Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 259

Summary: - Invoking possession as title to ownership of a movable. Its scope: possession must have been accompanied by good faith, meaning that the possessor must have received possession in good faith from a non-owner. - Establishment of the Bank’s knowledge that the deposits held by it were in the minors’ names, and the legal guardian’s not appearing as their owner when pledging them. Its implication: the Bank lacked the condition of good faith and therefore may not invoke the rule that possession of a movable constitutes title to ownership. Rule: Article 937 of the Civil Code provides that: “Whoever possesses, under a valid title, a movable or a bearer instrument, appearing in respect thereof as the owner or holder of another right in rem, and is in good faith at the time of taking possession, becomes the holder of the right from the time of possession.” Article 1051 of the same Code provides that: “The provisions concerning the effects arising from possession of tangible movables and bearer instruments shall apply to the pledge of a movable.” This indicates that possession may be invoked as title to ownership of a movable where possession was accompanied by good faith, meaning that the possessor received possession in good faith from a non-owner. Since it is established from the papers that the appellant Bank knew that the deposits were in the minors’ names, implying that the legal guardian, while acting as guardian, did not appear as their owner when pledging them, the condition of good faith on the part of the appellant Bank is absent, and it may not invoke that rule in this respect.