Tupong, Rovic Jay C.

Geronimo, Shaina Mae P.

Tejeso, Jessica Zaiza

TITLE III
NATURAL OBLIGATIONS
Provision: Article 1423. Obligations are civil or natural. Civil obligations give a right of action
to compel their performance. Natural obligations, not being based on positive law but on equity
and natural law, do not grant a right of action to enforce their performance, but after voluntary
fulfillment by the obligor, they authorize the retention of what has been delivered or rendered by
reason thereof. Some natural obligations are set forth in the following articles.

Explanation/Example:
The provision defines what constitutes a "natural obligation" and how it differs from a "civil
obligation."
Natural obligations Civil obligations

Based on equity and natural law Based on positive law

Not enforceable in a court of action Enforceable in a court of action
Voluntary Fulfilment

Examples of Natural Obligation:

1. Paying despite extinctive prescription
Provision: Article 1424. When a right to sue upon a civil obligation has lapsed by extinctive
prescription, the obligor who voluntarily performs the contract cannot recover what he has
delivered or the value of the service he has rendered.
Example: The prescriptive period to file a case based on a written agreement is 10 years from
the time the right of the action accrues. If the creditor does not collect the amount of the loan
after 10 years from the time it should be paid, such creditor can no longer collect from the debtor.
If the debtor, despite the lapse of the period and knowing that the debt has already prescribed,
pays the creditor, such debtor can no longer recover the payment.
2. 3rd Person paying against the will of the debtor
When without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, a 3rd person pays a debt which the
obligator is not legally bound to pay because the action thereon has prescribed, but the debtor
later voluntarily reimburses the 3rd person, such debtor can no longer recover such payment.
(NCC, Art. 1425)

3. Contract made by a minor

Provisions: Article 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.
Article 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. (1160A)
An incapacitated person is not obligated to make any restitution except insofar as he has been
benefited by the thing or price received by him.
NOTE: Under the law, a person 18 years of age is no longer a minor, but majority age; hence his
contract is not annullable on the ground of incapacitation.
However, if the law is applicable the minor who voluntarily makes payment of restitution of
what he has obtained by contract even though he has no legal obligation to make any payment or
restitution, can no longer recover what he has returned.
4. Performance by winning party
Provision: Article 1428. When, after an action to enforce a civil obligation has failed the
defendant voluntarily performs the obligation, he cannot demand the return of what he has
delivered or the payment of the value of the service he has rendered.
5. Voluntarily payment of an heir in excess of inherited property.
Provision: Article 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.
Example: Mr.A is indebted to Mr.B for P10,000.00. Mr.A later on dies, with Mr.C as his heir who
is entitled only to pay P5,000.00 from the estate of Mr.A. If C voluntarily pays Mr.B P10,000.00,
Mr.C can no longer recover such amount.
6. Payment of a void legacy
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.
 Title IV
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 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.

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. 

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. 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.

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.

 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.
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.

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;
(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.

ESTOPPEL CONCERNING IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

To apply this Article, one should have been misled, otherwise there is no estoppel. Knowledge of
the true facts by the stranger prevents deception, so estoppel cannot apply. On the part of the
party who is to be in estoppel, should have made a fraudulent representation or wrongful
concealment of facts known to him.

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.
This article applies only to personal property. It deals with estoppel by acceptance of benefits. It
is based upon the acceptance and retention by one having knowledge or notice of the facts, of
benefits from a transaction, contract or statute which he might have rejected or contested.
Example:
Victor owns a car and he needs a loan but he loathe to make one. So he makes it appear by a
deed of donation that his friend Randolf is the car’s owner. It is then Randolf who executes a
chattel mortgage on the car turning over the proceeds of the mortgage to Victor. When Victor has
received the proceeds he is estopped from assailing the validity of the mortgage by asserting that
he is the factual owner of the car.

Article 1439. Estoppel is effective only as between the parties thereto or their successors in
interest.
Persons Bound by Estoppel
       Both parties are, however, bound such as parties to a sale. Successors-in-interest (as well as
privies and grantees) are bound but third parties are not.