The Doctrine of Estoppel

6/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 783

ANNOTATION

THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL

by

MAURICIO C. ULEP*

___________________

§ 1. The Law, p. 719
§ 2. Definition and Concept of Estoppel, p. 720
§ 3. Purposes of Estoppel, p. 721
§ 4. Basis of estoppel, p. 722
§ 5. Nature of the principle of estoppel, p. 722
§ 6. Kinds of estoppel, p. 723
§ 7. Elements of estoppel in pais, p. 723
§ 8. Requisites of estoppel by conduct, p. 724
§ 9. Elements of estoppel as related to the party claiming it,
p. 724
§ 10. What is Promissory Estoppel or The Reliance Theory,
p. 725
§ 11. When will Promissory Estoppel not apply, p. 726
§ 12. What is doctrine of estoppel by judgment, p. 726
§ 13. What is collateral estoppel by judgment, p. 726
§ 14. What is estoppel by laches, p. 727
§ 15. What is jurisdiction by estoppel, p. 728
§ 16. Definition and nature of equitable estoppel, p. 729
§ 17. What is corporation by estoppel, p. 729
_______________
* Former Associate Dean, UE College of Law; Professor of Law; Author of Law

Books.

718
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Doctrine of Estoppel
§ 18. Reason behind the doctrine of corporation by estoppel,

p. 730
§ 19. What is agency by estoppel, p. 731
§ 20. When may estoppel by silence arise, p. 731
§ 21. When may technical estoppel arise, p. 732
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001728d01622027477c1c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
§ 22. When may estoppel be invoked, p. 732

§ 23. By virtue of the principle of estoppel, a party is
prohibited to change or vary his position in a judicial
proceeding, p. 732
§ 24. All the elements of estoppel must be proved with
convincing evidence, p. 734
§ 25. A different remedy sought or a diverse form of action
does not prevent estoppel of the former adjudication, p. 734
§ 26. When may estoppel be asserted, p. 735
§ 27. Similarities of Estoppel and Waiver, p. 735
§ 28. When an accused expressly agrees to a provisional
dismissal of his case, he is estopped from invoking double
jeopardy, p. 735
§ 29. To constitute estoppel, the actor must have knowledge
of the facts, p. 736
§ 30. Estoppel cannot be predicated on acts prohibited by
law or public policy, p. 736
§ 31. What is estoppel by deed, p. 736
§ 32. What is necessary to constitute estoppel by deed,
p. 736
§ 33. Estoppel may arise from the making of a promise,
p. 737
§ 34. Estoppel is effective only between parties and not to
strangers, p. 737
§ 35. The doctrine of apparent authority is a specie of
estoppel, p. 737
§ 36. Bank depositors are not estopped from questioning
wrongful withdrawals, p. 738

719
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 719

§ 37. Procedural matters, p. 738

___________________

§ 1. The Law

The law on estoppel is found in the New Civil Code and the
Revised Rules of Court, as follows:
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.
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.
Article 1433. Estoppel may be in pais or by deed.
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.
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 1436. A lessee or a bailee is estopped from asserting
title to the thing leased or received, as against the lessor or bailor.
Article 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;

720

(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.
Article 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 1439. Estoppel is effective only as between the parties
thereto or their successors-in-interest.
x x x x x x x x x
SEC. 2. Conclusive presumptions.—The following are
instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or
omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a
particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any
litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be
permitted to falsify it. (Rule 131, Revised Rules of Court)

§ 2. Definition and Concept of Estoppel

Estoppel 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, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is
permitted to deny the existence of such facts. (BA Finance
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 566 [1994]; Rizal
Commercial Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 657 SCRA 70 [2011]; Pinausukan

721
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 721

Seafood House, Roxas Blvd. Inc. v. Far East Bank & Trust
Company, now Bank of the Philippine Islands, 714 SCRA 226
[2014])
Estoppel rests on the rule that whenever a party has, by his
declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led the
other to believe a particular thing true, and to act, upon such belief,
he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or
omission, be permitted to falsify it. (Sotto v. Teves, 86 SCRA 154
[1978]; Philippine Realty Holdings Corporation v. Firematic
Philippines, Inc., 522 SCRA 493 [2007]; Philippine National Bank
v. Reblando, 680 SCRA 531 [2012])
It further bars him from denying the truth of a fact which has, in
the contemplation of law, become settled by the acts and
proceedings of judicial or legislative officers or by the act of the
party himself, either by conventional writing or by representations,
express or implied in pais. (Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA
239 [1998]; Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Gobonseng,
Jr., 496 SCRA 305 [2006]; Republic v. AFP Retirement and
Separation Benefits System, 688 SCRA 628 [2013])
The doctrine of estoppel states that if one maintains silence when
in conscience he ought to speak, equity will debar him from
speaking when in conscience he ought to remain silent — he who
remains silent when he ought to speak cannot be heard to speak
when he should be silent. (People v. Escote, Jr., 400 SCRA 603
[2003]; Rural Bank of Cabadbaran, Inc. v. Melecio-Yap, 731 SCRA
244 [2014])

