Title IV- ESTOPPEL Article 4131. Concept of Estoppel Doctrines: 1.

Conduct because of ignorance or mistake does not result in estoppel 2. Estoppel by laches- unreasonable delay in bringing a court action, even if the period of prescription has not yet lapsed a. Bars an action to create a vested right b. Does not bar an action to protect a vested right c. V. Recovery in illegal contracts- Latter prevails; public policy Equitable 1. 2. 3. defense of laches requires four elements: Complaint has a right Defendants conduct; opportunity to institute a suit Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that that complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant a. Or the suit is not held to be barred Mere silence does not mean the person will be in estoppel. There should be a DUTY OR OBLIGATION to speak A mere promise to perform or to omit at some future time does not necessarily result in estoppel.

is a bar which precluded a person from denying or asserting anything contrary to that which has been, in contemplation of law, established as the truth either by acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed or representation either express or implied

Waiver and Estoppel - Doctrine of waiver belongs to the family of, nature of, is based on, Estoppel - Where there is no estoppel, there is no waiver Case: ROYALES v. IAC- Recourse to the barangay court; if the aggrieved party did not make a timely objection it is deemed waived- estoppel PUREZA v. CA, Asia Trust Development Bank - proper and timely in heading off petitioners shrewd efforts at renouncing his previous acts to the prejudice of parties who had dealt with him honestly and in good faith (petitioner having performed affirmative acts upon which the respondents based their subsequent actions) CRUZ v. SPS. MALOLOS- petitioner did not indicate the existence of a coownership of such property- Estoppel Examples: 1. Sworn declaration 2. Saying that there was no defect in the promissory note 3. Alleged at one time in court 4. Claiming of salary which was omitted in the contract 5. Vendee a retro and vendor a retro 6. Taxpayer repeatedly requested for reinvestigation of his case and therefore persuaded a government to postpone the collection of tax- cannot set up prescription of the action 7. If the registered owner of a private or public vehicle sells it to another, but does not cancel its registration if the buyer causes damage or injury to another 8. Acceptance of benefits from an abolished office; waived persons right to question the abolition FIELDMANS INSURANCE CO v. VARGAS - Insurance for a common carriers liability; still liable; contract of insurance is one of perfect good faith for both insurer and insured MANILA ELECTRIC CO v. CA- fails to object to the construction of an electric substation- contractual estoppels PANTRANCO v. COURT OF IND.REL.- when estoppel does not apply- a public service operator is not allowed to employ a person who has been convicted of the crime of theft. LUZON STEVEDORING CO v. LUZON MARINE DEPT UNION- Estoppell by laches does not apply to employees claiming for overtime pay No estoppels can be invoked if the complaining party has not been misled

4. -

To exist, the promise must be relied on

Estoppel by deed- which precludes a party to a deed and his privies from asserting as against the other and his privies an right or title in derogation Must be a WRITTEN INSTRUMENT Doctrines: 1. Deed or instrument is null and void if the contract is illegal- NO ESTOPPEL 2. Normally person estopped must be capacitated; but if a minor is clever enough to deceive others, estoppels may result 3. If a person notarizes (and he is not a party to) the instrument; he is not in estoppels Art. 1434. Sale of non-owner Prejudice in not essential Sale of after acquired property Estoppel here Is by operation of law Inquimboy v. de Cruz- although Albea was not yet the registered owner at the time he sold it to cruz, the fact remains that he subsequently acquired valid title in his own name. The title was later transferred to cruz Llacer v. Bustillo and Achaval- if the deed of sale is alleged to be a forgery, this is a question of fact that should be threshed out in the trial Art 1435. Article 1436. Estoppel on the Part of a Lessee or a bailee

Erroneous application and enforcement of the law- not considered in estoppels Affirmative acts of officials may raise estoppels against the government o Omission or neglect of government official does not create estoppel against the government

Who is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them Landlord needs to prove the existence of a contract of lease Also applies to a donee, servant, pr agent DOES NOT APPLY: if the tenant does not admit expressly or implicitly the existence of the lease contract

SSC v. SPS ALMEDA- between Almedas testimony and the SSS Resolution- the later certainly carries greater probative value. Thus the respondents were indeed in estoppel LAUREL v. CSC- admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon LIM v. QUEENSLAND TOKYO COMMODITIES, INC- a petitioner cannot be estopped in questioning the validity of a customers agreement and from denying the effects of his conduct ARTICLE 1432 Suppletory effect Estoppels must be expressly pleaded ARTICLE 1433 Kinds of Estoppel: a. Estoppel IN PAIS (equitable estoppels) a. By conduct or by acceptance of benefits b. By representation or concealment c. By silence d. By omission e. By laches (unreasonable delay in suing) b. Estoppel BY DEED (technical estoppels) a. Estoppel by deed proper (written insutrment) in the form of a bond or a mortgage b. Estoppel by judgment (court record)- res judicata Makati Leasing and Finance Corp v. CA- One who agrees to executing a chattel mortgage is stopped from denying the chattel mortgage on the ground that the subject matter is immovable property Estoppel in PAIS- it arises when one by his acts, representation or admissions, or by his silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or thru culpable negligence induces another to believe certain facts to exist, and such other rightfully relies and act on such belief so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts Estoppel Exist with or without a contract May be raised as a defense Fraud Presupposes entering into a valid contract May properly be the case of action, on account of vitiated consent

Art 1437. Estoppel Concerning Immovable Property One should have been misled, otherwise there is no estoppel Should have made a fraudulent representation or wrongful concealment of facts known to him Fabie, et. Al v. City of Manila- Initially, a certain estero as the boundary of his property. Later, he submitted a formal application , this time the estero was inside the estate. Is Fabie in estoppel? NO, for the City could not have been misled, since its officials never saw the plan. Cristobal v. Gomez- if a party is part of collusion, and therefore, he could not have been misled. Had third parties been misled, there would have been estoppel Effect of consent on the Part of the True Owner - Ireneo with his childrens consent sold a property of his deceased wife. Later the children claimed part of the property stating that the sale. The child are estopped from asserting their rights in view of their acquiescence to the sale. Art 1438. Allowing someone to assume apparent ownership of personal property Acceptance of benefits If there was no benefit: other party was misled into giving credit Art 1439. Estoppel is effective only as between the parties thereto or their successors in interest Government is not bound by estoppels, particularly so if there has been an erroneous application and enforcement of the law Applicability to questions of fact and not of law Estoppel may not validate a void contract Agency by estoppel