Dizon v. Suntay Facts: Lourdes G. Suntay owns a three-carat diamond ring valued at P5,500.00.

Clarita Sison, a close friend of Suntays cousin, entered into a contract with Suntay wherein Suntay would deliver the ring to Sison who would sell the ring on commission. owever, Sison, without the !nowledge of Suntay, "ledged the ring to the "awnsho" of #ominador #i$on for P%,&00.00. 'fter demands, Sison gave Suntay the "awnsho" tic!et which was the recei"t of the "ledge made (y the former. Suntay as!ed #i$on to return the ring, however, the latter refused to do so. )hus Suntay filed an action for re"levin in the courts. )he trial court ruled in favor of Suntay and the C' affirmed the decision of the lower court. #i$on raises esto""el on the "art of Suntay as his defense. Issue: Should Suntay (e entitled to recover from #i$on* Ruling: +es. 'rt. 55, of the Civil Code addresses this issue. -t "oints out that the right of the owner cannot (e defeated even (y "roof that there was good faith in the ac.uisition (y the "ossessor. )he common law "rinci"le that /where one of the two innocent "ersons must suffer (y a fraud "er"etrated (y another, the law im"oses the loss u"on the "arty who, (y his mis"laced confidence, has ena(led the fraud to (e committed0 does not a""ly in a case covered (y the e1"ress "rovision of the law, which is 'rt. 55, in this case. ' statutory "rovision "revails over a common law "rinci"le in this 2urisdiction. 3sto""el also does not a""ly in this case (ecause first, there is no declaration, act, or omission (y the "arty who is sought to (e (ound4 and, ne1t, the other "arty must have altered his "osition (y having (een so intentionally and deli(erately led to com"ort himself. 5o such facts e1ist in this case. #i$on is engaged in the "awnsho" (usiness and ordinary "rudence would manifest itself to ascertain whether or not an individual who is offering a 2ewelry (y "ledge is entitled to do so. #i$on should have (een on his guard (efore acce"ting the "ledge in .uestion.