§ 3. Purposes of Estoppel

The purposes of estoppel are:
(1) To forbid one to speak against his own act, representations or
commitments, to the injury of one to whom they were directed and
who reasonably relied thereon. (Philippine National Bank v. Court of

722

Appeals, 94 SCRA 357 [1979]; Philippine Realty and Holdings

Corporation v. Ley Construction and Development Corporation, 651
SCRA 719 [2011])
(2) It is a shield against injustice. (Insular Life Assurance
Company, Ltd. v. Asset Builders Corporation, 422 SCRA 148
[2004]; Estacio v. Pampanga I Electric Cooperative, Inc., 596
SCRA 542 [2009])
(3) It is designed to aid the law in the administration of justice
where, without its aid, injustice might result. (Orix Metro Leasing
and Finance Corporation v. M/V “Pilar-I,” 599 SCRA 345 [2009])

§ 4. Basis of estoppel

The principle of estoppel expressed in statutory form for the first
time in the New Civil Code is not really an innovation. It has its
origin in equity and, being based on moral right and natural justice,
finds applicability wherever and whenever the special circumstances
of a case so demand. (Castrillo v. Court of Appeals, 10 SCRA 549
[1964]; Megan Sugar Corporation v. Regional Trial Court of Iloilo,
Branch 68, Dumangas, Iloilo, 650 SCRA 100 [2011]; Fedman
Development Corporation v. Agcaoili, 656 SCRA 354 [2011])
Thus, a party may not go back on his own acts and
representations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon
them (Philippine National Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court,
189 SCRA 680 [1990]; British American Tobacco v. Camacho, 562
SCRA 511 [2008]) and said party must not be allowed to profit from
their own disregard of the rules. (Anderson v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 252 SCRA 116 [1996]; Laureano Investment
and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 272 SCRA 253
[1997])

§ 5. Nature of the principle of estoppel

According to the Code Commission, an important branch of
American law is estoppel. It is a source of many rules which

723
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 723

work out justice between the parties, thru the operation of the
principle that an admission or representation is rendered conclusive
upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as
against the person relying thereon. 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. (Panay Electric Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA
500 [1989]. See also Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 527
[1997]; Hojas v. Philippine Amanah Bank, 697 SCRA 505 [2013])
The real office of the equitable norm of estoppel is limited to
supplying deficiency in the law but it should not supplant positive
law. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 366 [1999])

§ 6. Kinds of estoppel

The kinds of estoppel are: (1) estoppel in pais, (2) estoppel by
deed, and (3) estoppel by laches. (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA
29 [1968])

§ 7. Elements of estoppel in pais

The elements of estoppel in pais are:

(1) There must have been representation or concealment of
material facts;
(2) The representation must have been made with
knowledge of the facts;
(3) The party to whom it was made must have been
ignorant of the truth of the matter; and
(4) It must have been made with the intention that the other
party would act upon it. (Bucoy v. Paulino, 23 SCRA 248
[1968]; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ong, 636 SCRA 266
[2010]; Abalos v. Darapa, 646 SCRA 200 [2011])

724

§ 8. Requisites of estoppel by conduct

The requisites for estoppel by conduct to operate are:
(1) There must have been a representation or concealment
of material facts;
(2) The representation must have been with knowledge of
the facts;
(3) The party to whom it was made must have been
ignorant of the truth of the matter; and
(4) It must have been with the intention that the other party
would act upon it. (Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v.
Court of Appeals, 333 SCRA 212 [2000])

§ 9. Elements of estoppel as related to the party claiming it

As related to the party claiming the estoppel, the essential
elements are:
(1) Lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of
the truth as to the facts in question;
(2) Reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements
of the party to be estopped;
(3) Action or inaction based thereon of such character as to
change the position or status of the party claiming the
estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice. (Philippine
National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 308 SCRA 229 [1999];
Estacio v. Pampanga I Electric Cooperative, Inc., 596 SCRA
542 [2009]; Pacific Rehouse Corporation v. EIB Securities,
Inc., 633 SCRA 214 [2010])

