July 1, 2011

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON Vice Dean & Professor San Beda College Alabang Dear Sir, I see that you are faced with an issue revolving around the ownership of the thing in question is. Based from the facts and the information gathered, the contention of the sheriff is not tenable. Consignment is an arrangement resulting from a contract in which one person, the consignor, either ships or entrusts goods to another, the consignee, for sale. The consignee acts as an agent on behalf of the consignor, a principal, in selling the goods and must take reasonable care of them while in his or her possession. The consignor does not give up ownership of the goods until their sale.1 B, never acquired ownership over the ring therefore he cannot, as contended by the sheriff, file an action with regard to the ring by reason of his alleged ownership over said thing. The case you have presented resembles the facts of WAITE v. PETERSON wherein a ring was also consigned for 800 pesos but thereafter, said ring was levied upon by a sheriff for the satisfaction of a judgment against the consignee, and a day after it was levied, the real owner of said ring assigned his rights to the plaintiff. 2 The court held that:
when ones property is wrongfully taken by another, the former has a right of action against the person who interfered with his property, either
1

Definition of Consignment<http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consignment><last visited on July 8, 2011>. 2 Waite vs. Peterson, 8 Phil. 449.

for the recovery of the property itself or for damages for its taking, and he has his choice of remedies. The right of action given by the general principles of law to the person whose property has wrongfully been taken from him either to recover damages or the possession of the property, is a right which can be transferred by him, and his transferee can maintain 3 either one of these actions against the wrongdoer.

Based from said case, C, as As assignee, has a right of action against the sheriff, who wrongfully seized the ring but such action must be invoked by seeking the aid of the courts, and that is by way of filing a complaint. The complaint in this case must be grounded on Articles 428 and 433 of the Civil Code which provides:
Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law. The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it. (348a) Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property. (n)

I hope that this has helped in resolving you current predicament.

Sincerely yours, Cassandra I. Bragado 2C

Id.