Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 515

Summary: - Reliance upon possession as title to ownership of movables. 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 that the bank knew that the deposits held with it were in the minors’ names and that the legal guardian did not appear as owner when pledging them. Its implication: the bank lacked the condition of good faith and therefore is not entitled to invoke the rule that possession of movables constitutes title to ownership. Rule: The provision in Article 937 of the Civil Code that “Whoever possesses, under a valid title, a movable or bearer instrument, appearing in relation thereto 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,” and the provision in Article 1051 of the same Code that “The provisions concerning the effects arising from possession of tangible movables and bearer instruments shall apply to the pledge of movables,” indicate that reliance upon possession as title to ownership of movables requires possession to have been accompanied by good faith, meaning that the possessor must have received possession in good faith from a non-owner. Whereas it is established from the papers that the appellant bank knew that the deposits were in the minors’ names, which means that the legal guardian, during his guardianship, 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 is not entitled to invoke that rule in this respect.