One who claims the benefit of an estoppel on the ground that he
has been misled by the representations of another must not have
been misled through his own want of reason-

725
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 725

able care and circumspection. A lack of diligence by a party

claiming an estoppel is generally fatal. If the party conducts himself
with careless indifference to means of information reasonable at
hand, or ignores highly suspicious circumstances, he may not invoke
the doctrine of estoppel. Good faith is generally regarded as
requiring the exercise of reasonable diligence to learn the truth and
accordingly, estoppel is denied where the party claiming it was put
on inquiry as to the truth and had available means for ascertaining it,
at least where actual fraud has not been practiced on the party
claiming the estoppel. (Mijares v. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 558
[1997], cited in Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan,
443 SCRA 377 [2004]. See also Tanay Recreation Center and
Development Corp. v. Fausto, 455 SCRA 436 [2005]; Dio v. St.
Ferdinand Memorial Park, Inc., 509 SCRA 453 [2006])

§ 10. What is Promissory Estoppel or The Reliance Theory

It means that estoppel may arise from the making of a promise,
even though without consideration, if it was intended that the
promise should be relied upon and in fact it was relied upon, and if a
refusal to enforce it would be virtually to sanction the perpetuation
of fraud or would result in other injustice. (Ramos v. Central Bank of
the Philippines, 41 SCRA 565 [1971]; Intercontinental Broadcasting
Corporation [IBC] v. Amarilla, 505 SCRA 687 [2006])
Promissory estoppel presupposes the existence of a promise on
the part of one against whom estoppel is claimed, and the promise
must be plain and unambiguous and sufficiently specific so that the
court can understand the obligation assumed and enforce the
promise according to its terms. (National Power Corporation v.
Alonzo-Legasto, 443 SCRA 342 [2004]; Accessories Specialist, Inc.
v. Alabanza, 559 SCRA 550 [2008])

726

§ 11. When will Promissory Estoppel not apply

Promissory Estoppel does not apply where there is no showing
that party assured another that it was agreeable to the latter’s
proposal mode of satisfying a existing obligation. (Komatsu
Industries [Phil.], Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 361 [1995])
It does not also apply where an alleged oral promise was
conditional, so that reliance upon was not reasonable. (Mendoza v.

§ 12. What is doctrine of estoppel by judgment

Under the doctrine of estoppel by judgment, the change of facts
will not affect the estoppel if no new element is introduced and the
legal rights and relations of the parties remain as before. (Gatus v.


§ 13. What is collateral estoppel by judgment

The term ‘estoppel’ has frequently been used in connection with
the doctrine of res judicata, not only with respect to the relitigation
of particular issues in a subsequent action on a different cause of
action, but also with respect to the relitigation of the same cause of
action. In some cases, the term ‘estoppel by judgment’ has been
used to describe the effect of a judgment to preclude relitigation of
the same cause of action, and the phrase ‘estoppel by verdict,’ to
describe the effect of the former proceeding to preclude further
litigation of the particular facts on which the jury necessarily made
findings in the former action. However, the decision have not been
uniform in this respect, and in some opinions, the term ‘estoppel by
judgment’ has been used to describe the rule precluding the
litigation of particular issues in a subsequent action on a different
cause of action. Sometimes, the term ‘estoppel by record’ is so used.
The more recent tendency is to describe the latter aspect of the
doctrine of res judicata as a ‘collateral estoppel’ or a ‘collateral
estoppel by judgment,’ as distinguished from the ‘direct estoppel by
judgment’ where

727
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 727

the earlier and later causes of action are identical. (Manila

Electric Company v. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 173 [1982];
Piñero v. National Labor Relations Commission, 437 SCRA 112
[2004])

§ 14. What is estoppel by laches

Estoppel by laches is a rule of equity which bars a claimant from
presenting his claim when, by reason of abandonment and
negligence, he allowed a long time to elapse without presenting the
same. (Pamplona v. Moreto, 96 SCRA 775 [1980]; Berboso v. Court
of Appeals, 494 SCRA 583 [2006]; Regalado v. Go, 514 SCRA 616
[2007])
It is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a
reasonable time, warranting presumption that the party entitled to
assert it, has abandoned it or declined to assert it. (La Campana
Food Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 223 SCRA 151 [1993];
Galicia v. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo, 521 SCRA 85 [2007]; Garcia
v. Garcia, 660 SCRA 1 [2011])
To be barred from bringing suit on grounds of estoppel, the delay
must be lengthy. (Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 600 [1995]) Thus:
(1) A party who impugns the court’s jurisdiction two years
and five months after the institution of the case is barred due
to estoppel by laches. (Mondejar v. Javellana, 295 SCRA 699

[1998])
(2) See also Declaro v. Court of Appeals, 346 SCRA 57
[2000], where a case to recover title and possession was filed
thirty (30) years after the registration of the land title.
(3) Aclan v. Court of Appeals, 387 SCRA 415 [2002],
where a litigant was barred from pursuing a foreclosure case,
four (4) years after the properties were foreclosed.

