Text of the provision
Art. 559. 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 or 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.
(464a)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
Possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title. Still, a person who has lost a movable or been unlawfully deprived of it may recover it from whoever holds it — but if that holder bought it in good faith at a public sale, the owner must reimburse the price paid to get it back.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 558 — Acts Of A Mere Holder.
- Article 560 — Possession Of Animals.
Cases citing this article
- Subic Bay Legend Resorts and Casinos, Inc. vs. Bernard C. Fernandez, G.R. No. 193426, September 29, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- BPI Family Bank vs. Amado Franco, et al, G.R. No. 123498, November 23, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sheriff Albert A. Dela Cruz of the Sandiganbayan Security and Sheriff Services, the Sandiganbayan Security and Sheriff Services vs. Wellex Group, Inc, G.R. No. 247439, August 23, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Noel M. Odrada vs. Virgilio Lazaro and George Aseniero, G.R. No. 205515, January 20, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Raymundo and Marilyn Calo vs. Spouses Reynaldo and Lydia Tan, et al, G.R. No. 151266, November 29, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.