DIZON VS SUNTAY

Article 559 Right to Recover Personal Property

One who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from the
person in possession of the same
Facts:
Suntay was 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. Unknown to Suntay, Sison actually pawned the ring to Dizon who owns a
pawnshop. 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.She demanded Dizon to return the ring. Dizon refused. Suntay filed for a replevin
suit which she won. Dizon appealed and he lost. Dizon appealed.
ISSUE:
W/o Suntay has the right to possession of the ring.
Held:
The controlling provision is Article 559 of the Civil Code which provides that:
The possession of movable 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.
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.
Clarita R. Sison, acting fraudulently and in bad faith, disposed of them and pledged them contrary
to agreement with no right of ownership, and to the prejudice of Suntay, who was illegally
deprived of said jewels and who, as the owner, has an absolute right to recover the jewels from the
possession of whosoever holds them, which in this case is Dizons pawnshop.
> 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.