Civil Code

Agency; agency by estoppel. The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of
public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is 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. The doctrine of
estoppel springs from equitable principles and the equities in the case. It is
designed to aid the law in the administration of justice where without its aid
injustice might result. It has been applied by this Court wherever and whenever
special circumstances of a case so demand.
Laches. Laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length
of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been
done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned
or declined to assert it. There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or
staleness of demand; each case is to be determined according to its particular
circumstances, with the question of laches addressed to the sound discretion of the
court. Because laches is an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by
equitable considerations and should not be used to defeat justice or to perpetuate
fraud or injustice.
Unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment exists when a person unjustly retains a
benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of
another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
Under Art. 22 of the Civil Code, there is unjust enrichment when (1) a person is
unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with
damages to another. The term is further used to depict result or effect of failure to
make remuneration of or for property or benefits received under circumstances that
give rise to legal or equitable obligation to account for them; to be entitled to
remuneration, one must confer benefit by mistake, fraud, coercion, or request.

Estoppel (Article 1431)

An admission;
Is rendered conclusive
Upon the person making it; and
Cannot be denied or disproved against the person relying thereon

Concept of Estoppel

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 own deed or
representation, either expressed or implied.
It concludes the truth in order to prevent fraud and falsehood, and imposes silence
on a party only when in conscience and honesty he should not be allowed to speak.
Distinguished from Waiver
A waiver is a voluntary and intentional abandonment or relinquishment of a known
right. It carries no implication of fraud. It involves the act or conduct of only one of
the parties.
An equitable estoppel may arise, however, even where there is no intention on the
part of the person estopped to relinquish any existing right and frequently carries
the implication of fraud. It involves the conduct of both parties.
In Lopez v. Ochoa (L- 7955, May 30, 1958), the Supreme Court held that waiver and
estoppel are frequently used as convertible terms. The doctrine of waiver belongs to
the family of, is of the nature of, is based on, estoppel. The essence of waiver is
estoppel and where there is no estoppel, there is no waiver. This is especially true
where the waiver relied upon is constructive or implied from the conduct of a party.
Distinguished from Ratification
In ratification, the party is bound because he intended to be bound; in estoppel, the
party is bound notwithstanding the fact that there was no such intention because
the other party will be prejudiced and defrauded by his conduct unless the law
treats him as legally bound.
Distinguished from Fraud
Estoppel exists with or without a contract; fraud presupposes an attempt to enter
into a valid agreement or contract.
While estoppel may raised as a defense, fraud may properly be a cause of action on
account of the vitiated consent that it produces.
Admissions
A party may be estopped to insist upon a claim, assert an objection, or take a
position which is inconsistent with an admission which he had previously made and
in reliance upon which the other party has changed his position.
Silence or Inaction

This is sometimes referred to as estoppel by standing by or laches. Mere

innocent silence will not work an estoppel. There must also be some element of
turpitude or negligence connected with the silence by which another is misled to his
injury. But one who invokes this doctrine of estoppel must show not only unjustified
inaction but also some unfair injury would result to him unless the action is held
barred.
Estoppel by acquiescence is closely related to estoppel by silence. In the former, a
person is prevented from maintaining a position inconsistent with one in which he
has acquiesced.
Nature of Laches
Laches is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to
do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier;
it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to
assert it.
Elements of Laches
Conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to
the situation complained of;Delay in asserting complainants rights after he had
knowledge of the defendants conduct and after he has had an opportunity to
sue;Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant
would assert the right on which he bases his suit;
Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the
complainant.
Laches and Prescription Distinguished
PRESCRIPTION
LACHES

Concerned with the fact of delayConcerned with the fact of delay

A matter of time
Principally a question of inequity founded on some change in the
condition of the property or the relation of the parties
Statutory

Not statutory

Applies to law

Applies to equity

Based on a fixed time

Not based on a fixed time

Kinds of Estoppel
1.

Technical Estoppels

Estoppel by record the preclusion to deny the truth of matters set forth in a
record, whether judicial or legislative, and also to deny the facts adjudicated by a
court of competent jurisdiction
Example: the conclusiveness of a judgment on the parties to a case
Estoppel by deed a bar which precludes one party to a deed and his privies 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; a written
instrument is necessary for there to be estoppel by deed
Some doctrines:
If the deed or instrument is null and void because of the contract, there is no
estoppel
Ordinarily, the person estopped must be capacitated; but a minor is clever enough
to deceive others, estoppel may result
If a person, who is not a party to the instrument, notarizes the same, he is not in
estoppel
2. Equitable Estoppel or Estoppel in Pais
It 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. It takes place in a situation where because if a partys
action or omission, he is denied the right to plead or prove an otherwise important
fact.
This may be estoppel:
by conduct or by acceptance of benefits
by representation or concealment
by silence
by omission
by laches
Some doctrines:

Conduct because of ignorance or mistake does not result in estoppel

Estoppel by laches bars an action to create a vested right (executory interest) but
does not bar an action to protect a vested right (executed interest)
Just because a person is silent does not necessarily mean that he will be in
estoppel; there should have been a duty or obligation to speak
A mere promise to perform or to omit at some future time does not necessarily
result in estoppel (promissory estoppel); for this to exist, the promise must have
been relied upon and prejudice would result unless estoppel is applied
Elements of Estoppel in Pais
In relation to the party sought to be estopped:
Conduct amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts or at
least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than and
consistent with those which the party subsequently attempts to assert;
Intent or at least expectation that this conduct shall be acted upon by at least
influence the other party;
Knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts
In relation to the party claiming the estoppel:
Lack of knowledge or of the means of knowing the truth as to the facts in question;
Reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statement as to the facts in question;
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
Estoppel against Owner
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:
There must be fraudulent representation or wrongful concealment of facts known to
the party estopped;
The party precluded must intend that the other should act upon the facts as
misrepresented;
The party misled must have been unaware of the true facts; and

