● Estoppel by representation.

● Promissory estoppel (also known as equitable forbearance)

● Proprietary estoppel.
● Estoppel by convention.
● Estoppel by deed.
● Contractual estoppel.
● Waiver by estoppel.

estoppel in pais; (2) estoppel by deed; and (3) estoppel by laches.

Estoppel

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 legal principle that forbids someone from declaring or rejecting

anything that goes against what the law has established as true, whether by
explicit or implicit judicial or representational acts.

One cannot later back out and hide behind the clock of denial if they say,
act, or convince someone else to believe them, and the other person
reasonably relied on their acts, words, and conduct.

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.

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.

Art. 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 However, if, as above, O conveys property she doesn’t own to A by

warranty deed, but O later acquires title to that land, A may elect to
treat O’s lack of title at the time of the conveyance as a breach of
the covenants of seisin and right to convey (two of the six
traditional forms of Covenants for Title that are contained in a
general warranty deed), and sue O for damages. A cannot be forced
to accept O’s after-acquired title if she wishes instead to receive
damages.

3 If O conveys property she doesn’t own to A by quitclaim deed, but O

later acquires title to that land, then A owns nothing. This is
because O passed her interest to A with a quitclaim deed; at the
time of the conveyance, O’s interest was nothing, so she passed
nothing.

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.

2. A creditor unofficially informs a debtor that the creditor forgives the

debt between them. Even if such forgiveness is not formally
documented, the creditor may be estopped from changing its mind
and seeking to collect the debt, because that change would be
unfair.

3. A landlord informs a tenant that rent has been reduced, for

example, because there was construction or a lapse in utility
services. If the tenant relies on this statement in choosing to
remain in the premises, the landlord could be estopped from
collecting the full rent.

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.

Article 1435 NCC | speaks of…

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.

Article 1435 NCC | 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. (see Lizada
vs. Omanan, 59 Phil. 547 [1934].) 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. (Geminiano vs.
Court of Appeals, 259 SCRA 344 [1996].) Under the Rules of Court,
conclusive presumptions include: “(b) 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.” (Sec. 3-b, Rule
131, Rules of Court.) (2) Similarly, a bailee in commodatum (see
Art. 1933.), depositum (see Art. 1962.), or pledge (see Art. 2093.)
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.

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.

Here are the requisites specified in Article 1437:

1.Fraudulent Representation or Wrongful Concealment

- There must be a deliberate and deceitful act by one party, involving the
misrepresentation or hiding of facts related to the ownership or real rights of
the immovable property.
2. Intent to Deceive
- The party committing the fraud must have the intention that the other
party relies on the misrepresented facts. In other words, there should be a
deliberate attempt to induce the misled party to act based on false
information.
3. Unawareness of True Facts
- The party being misled must be unaware of the actual facts regarding
the ownership or real rights of the property. They must have no knowledge
of the deception taking place.
4.Action in Accordance with Misrepresentation
- The party who is defrauded must have taken action or made decisions
based on the misrepresented facts. Their actions should be a direct result of
the deception.

Example
Let's say Person A wants to sell a piece of land to Person B. However, Person
A is aware of a legal dispute over the ownership of the land with Person C.
Instead of disclosing this information, Person A tells Person B that there are
no legal issues or disputes regarding the property.

In this scenario:
- The fraudulent representation or wrongful concealment is Person A's failure
to disclose the legal dispute with Person C.
- Person A intends for Person B to rely on the false information, believing
there are no ownership issues.
- Person B is unaware of the true facts, as they are not informed about the
ongoing legal dispute.
- Person B decides to purchase the land based on the misrepresented facts.

If all these conditions are met, Article 1437 may preclude Person A from
later asserting their legal title or interest in the property, considering the
deceptive actions and the resulting harm to Person B.

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.

Article 1438 of the Civil Code of the Philippines addresses the concept of
apparent ownership of personal property and its implications in situations
involving pledges. It establishes a principle that if a person allows another to
appear as the owner of personal property and that other person creates a
pledge on the property, the original owner cannot later use their true title to
defeat the pledge if the pledgee acted in good faith and provided value.

1. Allowing Another to Assume Apparent Ownership

- The original owner (Person A) allows someone else (Person B) to appear

as the owner of personal property. This could be through actions,
statements, or any means that create the impression of ownership.

2. Purpose of Making a Transfer

- The apparent ownership is allowed for the purpose of facilitating the

transfer of the personal property. This transfer may involve a pledge, which
is a type of security interest where the property serves as collateral for a
debt.

3. Defeating the Pledge

 - The article prevents the original owner (Person A) from using their true
title to defeat the pledge on the property. In other words, if Person B, who
assumed apparent ownership, creates a pledge on the property, Person A
cannot later claim ownership to invalidate the pledge.

4. Conditions for Protection of Pledgee

- For this protection to apply, the pledgee (the person who receives the
property as collateral) must have received the property in good faith and
provided value. Good faith implies an honest and genuine belief in the
legality and fairness of one's actions.

Example

- Person A has a valuable painting and wants to secure a loan from Person
B.

- Person A allows Person B to hold the painting and present it to potential

lenders as collateral for the loan.

- Person B, in good faith, lends money to Person A based on the

understanding that the painting is valid collateral.

- Person A later attempts to reclaim the painting, arguing that they never
intended to transfer ownership.

- Article 1438 would prevent Person A from defeating the pledge made by
Person B, as long as Person B acted in good faith and provided value for the
loan.

This article is designed to protect the rights of the pledgee who, in good
faith, relies on the apparent ownership created with the original owner's
permission.

Art. 1439. Estoppel is effective only as between the parties thereto

or their successors in interest. addresses the legal principle of estoppel
and specifies its scope of effectiveness. The article states that estoppel is
effective only between the parties involved or their successors in interest.
Let's break down the key elements of this article:

1. Estoppel

- Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from asserting a claim

or right that is contrary to their previous actions, conduct, or statements,
especially if those actions or statements led another person to rely on them.

2. Effective Only Between Parties or Successors in Interest

 - The effectiveness of estoppel is limited to the parties involved in a
particular legal matter or those who succeed them in interest. In legal terms,
"successors in interest" typically refer to individuals or entities who inherit or
otherwise acquire the rights and obligations of the original parties.

- Person A owns a piece of land and allows Person B to believe that they
have the authority to sell the land.

- Based on this belief, Person B enters into a contract to purchase the land
from Person A.

- Later, Person A decides they do not want to sell the land and attempts to
back out of the deal.

- Article 1439 comes into play in this situation. If Person B or someone who
succeeds Person B's interest (like a subsequent buyer) relies on Person A's
initial representation and enters into a transaction, Person A may be
estopped from denying their authority to sell the land.