‘STOLEN’ BOLJOON PULPIT PANELS.
stolen. The Bojoon pulpit panels were, in lay language, Lawyers may have different terms for it, depending on how they were taken away.
Theft, if somebody other than its custodian picked them up. Robbery, if force upon things or person was used. Swindling, if they were entrusted to the parish priest to administer or keep in custody. Whatever manner they were removed stolen. and alienated they were Could they’ve been “laundered” along the way?
It’s not disputed they were owned by the Catholic Archdiocese of Cebu that swill swear they were removed without its knowledge and permission. But is the priest not the “sole juridical representative” of the parish unless the panels, being inalienable, are not among the goods he can transfer? And they were last found in the possession of the National Museum of the Philippines, by donation from a private couple. How else could they’ve been removed from their place in church stolen unless they were or taken in some other illicit act?
Did possession transfer ownership? From parish/ Archdiocese to the buyer, then from buyer to buyer, until they reached the last buyer, the couple who donated them. From Boljoon town to the National Museum in Manila, was ownershippossession changed, apparently without the original owner’s consent?
Is the National Museum of the Philippines now its owner? Lawyers may argue over legal ownership. Yet who among them can be deemed buyer in good faith when each transfer was consummated? It was public knowledge the panels had been missing and their transfer from Boljoon would be patently suspicious to anyone, especially those familiar with trafficking of heritage objects. stolen?
Which buyer wouldn’t think they were
Intent to gain was apparent from its first transfer to the last. Gain from the sale; from ownership and possession, though privately and limited to family and friends; even from sheer satisfaction of sharing them with the public.
Ownership is being questioned but the fact is they were, stolen. in the public mind,