Art.

1424 When a right to sue upon a civil obligation has lapsed by extinctive prescription, the
obligor who voluntary performs the contract cannot recover what he has delivered or the value
of the service he has rendered.
1. This provision talks about the act of the obligor in voluntarily performing the contract,
even if the obligor already knows that the contract has already prescribed.
Ex. X’s debt to Y has been extinguished by prescription turning it into a natural
obligation. Yet X, knowing of the prescription, voluntary paid the prescribed debt. So in
lieu of Art. 1424 X cannot now recover what has been paid to Y.
Art. 1425 When without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, a third person pays a
debt which the obligor is not legally bound to pay because the action thereon has prescribed,
but the debtor later voluntarily reimburses the third person, the obligor cannot recover what
he has paid.
1. This provision talks about the a bar for the obligor to recover the reimbursement that
he made to a stranger or a third person who paid his prescribed obligation.

Ex. R owes S 300,000. But the debt soon prescribes. Later V who is a third person/
stranger paid S against the consent of R. R here is not legally required to reimbursed V
because V has not benefitted R at all by the transaction. BUT IF DESPITE OF THAT R
STILL REIMBURSED V then by virtue of Art. 1425 R the obligor can no longer recover
what he has givin to V the third person.

Art. 1426 When a minor between eighteen and twenty-one years of age who has entered into

a contract without the consent of the parent or guardian, after the annulment of the contract
voluntarily returns the whole thing or price received, notwithstanding the fact that he has
not been benefited thereby, there is no right to demand the thing or price thus returned.

1. This provision talks about the restitution of a minor after the annulment of a contract. When
a contract is annulled, a minor is not obliged to make any restitution except insofar as he has
been benefited by the thing or price received by him. However, should he voluntarily return the
thing or price received although he has not been benefited thereby, he cannot recover what he
has returned.

Take note that this article applies only if the minor who has entered into a contract without the

consent of his parent or guardian is between 18 and 21 years of age.

The law considers that at such age, a minor has already a conscious idea of what is morally just
or unjust.

EXAMPLE:
S, a minor 18 years old, sold for P100,000.00 his car to B without securing the consent of his
parents. He lost P20,000.00 to a pickpocket although he was able to deposit the P80,000.00 in a
bank. If the contract is annulled, S is obliged to return only P80,000.00. However, he has the
natural obligation to return P100,000.00. If he voluntarily returns the whole amount, there is no
right to demand the same.

Art. 1427 When a minor between eighteen and twenty-one years of age, who has entered
into a contract without the consent of the parent or guardian, voluntarily pays a sum of
money or delivers a fungible thing in fulfillment of the obligation, there shall be no right to
recover the same from the obligee who has spent or consumed it in good faith.

1.This provision talks about the non recovery of a sum of money or the fungible thing that a
minor has already given after the fulfillment of the obligation by an obligee. There is no
recovery despite no parental consent was given by the parents.

Ex. A 19 years old girl named Juanita entered into a contract with Juanito for the construction
of a small café shop in Laguna, then after the construction is already finished she paid Juanito
the total amount of Php 100,000.00 without the consent of her parents or her guardian
therefore she can no longer recover the amount of the money that she paid even without the
consent of her guardian this is in lieu of art. 1427.

Art. 1428 When, after an action to enforce a civil obligation has failed, the defendant
voluntarily perform the obligation, he cannot demand the return of what he has delivered or
the payment of the value of the service he has rendered.

1.This provision talks about the non recovery of the payment or delivery of a defendant who
after winning the civil case still voluntarily performed his obligation.

Ex. X owes D 200,000, But X wouldn’t pay, D then instituted a case but D lose the case for
insufficient evidence. The judgement of the court becomes final. Later X voluntarily paid D his
debt. In lieu of Art. 1429 X can no longer recover what he has given to D.

Art. 1429 When a testate or intestate heir voluntarily pays a debt of the decedent exceeding
the value of the property which he received by will or by the law of intestacy from the estate of
the deceased, the payment is valid and cannot be rescinded by the payer.

1. This provision talks about the non recovery of the property of the heir, If that heir voluntarily
pays the debt of his decedent by using his inheritance even if that inheritance exceeds the value
of the debt.
Article 1430. When a will is declared void because it has not been executed in accordance
with the formalities required by law, but one of the intestate heirs, after the settlement of
the debts of the deceased, pays a legacy in compliance with a clause in the defective will, the
payment is effective and irrevocable.

If the will is void, the legacy would also be void and the deceased is considered to have died
without a will. This is the reason for the existence of the Article.

Legacy is the act of disposition by the testator in separating from the inheritance for
definite purposes, things, rights, or a definite portion of his property. It may be viewed also
as that same portion, or those things or special rights, which the testator separates from his
inheritance for a definite purpose. The purpose of a legacy is to reward friends, servants
and others for services they have rendered, to give alms, etc.