728

(4) South Pachem Development, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,

447 SCRA 85 [2004], where a party failed to question the
validity of an agreement despite the lapse of eleven (11) years.
(5) Cañezo v. Rojas, 538 SCRA 242 [2007], where a party
filed an action to recover property after seventeen (17) years
from the discovery of the registration of the disputed property.

Estoppel by laches is used in order to avoid an injustice. (Olizon
v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 148 [1994]; Arcelona v. Court of
Appeals, 280 SCRA 20 [1997]; Figueroa v. People, 558 SCRA 63
[2008])
The doctrine of estoppel by laches does not apply when the
government sues as a sovereign or asserts governmental rights.
(Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 406 SCRA 190 [2003])
Estoppel by laches is also applied in election cases.
(Divinagracia, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 594 SCRA 147
[2009])

§ 15. What is jurisdiction by estoppel

It says that although the court lacks jurisdiction, it acquires one
subsequently as when the defendant invokes it, by asking for
affirmative relief. (Balais v. Balais, 159 SCRA 37 [1988])
Thus, any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity
and may be struck down at anytime, even on appeal before the
Supreme Court. The only exception is where the party raising the
issue is barred by estoppel. (Solid Homes, Inc. v. Payawal, 177
SCRA 72 [1989]; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Perez, 611
SCRA 740 [2010]; Philippine Veterans Bank v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 617 SCRA 204 [2010])

729
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 729

§ 16. Definition and nature of equitable estoppel

It states that where one or two innocent persons must suffer a

loss, he who by his conduct made the loss possible must bear it.
(Veloso v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 593 [1996]; Metropolitan
Bank and Trust Company v. Cabilzo, 510 SCRA 259 [2006])
While the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or
errors of its officials or agents, the government must not be allowed
to deal dishonorably or capriciously with its citizens, and must not
play an ignoble part or do a shabby thing; and subject to limitations,
the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against public
authorities as well as against private individuals. (Republic v. Court
of Appeals, 301 SCRA 366 [1999]; Estate of the Late Jesus S.
Yujuico v. Republic, 537 SCRA 513 [2007]. See also Taganito
Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 726
SCRA 637 [2014])

§ 17. What is corporation by estoppel

It applies when persons assume to form a corporation and
exercise corporate functions and enters into business relations with
third persons. Where there is no third person involved and the
conflict arises only among those assuming the form of a corporation,
who therefore know that it has not been registered, there is no
corporation by estoppel. (Lozano v. De los Santos, 274 SCRA 452
[1997]; Premiere Development Bank v. Court of Appeals, 427 SCRA
686 [2004])
The doctrine of estoppel to deny corporate existence and capacity
applies to foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines may
bring suit in the Philippine courts against a Philippine citizen or
entity who had contracted with and benefited from said corporation.
(Agilent Technologies Singapore (Pte) Ltd. v. Integrated Silicon
Technology Philippines Corporation, 427 SCRA 593 [2004];
European Resources and

730

Technologies, Inc. v. Ingenieuburo Birkhahn + Nolte,

Ingeniurgesellschaft mbh, 435 SCRA 246 [2004])
Acts done by corporate officers beyond the scope of their
authority cannot bind the corporation unless it has ratified such acts
expressly or tacitly, or is estopped from denying them. (Woodchild
Holdings, Inc. v. Roxas Electric and Construction Company, Inc.,
436 SCRA 235 [2004])
Likewise, a corporation may be held in estoppel from denying as
against third persons the authority of its officers or agent who have
been clothed by it with ostensible or apparent authority. (Hydro
Resources Contractors Corporation v. National Irrigation
Administration, 441 SCRA 614 [2004])

