 N.M. 348, 393 P.2d 457.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: Fernandez v. Ford Motor Co., 879 P.2d 101 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fernandez v. Ford Motor Co., 879 P.2d 101 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Generally, in New Mexico a certificate of title issued by the motor vehicle division “shall be received in evidence as prima facie evidence of the ownership of the vehicle named in the certificate____” NMSA 1978, § 66-3-12 (Repl.”
State v. Bernard, 2015 NMCA 089 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Evidence of registration validated by MVD “shall 8 be exhibited upon demand of any police officer[,]” NMSA 1978, Section 66-3-13(A) 9 (2013), a certificate of title issued by MVD is “prima facie evidence of the ownership 10 of the vehicle[,]” NMSA 1978, § 66-3-12 (1978), and…”
Madrid v. Shryock, 745 P.2d 375 (N.M. 1987). · cites it 2× “The court of appeals held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material facts existed relative to ownership of the vehicle and whether the father had furnished the vehicle for general family use and convenience.”
Lee v. Gen. Accident Ins., 738 P.2d 516 (N.M. 1987). · cites it 2× “The certificate of title was not introduced into evidence by either party; however, it was undisputed that title to the automobile was in Allen, Nadine, and Vonda Mead’s names. Although Vonda Mead was a minor, the fact that she was a record owner of the automobile is prima facie…”
Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. United Specialty Ins., 592 F. App'x 730 (10th Cir. 2014). “2d 173, 176 (1963) (noting that a car’s title is "prima facie evidence of ownership”); see also N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-3-12 ("A certificate of title .”
State v. Bernard, 2015 NMCA 89 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “13 vehicle[,]” NMSA 1978, § 66-3-12 (1978), and owners must display registration plates and validating stickers on their vehicles.”
Shryock v. Madrid, 746 P.2d 1121 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “NMSA 1978, Section 66-3-12 (Repl.Pamp. 1984) provides that a certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership.”
Philip Montoya, Chapter 7 Tr. v. William Ferguson (10th Cir. BAP 2024). “55 It also relied on the purchase forms used to purchase the vehicles, Motiva’s representations of ownership on its tax forms, and the various inconsistencies related to the vehicles’ ownership presented by Mr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.