DIZON V. SUNTAY

47 SCRA 160

FACTS:

Suntay was the owner of a diamond ring. On a relevant date, she and Sison entered into a transaction wherein Sison would sell the diamond ring on a commission basis. Both parties knew each other for a long time and that there was already a prior transaction between the two wherein Sison sold on commission another piece of jewelry owned by Suntay. As days
passed with no return of Sison, Suntay made demands. The ring could not be returned since it was pledged to Dizon’s pawnshop, without the consent of Suntay. Suntay insisted on the return of her ring and Sison then gave her the pawnshop ticket. Upon knowledge of the pledge, she filed a case of estafa against Sison as well as sent a written demand to Dizon for the return of the ring. Dizon refused to do so.

HELD:

One who has lost or has been unlawfully deprived of a movable may  recover the same from the person in possession of the same and the only defense the latter may have is if he has acquired it in good faith at a public sale in which case the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefore. Suntay who was unlawfully deprived of the ring
was entitled to recover it from Dizon who was found in possession of the same. In the present case, not only has the ownership and the origin of the ring misappropriated been unquestionably proven but also that Sison has fraudulently and in bad faith, disposed of and pledged them contrary to agreement, with no ownership, and to the prejudice of Suntay, who was thereby illegally deprived of said jewels. The owner has the right to recover. He is not estopped when his property has been unlawfully pledged by another.