§ 18. Reason behind the doctrine of corporation by estoppel

Even if the ostensible corporate entity is proven to be legally

nonexistent, a party may be estopped from denying its corporate
existence.
The reason behind this doctrine is obvious — an unincorporated
association has no personality and would be incompetent to act and
appropriate for itself the power and attributes of a corporation as
provided by law; it cannot create agents or confer authority on
another to act in its behalf; thus, those who act or purport to act as its
representatives or agents do so without authority and at their own
risk. And as it is an elementary principle of law that a person who
acts as an agent without authority or without a principal is himself
regarded as the principal, possessed of all the right and subject to all
the liabilities of a principal, a person acting or purporting to act on
behalf of a corporation which has no valid existence assumes such
privileges and obligations and becomes personally liable for
contracts entered into or for other acts performed as such agent. (Lim
Tong Lim v. Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, Inc., 317 SCRA 728
[1999]. See also Lipat v. Pacific Banking Corporation, 402 SCRA
339 [2003])

731
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 731

§ 19. What is agency by estoppel

It is that rule provided for in the New Civil Code which says:
If a person specifically informs another or states by public
advertisement that he has given a power of attorney to a third
person, the latter thereby becomes a duly authorized agent, in the
former case with respect to the person who received the special
information, and in the latter case with regard to any person. The
power shall continue to be in full force until the notice is rescinded
in the same manner in which it was given. (Article 1873, cited in
Naguiat v. Court of Appeals, 412 SCRA 591 [2003])
Likewise, the basis of agency is representation. The question of
whether an agency has been created is ordinarily a question which
may be established in the same way as any other fact, either by
direct or circumstantial evidence. Though that fact or extent of
authority of the agents may not, as a general rule, be established
from the declarations of the agents alone, if one professes to act as
agent for another, she may be estopped to deny her agency both as
against the asserted principal and the third persons interested in the
transaction in which he or she is engaged. (Doles v. Angeles, 492
SCRA 607 [2006])

§ 20. When may estoppel by silence arise

Estoppel by silence arises where a person, who by force of
circumstances is under a duty to another to speak, refrains from
doing so and thereby leads the other to believe in the existence of a
state of facts in reliance on which he acts to his prejudice. Silence
may support an estoppel whether the failure to speak is intentional
or negligent. (Santiago Syjuco, Inc. v. Castro, 175 SCRA 171

[1989]; NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association [NPC DAMA] v.
National Power Corporation [NPC], 727 SCRA 363 [2014])

732

§ 21. When may technical estoppel arise

In technical estoppel, the party to be estopped must knowingly
have acted so as to mislead his adversary, and the adversary must
have placed reliance on the action and acted as he would otherwise
not have done. Some authorities however, hold that what is
tantamount to estoppel may arise without this reliance on the part of
the adversary and this is called ratification or election by acceptance
of benefits, which arises when a party, knowing that he is not bound
by a defective proceeding, and is free to repudiate it if he will, upon
knowledge, and while under no disability, chooses to adopt such
defective proceeding as his own. (Maglucot-Aw v. Maglucot, 329
SCRA 78 [2000]; Cortes v. Court of Appeals, 395 SCRA 33 [2003])

§ 22. When may estoppel be invoked

Estoppel may be successfully invoked only if a party failed to
raise a question in the early stages of the proceedings. (Corona v.
Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 378 [1992]; Jimenez v. Macaraig, 219
SCRA 230 [1993])
It being an equitable principle, it may only be invoked by one
who comes to court with clean hands. (Barstowe Philippines
Corporation v. Republic, 519 SCRA 148 [2007])

§ 23. By virtue of the principle of estoppel, a party is
prohibited to change or vary his position in a judicial proceeding

By virtue of the principle of estoppel, a party is prohibited to
change or vary his position in a judicial proceeding. To permit him
to do so would be unfair to the other party. (Williams v. McMicking,
17 Phil. 408 [1910]; American Express v. Natividad, 46 Phil. 207
[1924]; People v. Archilla, 1 SCRA 698 [1961])

733
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 733

A person will not be permitted to take advantage of, or to

question the validity or propriety of, any act or omission of another
which was committed or omitted upon his own request or was
caused by his conduct. (Nielson & Co., Inc. v. Lepanto Consolidated
Mining Co., 18 SCRA 1040 [1966])
This is consistent with another case where it was held that:

“The appellee might have taken the wrong steps, and the
orders and decisions of the different courts, might not have
been also correct, but the bold fact remains that appellee is
now subject of estoppel. If a party having a right to pursue one
of several inconsistent remedies makes his election, institutes
a suit and prosecutes it to a final judgment, such election
constitutes an estoppel thereafter to pursue another and
inconsistent remedy.” (Soriano v. Sahagun, 10 SCRA 544,
548-549 [1964])

