Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

DE GARCIA V.

COURT OF APPEALS/
GUEVARA- Buying Lost or Stolen Goods
(Art 559) One who has lost or has been unlawfully deprived of any movable may recover the same from the possessor except when
the owner has been unlawfully deprived of it and it has been obtained by the latter in good faith at a public sale wherein the former
needs to reimburse the latter of the price paid.
:. THE ONLY EXCEPTION is acquisition in good faith of the possession at a public sale.

FACTS:
Mrs. Guevara owned a pretty diamond ring with white gold mounting, 2.05 diamond-solitaire, and 4 brills. Sometime in February
1952, the ring was stolen from her house. Luckily, on October 1953 (barely a year after), she found it at a restaurant, La Bulakena,
on the finger of the restaurant owner, Consuelo De Garcia.
Guevara asked De Garcia where she bought it and explained to her how she had lost it. When the ring was handed to her by De
Garcia, it fitted her perfectly. The next time around, she brought her husband and Rebullida, the person whom she bought the ring
from, to verify the identity of the ring. Rebullida examined the ring with the aid of high power lens and his 30 years of experience. He
concluded that it was the very ring that he had sold to the Guevaras. After that, Guevara sent a written request for the ring, but De
Garcia did not deliver it. When the sheriff tries to serve a writ of seizure, De Garica likewise refused to deliver the ring.
According to De Garcia, she bought the ring from her kumare who got it from another Miss who in turn got it from the owner, a
certain Aling Petring. Aling Petring however, was nowhere to be found. She boarded three months at the first buyers house but left a
week after her landlady bought the ring. The first buyer did not even know Aling Petrings last name nor her forwarding address.
De Garcia claims to be a holder in good faith and for value. She says her possession is equivalent to title.
[Note: There was a discrepancy as to the weight of the ring at the time it was purchased and at the time it was found, but this was
because De Guevara substituted the diamond-solitaire with a heavier stone.]
The lower court both ruled in favor of the buyer and CA reversed in favor of the owner, Guevara. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: Who has a better right?


RULING: Guevara (owner)
Article Article 559 again, applies. Remember that the article establishes two exceptions to the general rule of irrevindicability: when
the owner (1) has lost the thing, or (2) has been unlawfully deprived thereof. In these cases, the possessor cannot retain the thing as
against the owner, who may recover it without paying any indemnity. THE ONLY EXCEPTION is acquisition in good faith of the
possession at a public sale.
There is no merit in the contention that De Garcias possession is in good faith, equivalent to title, sufficed to defeat the owners
claim. Possession in good faith does not really amount to title for the reason that there is a period for acquisitive prescription for
movable through uninterrupted possession of 4 years.

The title of the possessor in good faith is not that of ownership, but is merely a presumptive title sufficient to serve as a basis for
acquisitive prescription. This, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person
in possession of the same.
Besides, De Garcias title, if any, was weak. Her source, Aling Petring, was dubious. She did not make a comment when Rebullida
examined the ring nor did she answer Guevaras letter asserting ownership of it. Her testimony was weak!
Other facts
1. Subject matter = 1 diamond ring 18 cts. white gold mounting, with 1 2.05 cts. diamond-solitaire, and 4 brills 0.10 cts. total weight.
2. Mr. Rebullidas experience in the jewelry business = 30 years
3. Mrs. Garcia = owner of La Bulakea restaurant
4. Weight of the diamonds:
5. substituted diamond = 2.57 cts.
6. lost diamond (guevaras) = 2.05 cts
7. Ruling of the CA = return the ring or pay P1,000 and costs, P1,000 (attys fees) & P1,000 as exemplary damages

Civil law; Ownership; Ownership and right of recovery of lost movable.The


controlling provision is Article 559 of the Civil Code. Respondent Angelina D.
Guevara, having been unlawfully deprived of the diamond ring in question, was
entitled to recover it from petitioner Consuelo S. de Garcia who was found in
possession of the same. The only exception the law allows is when there is
acquisition in good faith of the possessor at a public sale, in which case the owner
cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price. As authoritatively interpreted
in Cruz vs. Pahati, 98 Phil. 788 (1956), the right of the owner cannot be defeated
even by proof that there is good faith in the acquisition by the possessor. There is a
reiteration of this principle in Aznar vs. Yapdiangco, L-18536, March 31, 1965, 13
SCRA 486. Suffice it to say m this regard that the right of the owner to recover
personal property acquired in good faith by another, is based on his being
dispossessed without consent. [De Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA 129(1971)]
Civil law; Possession; Title of possessor in good faith presumptive only; A basis for
acquisitive prescription.Possession in good faith does not really amount to title, for
the reason that Art. 1132 of the Code provides for a period of acquisitive
prescription for movables through "uninterrupted possession for four years in good
faith" so that many Spanish writers, including Manresa, Sanches Roman, Scaevola,
De Buen, and Ramos, assert that under Art. 464 of the Spanish Code (Art. 559 of the
New Civil Code), the title of the possessor in good faith is not that of ownership, but
is merely a presumptive title sufficient to serve as a basis for acquisitive
prescription (II Tolentino, Civil Code of the Phil., p. 258; IV Manresa, Derecho Civil
Espaol, 6th Ed., p. 380). And it is for the very reason that the title established by
the first clause of Art. 559 is only a presumptive title sufficient to serve as a basis
for acquisitive prescription, that the clause immediately following provides that "one
who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it
from the person in possession of the same." As stated by the Honorable Justice Jose
B. L. Reyes of this Court in Sotto vs. Enage (C.A.), 43 Off. Gaz. 5075, Dec. 1947).
"Article 559 in fact assumes that the possessor is as yet not the owner; for it is

obvious that where the possessor has come to acquire indefeasible title by, let us
say, adverse possession for the necessary period, no proof of loss or illegal
deprivation could avail the former owner of the chattel. He would no longer be
entitled to recover it under any condition." [De Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA
129(1971)]

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen