DIZON VS SUNTAY

Article 559 Right to Recover Personal Property

One ho has lost any !ova"le or has "een #nla$#lly %eprive% thereo$ !ay recover it $ro! the
person in possession o$ the sa!e
&acts'
S#ntay as the oner o$ a ( carat %ia!on% ring val#e% at P5)5**+ She an% ,larita Sison entere%
into a transaction herein the ring o#l% "e sol% on co!!ission+ ,larita receive% the ring an%
iss#e% a receipt+ A$ter so!e ti!e) -o#r%es !a%e %e!an%s $or the ret#rn o$ the ring "#t the latter
re$#se% to co!ply+ Un.non to S#ntay) Sison act#ally pane% the ring to Di/on ho ons a
panshop+ 0hen -o#r%es insiste% on the ret#rn) ,larita gave her the panshop tic.et hich is the
receipt o$ the ple%ge an% she $o#n% o#t that ( %ays a$ter the ring as receive% "y ,larita) it as
ple%ge% "y 1elia Sison) the niece o$ ,laritas h#s"an% in connivance ith ,larita ith the
panshop o$ Do!ina%or Di/on $or P2)3**+ -o#r%es then $ile% an esta$a case+ She then as.e%
Do!ina%or Di/on $or the ret#rn o$ the ring ple%ge% "#t re$#se% to ret#rn the ring th#s the case
$ile% "y -o#r%es+She %e!an%e% Di/on to ret#rn the ring+ Di/on re$#se%+ S#ntay $ile% $or a replevin
s#it hich she on+ Di/on appeale% an% he lost+ Di/on appeale%+
ISSU4'
05o S#ntay has the right to possession o$ the ring+
6el%'
The controlling provision is Article 559 o$ the ,ivil ,o%e hich provi%es that'
The possession o$ !ova"le property ac7#ire% in goo% $aith is e7#ivalent to a title+ Nevertheless)
one ho has lost any !ova"le or has "een #nla$#lly %eprive% thereo$ !ay recover it $ro! the
person in possession o$ the sa!e+ I$ the possessor o$ a !ova"le lost o$ hich the oner has "een
#nla$#lly %eprive%) has ac7#ire% it in goo% $aith at a p#"lic sale) the oner cannot o"tain its
ret#rn itho#t rei!"#rsing the price pai% there$or+
The only e8ception the la allos is hen there is ac7#isition in goo% $aith o$ the possessor at a
p#"lic sale) in hich case the oner cannot o"tain its ret#rn itho#t) rei!"#rsing the price+
,larita R+ Sison) acting $ra#%#lently an% in "a% $aith) %ispose% o$ the! an% ple%ge% the! contrary
to agree!ent ith no right o$ onership) an% to the pre9#%ice o$ S#ntay) ho as illegally
%eprive% o$ sai% 9eels an% ho) as the oner) has an a"sol#te right to recover the 9eels $ro! the
possession o$ hosoever hol%s the!) hich in this case is Di/ons panshop+
: Interpretation o$ the #nla$#lly %eprive% in Art+ 559 o$ the ,,+ It is #n%erstoo% to incl#%e
all cases here there has "een no vali% trans!ission o$ onership+