DIZON V.

SUNTAY- Pledge of Immovable

An owner of a movable unlawfully pledged by another is not estopped from recovering possession. Where the owner delivered the
diamond ring solely for sale on commission but the seller instead pawned it without authority, the owner is not stopped form
pursuing an action against the pawnshop.

FACTS:
Lourdes Suntay is the owner of a 3-carat diamond ring valued at P5,500. She and Clarita Sison entered into a transaction wherein
the ring would be sold on commission. Clarita received the ring and issued a receipt. After some time, Lourdes made demands for
the return of the ring but the latter refused to comply. When Lourdes insisted on the return, Clarita gave her the pawnshop ticket
which is the receipt of the pledge and she found out that 3 days after the ring was received by Clarita, it was pledged by Melia
Sison, the niece of Claritas husband in connivance with Clarita with the pawnshop of Dominador Dizon for P2,600. Lourdes then
filed an estafa case. She then asked Dominador Dizon for the return of the ring pledged but refused to return the ring thus the case
filed by Lourdes.

The CFI issued a writ of replevin so Lourdes was able to have possession of the ring during the pendency of the case. The CFI also
ruled in her favor which was affirmed by the CA on appeal. Thus the case at bar.

ISSUE:
W/N the CA erred in ruling that Lourdes has a right to possession of the ring

HELD: NO
It reiterated the ruling in de Garcia v. CA, that the controlling provision is Art. 559 of the CC which states that the possession
ofmovable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been
unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from the person in possession of the same. If the possessor of a movable lost of which
the owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without
reimbursing the price paid therefor.

Lourdes, being unlawfully deprived of her ring thus she has a right to recover it from the current possessor. Dizon is engaged in a
business where presumably ordinary prudence would require him to inquire whether or not an individual who is offering the jewelry
by pledge is entitled to do so. The principle of estoppel cannot help him at all. Since there was no precaution availed of, perhaps
because of the difficulty of resisting opportunity for profit, he only has himself to blame and should be the last to complain if the right
of the true owner of the jewelry should be recognized.

Other issues raised:

Principle of estoppel = has its roots in equity, moral right and natural justice.
> For estoppel to exist, there must be a declaration, act or omission by the party who is sought to be bound.

> A party should not be permitted to go against his own acts to the prejudice of another.
Concurring opinion by J. Teehankee:
> Interpretation of the unlawfully deprived in Art. 559 of the CC. It is understood to include all cases where there has been no valid
transmission of ownership. If our legislature intended interpretation to be that of the French Code, it certainly would have adopted
and used a narrower term than the broad language of Art. 559 (formerly 464) and the accepted meaning in accordance with our
jurisprudence.

Civil Law; Property; Owner unlawfully deprived of movable property may recover possession of same
from third party.The owner of a diamond ring may recover the possession of the same from a
pawnshop where another person had pledged it without authority to do so. Article 559 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines applies and the defense that the pawnshop acquired possession of the ring without
notice of any defect in the title of the pledgor is unavailing.

Same; Same; Estoppel; Owner of movable unlawfully pledged by another not estopped from recovering
possession.Where the owner delivered the diamond ring to another solely for sale on commission but
the latter instead pawned the same without authority to do so, the owner is not estopped from
pursuing an action against the pawnshop for the recovery of the possession of the said ring.

Teehankee, J., concurring:

Civil Law; Property; Words and phrases; "Unlawfully deprived" defined in relation to Article 559 of Civil
Code.Senator Tolentino concedes that there are writers who believe that the phrase "unlawfully
deprived" in our Code does not have the same meaning as stolen in the French Code; that it is used in
the general sense; and is not used in the specific sense of deprivation by robbery or theft. Under this
view, it extends to all cases where there has been no valid transmission of ownership, including
depositary, or lessee who has sold the same. It is believed that the owner in such case is undoubtedly
unlawfully deprived of his property, and may recover the same from a possessor in good faith. Indeed, if
our legislature had intended to narrow the scope of the term "unlawfully deprived" to "stolen" as
advocated by Tolentino, it certainly would have adopted and used such a narrower term rather than the
broad language of article 464 of the old Spanish Civil Code with its long-established and accepted
meaning in accordance with our jurisprudence.

Same; Same; Conviction of embezzler not essential to recovery of movable by owner from third party.
The contention that the owner may recover the lost article of which he has been unlawfully deprived
without reimbursement of the sum received by the embezzler from the pawnshop only after a criminal
conviction of the embezzler, is to add a requirement that is not in the codal article and to unduly
prejudice the victim of embezzlement, as pointed out by the Court in Arenas vs. Raymundo, 19 Phil. 47
[Dizon vs. Suntay, 47 SCRA 160(1972)]