EXAMPLE

In a will defective for lack of the needed legal formalities, Xian, a friend, was given a
legacy. The legacy is void, and the whole estate should go to the intestate heirs. If however,
the intestate heirs give Xian the legacy, they cannot get it back now, provided that the debts
of the deceased have been settled.

Article 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon

the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying
thereon.

Estoppel is a bar which precludes a person from, denying or asserting anything contrary to
that which has been in contemplation of law, established the truth either acts of judicial or
representation either express or implied.

If one person speaks, acts or leads one to believe him and the latter reasonably relied on
those acts, words and behavior the former cannot later on back out and hide behind the
clock of denial.

Example:
Seller did not object to the construction of electric sub-station by a buyer on property
within subdivision for residential purposes only.

S sold to Meralco lots subject to restriction that only construction exclusively for
residential purposes shall be built. It appears that S did not object to the construction of an
electric substation by Meralco but merely asked in a letter for technical assurance that the
electric substation is not dangerous to neighbours nor would they be nuisance.

Later on S sought the cancellation of the sale for violation of restriction.

Supreme Court held that S is guilty of estoppel for this was no timely objection on his part
to the establishment of the substation as being not for residential purposes. On the contrary
by his letter S did not consider it violative of the restriction. (Meralco vs. CA)

Article 1432. The principles of estoppel are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in
conflict with the provisions of this Code, the Code of Commerce, the Rules of Court and
special laws.

Effect of the General Principles of Estoppel

The principles of Estoppel are only suppletory.

Pleading of Alleged Estoppel

If facts are alleged as constituting estoppel, they must be expressly pleaded. (Castañeda
v. Yap, 48 O.G.3364)

Article 1433. Estoppel may be in pais or by deed.

Kinds of Estoppel:

1. Estoppel by deed: as technical estoppel is the kind of estoppel that is in writing and
signed by someone who is now barred from denying the material facts stated in writing. It
applies only to the parties and their privies hence cannot be availed of by third person. It
may be utilized only in a suit on the deed itself or concerning any right arising from it.
Example:
1. If O conveys property she doesn’t own to A by warranty deed, but O later acquires title
to that land, then title immediately passes to A.

2. Estoppel in pais: as equitabble estoppel arises from conduct or misrepresentation and

includes all forms of estoppel not arising from a record, deed, written instrument. It is
found on morality and has for its purpose to serve justice.

Example:

1. A city entered into a contract with another party. The contract stated that it had
been reviewed by the city’s counsel and that the contract was proper. Estoppel
applied to estop the city from claiming the contract was invalid.

Article 1434. When a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers
it, and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title passes by operation of law
to the buyer or grantee

When a person sells or alienates a property or thing not yet in his possession of ownership
but later on acquires ownership or title over that same property, its title or ownership
passes effectively to the transferee or vendee.

Article 1435. If a person in representation of another sells or alienates a thing, the former
cannot subsequently set up his own title as against the buyer or grantee.

Estoppel against agents who sells for another

 If the representative has a power of attorney from the owner to sell,

 and the third person, relying and believing such right to represent, purchases
the property from the representative,
  the representative CANNOT claim that the sale he participated in is void
because he is the real owner of the thing sold.

 The representative’s acceptance of the power of attorney estops him from denying
that he is merely the representative of the owner.

 If a person assets ownership of a thing,

 such a person should NOT in any way accept representative status insofar as
the thing he claims as he is concerned.

Example:

 Marciano asserts that the piece of land on which he has built his house is his, having
inherited it from his father.

 HOWEVER, his neighbor, Jacinto, claims that Marciano’s father sold the same
piece of land to him.

 HOWEVER, for the sake of neighborliness, Jacinto offers to authorize Marciano to

lease the land out to someone who would like to lease a portion of it.

 Even if this would win a truce, Marciano should reject Jacinto’s offer.

 Accepting to act for and in behalf of Jacinto in regard to the lease to a third party of
the portion of the contested piece of land would estop Marciano from denying
Jacinto’s ownership.

Article 1436. A lessee or a bailee is estopped from asserting title to the thing leased or
received, as against the lessor or bailor.

Estoppel against tenant or bailee.

 A tenant will not be heard to dispute his landlord’s title. This estoppel applies even
though the lessor had no title at the time the relation of lessor and lessee was
created, and may be asserted not only by the original lessor, but also by those who
succeed to his title. Under the Rules of Court, conclusive presumptions include: The
tenant 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 Similarly, a
bailee in commodatum depositum or pledge is estopped to assert title to the thing
received as against the bailor.
Example:

Nancy Vinay is a tenant in a land owned by Chess Escudero. Under Art. 1436, Nancy’s
acceptance of a tenancy relationship is an acknowledgement of Chess Escudero’s
ownership of the land and therefore she is barred from claiming title over that land.