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 buyer’s house but left a week after her landlady bought the ring. The first buyer did not even know Aling Petring’s 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 Garcia’s possession is in good faith, equivalent to title, sufficed to defeat the owner’s 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 Garcia’s “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 Guevara’s 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. Rebullida’s experience in the jewelry business = 30 years
3. Mrs. Garcia = owner of La Bulakeña restaurant
4. Weight of the diamonds:
5. substituted diamond = 2.57 cts.
6. lost diamond (guevara’s) = 2.05 cts
7. Ruling of the CA = return the ring or pay P1,000 and costs, P1,000 (atty’s fees) & P1,000 as exemplary damages
