Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

TITLE IV.

- ESTOPPEL
Art.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 may be defined as a condition or state by virtue of which an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.

and such other relies and acts on such belief, as a consequence of which he would be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts Estoppel by acceptance of benefits refers to a type of estoppel in pais which arises when a party by accepting benefits derived from a certain act or transaction, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other re lies and acts on such belief, as a consequence of which he would be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts Strictly speaking, estoppel by deed and estoppel by record are two distinct types of technical estoppel.

The reason for the inclusion of a separate chapter in the New Civil Code on estoppel, according to the Code Commission, is that the principle of estoppel, which is an important branch of American law, will afford solution to many questions which are not foreseen in our legislation. It is, of course, true that under the old Code there are some articles whose underlying principle is that of estoppel but the fact that it does not definitely recognize estoppel as a separate and distinct branch of our legal system has not at all helped in the solution of these problems.

Estoppel by deed is defined as a type of technical estoppel by virtue of which a party to a deed and his privies are precluded from asserting as against the other party and his privies any right or title in derogation of the deed, or from de any material fact asserted therein. Estoppel by record is defined as a type or technical estoppel by virtue of a party and his privies are precluded from denying the truth of matters set forth in a record whether judicial or legislative Estoppel by judgment refers to a type of estoppels by record by virtue of which the party to a case if precluded from denying the facts adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction. It may be defined as the preclusion of a pa a case from denying the facts adjudicated by a court of comp jurisdiction. It must not, however, be confused with res judicata Distinguished estoppels by judgment from res judicata Estoppel by judgment bars the parties from raising any question that might have been put in issue and decided in the previous litigation whereas res judicata makes a judgment conclusive between same parties as to the matter directly adjudged. Estoppel by laches failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to it."

Art. 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. Art. 1433. Estoppel may be in pais or by deed. Kinds of Estoppel under the New Civil Code 1. estoppel in pais (by conduct) 2. estoppel by deed or by record 3. (added by SC) estoppels by laches Estoppel in pais or by conduct is that which arises when one by his acts, representations, or admissions, or by his silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, as a consequence of which he would be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts. Kinds of Estoppel in pais 1. Estoppel by silence or inaction 2. Estoppel by acceptance of benefits Estoppel by silence or inaction refers to a type of estoppel in pais which arises when a party, who has a right and opportunity to speak or act as well as a duty to do so under the circumstances, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist

It is, therefore, a type of equitable estoppel which arises a party, knowing his rights as against another, takes no step or delays in enforcing them until the condition of the latter, who has no knowledge or notice that the former would assert such right become so changed that he cannot without injury or prejudice restored to his former state.

was finally commenced in court. Is this suit now barred by laches? According to the Supreme Court, the suit is now barred by laches. Even granting plaintiffs proposition that prescription lies against their father's recorded title, their passitivity and inaction for more than thirty-four years justifies the defendant in setting up the equitable defense of laches. All of the four elements of laches are present. As a result, the action of plaintiffs must considered barred. Laches is different from prescription (1) Laches is concerned with the effect of delay; prescription is concerned with the fact of delay. (2) Laches is principally a question of inequity of permitting a claim to be enforced, this inequity being founded on some chan. in the condition of the property or the relation of the parties; prescription is a question or matter of time; (3) Laches is not statutory, whereas prescription is statutory (4) Laches applies in equity, whereas prescription applies law. (5) Laches is not based on fixed time, whereas prescription is based on fixed time.

Basis of doctrine of laches or of stale demands Based upon grounds of public policy which requires for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claim unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. 4 essential elements of the doctrine of laches (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice, of the defendant's conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred. Application of the doctrine of laches The doctrine of laches has been applied several times in actions based on void contracts practically rendering the doctrine of imprescriptibility of such actions useless. Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez Where the plaintiff, in 1934, sold two fishponds to a daughter by a previous marriage, and the latter, in turn, sold the same fishponds to her mother and stepfather for the purpose of circumventing the legal prohibition against donations between spouses thus converting the said fishponds into conjugal properties, in an action commenced by said plaintiff to revindicate the conveyed properties twenty-eight years later, it was held that the doctrine of laches is applicable. Miguel vs. Catalino The factual setting of this case is as follows: The father of the plaintiffs, a nail-Christian, sold a parcel of land to the father of the defendant in 1928 without executive approval as required by Sec. 145 of the Administrative Code. Despite the invalidity of the sale, the former allowed the latter to enter, possess and enjoy the land in question without protest, from 1928 to 1943, when the former died. The plaintiffs, who succeeded the deceased in turn, remained inactive, without taking any step to revindicate the property from 1943 to 1962, when the present suit

Art. 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. Art. 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. Art. 1436. A lessee or a bailee is estopped from asserting title to the thing leased or received, as against the lessor or bailor. Art. 1437. When in a contract between third persons concerning immovable property, one of them is misled by a person with respect to the ownership or real right over the real estate, the latter is precluded from asserting his legal title or interest therein, provided all these requisites are present: (1) There must be fraudulent representation or wrongful concealment of facts known to the party estopped; (2) The party precluded must intend that the other should act upon the facts as misrepresented; (3) The party misled must have been unaware of the true facts; and (4) The party defrauded must have acted in accordance with the misrepresentation. Art. 1438. One who has allowed another to assume apparent ownership of personal property for the purpose of making any transfer of it, cannot, if he received the sum for which a pledge has been constituted, set up his own title to defeat the pledge of the property, made

by the other to a pledgee who received the same in good faith and for value. Art. 1439. Estoppel is effective only as between the parties thereto or their successors in interest.