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.
Concept
• Generally speaking, estoppel is a bar which precludes a person from
denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in
contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the
acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his acts, representations, or
admissions, either express or implied. (28 Am. Jur. 2d. 599-600.)
Examples of estoppel
• In a case where the issue is whether the family home should be
considered as conjugal property, a husband who in a sworn
declaration constituting a family home has stated in said documents
that he was married, naming his wife, cannot later assert that he and
that girl are not married as a defense. (Montoya v Ignacio, L-101518,
Nov. 29, 1957)
Examples of estoppel
• X sold to Y(Meralco) lots subject to the restriction that it should be for
residential purposes only. X did not object when Y started
constructing an electrical substation but merely asked, in a letter, for
assurance that it would not be a nuisance or dangerous to the
neighbors.
• Held: X is guilty of estoppel for there was no timely objection on his
part to the establishment of the substation as being not for
residential purposes. On the contrary, by his letter, X did not consider
it as violative of the restriction. (Manila Electric Company vs. Court of
Appeals, 114 SCRA 173 [1982])
Examples of estoppel
• A government employee who accepts the benefits accruing from the
abolition of his office is estopped from questioning the validity of the
abolition and is deemed to have waived the right to contest the same
(Magana v. Agregado, L-12180, Apr. 29, 1960)
Applicability of estoppel
• The doctrine of estoppel has its origin in equity and is, therefore,
based on moral right and natural justice. Its applicability to any
particular case depends, to a very large extent, upon the special
circumstance of the case (Mirasol v. Municipality of Tabaco 43 Phil.
60)
Applicability of estoppel
• Estoppel cannot be predicated on an illegal act.
• It is available only in defense of a legal or equitable right or claim
made in good faith and can never be asserted to uphold crime, fraud,
injustice, or wrong of any character. Estoppel is to be applied against
wrongdoers, not the victim of a wrong. (19 Am. Jur. p. 804)
Eugenio v Perdido (L-7083 May 19, 1955)
• A Homestead Patent was issued to X. X sold the homestead to Y. Later,
X's heirs filed an action to recover said land arguing that it was only a
mortgage. Y contends that X having executed the deed of the sale, his
heirs are estopped from denying Y' ownership and possession.
• Held: Estoppel does not apply. No estoppel can be predicted on an
illegal act. It is generally considered that as between the parties to a
contract, validity cannot be given to it by estoppel if it is prohibited by
law or is against the public policy. If estoppel would be applied, it
would result in the violation of the Homestead Law
Pantranco v CIR (L-9736 May 20, 1957)
• Under a public service regulation which mentions that a public
service operator should not hire a person convicted of the crime of
theft. X, an public service operator, unknowingly hired such a convict.
May X be allowed to dismiss said convict in compliance with the
regulation?
• Held: Yes, X is not barred by estoppel. Firstly, the regulation may be
circumvented if estoppel was to be applied. Secondly, it would be
punishing the employer unnecessarily despite his desire to comply
with the regulation upon his discovery that a disqualification existed.
Applicability of estoppel
• The doctrine of estoppel does not apply against the government suing
in its capacity as sovereign or asserting government rights.
• The well-entrenched principle is that the State or government is
never estopped by the acts on the part of its officials or agents
• This concept is understood to refer to acts and mistakes of its officials
especially those which are irregular.

• Ex: Errors of tax officials do not bind the government or prejudice its
right to collect the taxes legally due from taxpayers. (Collector of
Internal Revenue vs. MacGrath, 111 Phil. 222 [1961].)
Applicability of estoppel
• If the act, conduct, or representation of the part sought to be
estopped is due to the ignorance founded on innocent mistake,
estoppel will not arise. (Kalalo v Luz, G.R. No. L-27782 July 31, 1970)
• A party who has no knowledge of nor gave consent to a transaction
may not be estopped by it (Lodovica v CA, G.R. No. L-29678. July 18,
1975.)
Applicability of estoppel
• The general rule is that estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction
to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action because jurisdiction
is conferred by law. Where there is none, no agreement of the parties
can provide one.
• Neither waiver nor estoppel shall apply to confer jurisdiction upon a
court but the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise under highly
meritorious and exceptional circumstances.
Examples
• A party is estopped from disputing the jurisdiction of the court after
invoking it himself

• While lack of jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a party’s active

participation in the proceedings before the court without jurisdiction
may estop such party from assailing such lack of jurisdiction
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.