Likewise:

A party will not be allowed to make a mockery of justice
by taking inconsistent positions. The doctrine of estoppel bars
a party from trifling with the courts. (Depositario v. Hervias,
121 SCRA 756 [1983]. See also Republic v. Court of Appeals,
133 SCRA 505 [1984]; De los Santos v. Vibar, 558 SCRA 437
[2008])
x x x x x x x x x

This is so because:
Parties must take the consequences of the position they assume.
They are estopped to deny the reality of the state of things which
they have made appear to exist, and which others have been led to
rely. Sound ethics require that the apparent in its effects and
consequences should be as if it were real, and the law properly so
regards. (Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Morales, 173 SCRA
629 [1989])

734

§ 24. All the elements of estoppel must be proved with

convincing evidence

Estoppel cannot be sustained by mere argument or doubtful
inference; it must be clearly proved in all essential elements by clear,
convincing and satisfactory evidence. (Insular Life Assurance
Company, Ltd. v. Asset Builders Corporation, 422 SCRA 148
[2004]; Liga v. Allegro Resources Corp., 575 SCRA 310 [2008])

§ 25. A different remedy sought or a diverse form of action
does not prevent estoppel of the former adjudication

It is a firmly established rule that a different remedy sought or a
diverse form of action does not prevent the estoppel of the former
adjudication. (Heirs of Matilde Cenizal Arguson v. Meclat, 135
SCRA 678 [1985])
Besides, public policy is firmly set against unnecessary
multiplicity of suits; the rule of res judicata, like that against
splitting causes of action, are all applications of the same policy, that
matters once settled by a Court’s final judgment should not
thereafter be invoked again. Relitigation of issues already settled
merely burdens the Courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and
confusion, and wastes valuable time and energy that could be
devoted to worthier cases. (Aguila v. J.M. Tuazon & Co., Inc., 22
SCRA 690 [1968])
Likewise, equitable consideration estops an alien obligor from
pleading the invalidity of his bond for lack of approval by the
Secretary of Justice. He offered that bond to enable himself to enter
and stay in this country. He enjoyed benefits therefrom. He cannot in
law and good conscience be allowed to reap the fruits of that bond
and then jettison it. (Morano v. Vivo, 20 SCRA 562 [1967]) To
countenance such repudiation would be contrary to equity and
would put a premium on fraud and misrepresentation. (Saura Import
& Export Co., Inc. v. Solidum, 24 SCRA 574 [1968])

735
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 735

§ 26. When may estoppel be asserted

Estoppel may be asserted only when it is shown, among others,
that the representation must have been made with knowledge of the
facts and that the party to whom it was made is ignorant of the truth
of the matter. (Calimlim v. Ramirez, 118 SCRA 399 [1982])
Its use as a defense to a jurisdictional error is more of an
exception rather than the rule. The circumstances outlining estoppel
must be unequivocal and intentional, for it is an exception to
standard legal norms and is generally applied only in highly
exceptional and justifiable cases. (De Leon v. Court of Appeals
[Special Second Division], 245 SCRA 166 [1995])
Likewise, where a litigant submits a case for decision, it
voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of a hearing officer and he
will be barred for questioning its jurisdiction later due to estoppel.
(Skyworld Condominium Owners Association, Inc. v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 211 SCRA 565 [1992])

§ 27. Similarities of Estoppel and Waiver

The doctrine of estoppel is in quintessence the same as the
doctrine of waiver. The truth of both is that a dismissal, other than
on the merits, sought by the accused in a motion to dismiss, is
deemed to be with his express consent and bars him from
subsequently interposing the defense of double jeopardy on appeal
or in a new prosecution for the same offense. (People v. Obsania, 23
SCRA 1249 [1968]; Flordelis v. Castillo, 58 SCRA 301 [1974])

§ 28. When an accused expressly agrees to a provisional
dismissal of his case, he is estopped from invoking double
jeopardy

Where a criminal case is dismissed provisionally not only with

express consent of the accused but even upon the

736

urging of his counsel, there can be no double jeopardy if the

indictment against him is revived by the fiscal. The reason is, he
prevents the court from proceeding to the trial on the merits and
rendering a judgment of conviction against him, if warranted.
(People v. Obsania, 23 SCRA 1249 [1968]; People v. Garcia, 30
SCRA 150 [1969]; People v. Catolico, 38 SCRA 389 [1971])

