Point of law: whether the contract of pledge is invalid if the pledgor lost the right of ownership to the object of pledge as a result of his improper performance of the purchase-sale contract under which he previously acquired it?

Alternative attitudes: 1) the contract of pledge is valid and the ensuing rights are preserved, because at the moment of the creation of the pledge the pledgor did have the right of ownership to the pledged thing; consequently, the previous owner steps in and takes the place of the pledgor in pledge-related legal arrangement; or 2) the contract of pledge is invalid because the thing has been vindicated by the previous owner from the unlawful possession of the pledgeholder.

Ratio decidendi: the Presidium deemed the first attitude to be correct.

Practical consequences: the Judgment says that prior court decisions in analogous cases if inconsistent with this interpretation may be reversed in the procedure and within the limits envisaged by Art 311 of the Commercial Procedure Code.