Report On Estoppel 1437 To 1439
Report On Estoppel 1437 To 1439
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 of 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 misrepresentation
SECOND SLIDE:
The rule is well settled that the title to land or real property may pass by an equitable estoppel which is
effectual to take the title to land from one person and vest it in another where justice requires that such
action be done.
THIRD SLIDE:
Example: X, owner of a parcel of land, and Y made it appear in a document that Y is the real owner. Y or
his successors in interest cannot afterwards assert ownership over the land as it cannot be said that Y
was misled by the false representation being party to the same.
X would have been estopped from claiming any right over the property had it been sold by Y to Z, a
purchaser in good faith.
FOURTH SLIDE:
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.
FIFTH SLIDE:
This estoppel is based upon the acceptance and retention by one having knowledge of the facts of the
benefits fro a transaction which he might have rejected.
SIXTH SLIDE:
It has been held that where an employee had accepted the benefits accruing from the abolition of his
office by enjoying his unused vacation and sick leave and receiving the corresponding gratuity he is
estopped from questioning its validity or deemed to have waived the right to contest the same.
(Magana vs. Auditor General, 107 Phil. 900 [1960])
SEVENTH SLIDE:
A person who obtains a license under a law and seeks for a time to enjoy the benefits thereof, cannot
afterwards, and when the license is sought to be revoked, the question, the constitutionality of an act
(Philippine Scrappers, Inc. vs. Auditor General, 96 Phil. 454 [1955])
EIGHTH SLIDE:
Art.1439. Estoppel is effective only as between the parties thereto or their successors in interest.
Parties Affected – An estoppel operates on the parties to the transaction out of which it arises and their
privies. A stranger to a transaction is neither bound b, nor in a position to take advantage of, an estoppel
arising therefrom.
The reason for this rule is that mutuality is an essential element of an estoppel; an estoppel must bind
both parties or neither is bound.
NINTH SLIDE:
No Estoppel against government – The government is not estopped by mistake or error on the part of its
officials or agents, the erroneous application and enforcement of the laws by public officers does not
prevents subsequent correct application of the statute.