§ 29. To constitute estoppel, the actor must have knowledge
of the facts

To constitute estoppel, the actor must have knowledge of the
facts and be appraised of his rights at the time he performs the acts
constituting estoppel, because silence without knowledge works no
estoppel. (Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 7 SCRA 367 [1963])

§ 30. Estoppel cannot be predicated on acts prohibited by
law or public policy

Estoppel cannot be predicated on acts prohibited by law or public
policy, for obvious reasons. (Baltazar v. Lingayen Gulf Electric
Power Co., Inc., 14 SCRA 522 [1965]; Ching v. Nicdao, 522 SCRA
316 [2007]; Pahud v. Court of Appeals, 597 SCRA 13 [2009])

§ 31. What is estoppel by deed

Estoppel by deed is a bar which precludes one party from
asserting as against the other party and his privies any right or title
in derogation of the deed, or from denying the truth of any material
facts asserted in it. (The Learning Child, Inc. v. Ayala Alabang
Village Association, 624 SCRA 258 [2010])

§ 32. What is necessary to constitute estoppel by deed

To constitute an estoppel by deed, a distinct and precise assertion
of a fact is necessary. Such estoppel should be cer-

737
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 737

tain to every intent. Estoppel by deed cannot prevent the denial of

an equitable title which is not identical with the legal title. (Iriola v.
Felices, 30 SCRA 202 [1969])

§ 33. Estoppel may arise from the making of a promise

Estoppel may arise from the making of a promise even though
without consideration, if it was intended that the promise should be
relied upon and in fact it was relied upon and if a refusal to enforce
it would be virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud or would
result in other injustice. (Prudential Bank v. Gapultos, 181
SCRA159 [1990])

§ 34. Estoppel is effective only between parties and not to
strangers

Estoppel is effective only as between the parties thereto or their
successors-in-interest. A stranger to a transaction is neither bound
by, nor in a position to take advantage of an estoppel arising
therefrom. (Resuena v. Court of Appeals, 454 SCRA 42 [2005]. See
also Caldo v. Caldo-Atienza, 485 SCRA 504 [2006])

§ 35. The doctrine of apparent authority is a specie of
estoppel

Under the doctrine of apparent authority, a hospital can be held
vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a physician providing care
at the hospital, regardless of whether the physician is an independent
contractor, unless the patient knows, or should have known, that the
physician is an independent contractor. The doctrine of apparent
authority is a specie of the doctrine of estoppel. Art. 1431 of the
New Civil Code provides that “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.” (Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center, 511 SCRA 204
[2006])

738

§ 36. Bank depositors are not estopped from questioning

wrongful withdrawals

Bank depositors are not estopped from questioning wrongful
withdrawals, even if they have failed to question those errors in the
statements sent by the bank to them for verification. By the nature of
its functions, a bank is required to take meticulous care of the
deposits of its clients, who have the right to expect high standards of
integrity and performance from it. (Bank of the Philippine Islands v.
Casa Montessori Internationale, 430 SCRA 261 [2004])

§ 37. Procedural matters

1. A defendant, after attacking the court’s jurisdiction in a
motion to dismiss, cannot thereafter invoke double jeopardy,
which plea assumes that the court has jurisdiction. A party

cannot be allowed to take inconsistent positions. (People v.
Casiano, 1 SCRA 478 [1961]; People v. Reyes, 98 Phil. 646
[1956]) He cannot adopt a posture of double-dealing without
running afoul of the doctrine of estoppel. (People v. Archilla,
1 SCRA 698 [1961]; People v. Quimsing, 12 SCRA 556
[1964])
2. Lessees are estopped from denying the land title of a
lessor. (Gregorio v. Mencias, 6 SCRA 114 [1962])
3. Jurisdiction over the parties is acquired by voluntary
appearance in court like submitting pleadings. If a party
believes that it was wrongly represented, it should have filed a
motion to dismiss. If not, it is deemed estopped from
questioning the jurisdiction of the court. (Nilo v. Romero, 1
SCRA 926 [1961]; Millenium Industrial Commercial
Corporation v. Tan, 326 SCRA 563 [2000]; Universal
Broadcasting Corporation v. Sandiganbayan [5th Division],
529 SCRA 782 [2007])

