G.R. No. L-9536; July 24, 1914
QUINTINA REYES, petitioner-appellee, vs. GUILLERMO F. RUIZ, ET AL., opponents-appellants.

FACTS:
Marcelina Bantog was charged with and pleaded guilty to the crime of estafa. She had received various jewels from Quintina Reyes to sell on commission, with the obligation to return them if unsold or to deliver the proceeds. Instead, Bantog fraudulently pawned the jewels for her own benefit at the pawnshops of Antonio Matute, Geronimo Sanchez, Guillermo F. Ruiz, and Fausto O. Raymundo. The court convicted Bantog and ordered her to indemnify Quintina Reyes. Subsequently, Reyes filed a motion in the same criminal case, invoking Article 120 of the Penal Code, praying that the pawnbrokers be ordered to restore the pawned jewels to her without her having to pay the loan amounts. The pawnbrokers were duly notified but did not appear at the hearing. The trial court granted the motion and ordered the restoration. The pawnbrokers (Ruiz, Raymundo, and Matute) appealed, arguing that the court erred in ordering restitution without indemnity, in finding the jewels were pawned with them without presenting the pawn tickets as evidence, and in ordering restitution without due process.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court correctly ordered the appellant pawnbrokers to restore the pawned jewels to the lawful owner, Quintina Reyes, without requiring her to indemnify them for the loan amounts.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order. The Court held that under Article 120 of the Penal Code, restitution of the thing itself must be made even if it is in the possession of a third person, unless that third person acquired it in a manner and with the legal requisites that would make it unrecoverable. The jewels were pawned by the guilty party without the owner’s consent, to the owner’s fraud and prejudice. The pawnbrokers did not acquire the jewels in the manner prescribed by law (specifically, Article 464 of the Civil Code on acquisitive prescription of movables in good faith) to make them unrecoverable. Therefore, they are obligated to restore the jewels to the rightful owner. The owner, Reyes, has no obligation to reimburse the pawnbrokers for the loan amounts; their recourse is to demand payment from the convicted party, Marcelina Bantog, who misappropriated the money. The appellants’ failure to appear at the hearing despite due notice waived their right to contest the motion. The order of restitution is the primary civil remedy under Article 119 of the Penal Code, preceding indemnity.