The phrase “finders’ keepers, losers’ weepers” is uttered by a child who finds in a playground a toy marble, top, or ball that no one apparently owns. As the child transitions to adulthood, he or she may ride in a PUV and fortuitously sit on a small object which turns out to be a gold bracelet with no identification mark of the owner. Can the passenger keep this bonanza as his or hers just like when he or she was a child? Should he or she entrust the bracelet to the driver of the PUV, or bring it to a radio or TV station, or to the police, the barangay or the Mayor’s Office? Many are not well-informed with what the law commands in dealing with lost and found personal articles.

The foundation of the law on lost and found objects dates back to ancient Rome. Gaius, a second-century jurist, suggested that a thing without an owner (res nullius) would become the property of whoever first found it. Emperor Justinian added that property intentionally abandoned by its owner (res derelicta) becomes res nullius and can thereafter be claimed by any individual who finds or discovers it (Finders Keepers? A Historical Survey of Lost and Abandoned Property and the Law, Marjun Parcasio, January 6, 2014).

A modern-day example is the practice of the Japanese and Americans of throwing away various things they no longer need on the sidewalk such as furniture, kitchen utensils, clothes, sports equipment, appliances, etc. This act is a declaration of abandonment of ownership over these things and it strips away the right to recover it. At the same time, the act also serves as an open invitation to the public to rummage through the pile (which are now res nullius) and anything that fancies them they can take for free as the new owner of the thing (Art 713 Civil Code).

The situation is totally different when a person inadvertently drops a cellphone or sunglasses, or unintentionally leaves behind a bag with cash and other valuables in a store, restaurant or public transport. There is no abandonment of ownership of the lost item by the true owner who maintains the right of recovery of the lost personal belonging. For the good of society, the law commands the finder of lost property, regardless of its value, to help in restoring the true owner to the possession of the lost item. In Fernando Pante vs People of the Philippines, GR 218969, 18 January 2021, the Supreme Court explained that it is the legal obligation of the finder of a lost and found item to return the object that was found to its true owner through the method established by law. The finder and anyone else (finder in law) to whom he or she entrusted the lost object and fails to return it by appropriating it for himself or herself, faces prosecution for the crime of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.

The original Roman concept of finders’ keepers upholds the right of the finder to keep the object found. The concept had evolved as it contended with scenarios dissimilar from the ancient Roman concept setting. The focus of the law now is on the right of the true owner to recover possession of the lost personal belonging so much so that the Civil Code commands the finder to surrender the object to the Mayor of the area who must then follow a procedure to find the true owner. If the true owner claims it, the finder receives a reward from the real owner equal to one-tenth of the value of the thing found. When the true owner does not come forward within the period set, acquisitive prescription takes place (Articles 719 ,720 and 1132 of the Civil Code).

Now we know better. The law disfavors unjust enrichment of one over the misfortune of another as society discourages dishonesty, fraud and ill-gain. A finder may not encounter a moral dilemma if the lost and found item is objectively of trivial financial value or subjectively useless. But the story may change if the lost and found item is of significant worth. To keep out of trouble, a person must find good conscience to keep oneself from coveting the lost and found item.

Atty. Magi Gunigundo is a former lawmaker, civil law instructor, and author of law books. He is also an education reformer and an advocate of anticipatory governance.