739
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 739

4. Issues not raised in the main case are barred by estoppel.

Issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised in
the main case are barred by estoppel. (Tuason v. Arca, 23
SCRA 1308 [1968]; Ong Lim Sing, Jr. v. FEB Leasing &
Finance Corporation, 524 SCRA 333 [2007]; Delfino, Sr. v.
Anasao, 734 SCRA 672 [2014])
5. The existence of estoppel, laches, fraud or prescription
of actions require presentation of evidence and determination
of facts, can be best resolved after trial on the merits. (Lim v.
Chan, 353 SCRA 55 [2001])
6. The raising of factual issues for the first time in a
pleading which is supplemented only to an appeal is barred by
estoppel. (De Rama v. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 94
[2001])
7. Estoppel cannot create a contract of insurance, neither
can it be successfully invoked to create primary liability, nor
can it give validity to what the law so proscribes as a matter of
public policy. (UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. v.
Masagana Telamart, Inc., 356 SCRA 307 [2001])
8. Estoppel applies to questions of fact not of law. (Estrada
v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 [2001]; Abines v. Bank of
the Philippine Islands, 482 SCRA 421 [2006])
9. In highly meritorious cases, estoppel or waiver may
operate as a shield to prevent a party from belatedly resorting
to the defense of lack of jurisdiction. (Oca v. Court of
Appeals, 378 SCRA 642 [2002])
10. Since estoppel operates to prevent showing the truth,
and is more or less in the nature of a forfeiture, it has often
been characterized as not favored

740

in the law. (C & S Fishfarm Corporation v. Court of

Appeals, 394 SCRA 82 [2002])
11. The rule on judicial admission is but an application of
the law on estoppel. (Tecson v. Commission on Elections, 424
SCRA 277 [2004])
12. The principles of estoppel apply insofar as they are not
in conflict with the provisions of the Civil Code, the Code of
Commerce, the Revised Rules of Court and special laws.
(Heirs of Salvador Hermosilla v. Remoquillo, 513 SCRA 403
[2007])
13. The mere fact that a law has been relied upon in the
past and all that time has not been attacked as unconstitutional
is not a ground for considering petitioner estopped from
assailing its validity. (British American Tobacco v. Camacho,
562 SCRA 511 [2008])
14. A party may not be permitted to adopt a different
theory on appeal to impugn the court’s jurisdiction, under the
doctrine of estoppel. (Ampong v. Civil Service Commission,
CSC-Regional Office No. 11, 563 SCRA 293 [2008])
15. The general rule is that the owner of goods who has
been unlawfully deprived of it may recover it even from a
purchaser in good faith, except if he is in estoppel. (Francisco
v. Chemical Bulk Carriers, Incorporated, 657 SCRA 355
[2011])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Doctrine of Estoppel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Doctrine of Estoppel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 783

* Former Associate Dean, UE College of Law; Professor of Law; Author of Law

718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

§ 18. Reason behind the doctrine of corporation by estoppel,

§ 22. When may estoppel be invoked, p. 732

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 719

§ 37. Procedural matters, p. 738

Article 1435. If a person in representation of another sells or

720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 721

722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Appeals, 94 SCRA 357 [1979]; Philippine Realty and Holdings

and Finance Corporation v. M/V “Pilar-I,” 599 SCRA 345 [2009])

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 723

724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

§ 8. Requisites of estoppel by conduct

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 725

able care and circumspection. A lack of diligence by a party

726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

§ 11. When will Promissory Estoppel not apply

legal rights and relations of the parties remain as before. (Gatus v.

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 727

the earlier and later causes of action are identical. (Manila

to estoppel by laches. (Mondejar v. Javellana, 295 SCRA 699

728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

(4) South Pachem Development, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 729

§ 16. Deﬁnition and nature of equitable estoppel

It states that where one or two innocent persons must suffer a

730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Technologies, Inc. v. Ingenieuburo Birkhahn + Nolte,

Even if the ostensible corporate entity is proven to be legally

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 731

§ 19. What is agency by estoppel

or negligent. (Santiago Syjuco, Inc. v. Castro, 175 SCRA 171

732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

§ 21. When may technical estoppel arise

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 733

A person will not be permitted to take advantage of, or to

This is consistent with another case where it was held that:

734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

§ 24. All the elements of estoppel must be proved with

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 735

§ 26. When may estoppel be asserted

Where a criminal case is dismissed provisionally not only with

736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

urging of his counsel, there can be no double jeopardy if the

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 737

tain to every intent. Estoppel by deed cannot prevent the denial of

738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

§ 36. Bank depositors are not estopped from questioning

which plea assumes that the court has jurisdiction. A party

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 739

4. Issues not raised in the main case are barred by estoppel.

740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

in the law. (C & S Fishfarm Corporation v. Court of

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like