The party defrauded must have acted in accordance with the misrepresentation.
An estoppel operates on the parties to the transaction out of which it arises and
their privies.
The government is not estopped by mistake or error on the part of its officials or
agents; the erroneous application and enforcement of the law by public officers
does not prevent a subsequent correct application of the statute.
Natural Law
Immutable and independent of all human regulations
Includes those rules which are neither written nor promulgated, but are derived
from reason and nature
Types of Obligations:
Moral obligations duties of conscience completely outside the field of law
Natural obligations not sanctioned by any action but have a relative juridical effect
Civil obligations juridical obligations which apparently are in conformity with
positive law but are contrary to juridical principles and susceptible of being annulled
Mixed obligations have full juridical effect
Conditions Necessary for Natural Obligation to Arise:
Juridical tie which is not prohibited by law
This tie is not given effect by law
When a debtor offers a guarantor for his natural obligation, he impliedly accepts the
coercive remedies to enforce the guaranty, and therefore, the transformation of the
natural obligation into a civil obligation.

The principle of abuse of rights is found under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, which states that:
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of
his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good
faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage
to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
the damage.
The above articles, depart from the classical theory that he who uses a right
injures no one. The modern tendency is to depart from the classical and traditional
theory, and to grant indemnity for damages in cases where there is an abuse of
rights, even when the act is not illicit.
When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms
enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby
committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. Although the
requirements of each provision is different, these three (3) articles are all related to
each other. As the eminent Civilist Senator Arturo Tolentino puts it: With this article
(Article 21), combined with articles 19 and 20, the scope of our law on civil wrongs
has been very greatly broadened; it has become much more supple and adaptable
than the Anglo-American law on torts. It is now difficult to conceive of any
malevolent exercise of a right which could not be checked by the application of
these articles (Tolentino, 1 Civil Code of the Philippines 72).
There is however, no hard and fast rule which can be applied to determine whether
or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked. The question of whether or
not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated, resulting in damages under
Articles 20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law, depends on the
circumstances of each case. (Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. Court
of Appeals, 176 SCRA 778 [1989]).
The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are the following: (1) There is a
legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of
prejudicing or injuring another. Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other
provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction (Tolentino,
supra, p. 71). Thus, anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of
his legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for
injuries suffered thereby. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the
following elements: 1) There is an act which is legal; 2) but which is contrary to
morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; 3) and it is done with intent to
injure. Thus, under any of these three (3) provisions of law, an act which causes
injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages.
Of the three articles, Art. 19 was intended to expand the concept of torts by
granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is
impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. If mere fault
or negligence in ones acts can make him liable for damages for injury caused
thereby, with more reason should abuse or bad faith make him liable. The absence
of good faith is essential to abuse of right. Good faith is an honest intention to

abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through the
forms or technicalities of the law, together with an absence of all information or
belief of fact which would render the transaction unconscientious. In business
relations, it means good faith as understood by men of affairs.
While Article 19 may have been intended as a mere declaration of principle, the
cardinal law on human conduct expressed in said article has given rise to certain
rules, e.g. that where a person exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or unjustly
or performs his duties in a manner that is not in keeping with honesty and good
faith, he opens himself to liability.
Article 19 of the Civil Code, sets certain standards which may be observed not only
in the exercise of ones rights but also in the performance of ones duties. These
standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to
observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes the primordial
limitation on all rights: that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth
in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or
granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality.

MORAL DAMAGES - (PBMF-MWSS)

a.

Physical suffering

b.

Besmirched reputation

c.

Mental anguish

d.

Fright

e.

Moral shock

f.

Wounded feelings

g.

Social humiliation

h.

Serious anxiety

NOMINAL DAMAGES
- adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded
by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him

ELEMENTS:
a.

Plaintiff has a right

b.

Right of plaintiff is violated

c.

Purpose is not to identify but vindicate or recognize right violated

TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES

- more than nominal but less than compensatory where some pecuniary loss has
been suffered but its amount can't be proved with certainty due to the nature of the
case
REQUISITES:
a.

Some pecuniary loss

b.

Loss is incapable of pecuniary estimation

c.

Must be reasonable

Republic Act No. 9904

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A MAGNA CARTA FOR HOMEOWNERS AND HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 72. Prohibited Acts. It shall be prohibited for any person:P a g e | 33
a. To compel a homeowner to join the association, without prejudice to
the provisions of the deed of restrictions, its extensions or renewals as
approved by the majority vote of the members or as annotated on the
title of the property; the contract for the purchase of a lot in the
subdivision project; or an award under a CMP project or a similar
tenurial arrangement;
b. To deprive any homeowner of the right to avail of or enjoy basic

community services and facilities provided that the dues, charges, and
other fees for such services have been duly paid;
c. To prevent any homeowner who has paid the required fees and
charges from reasonably exercising the right to inspect association
books and records;
d. To prevent any member in good standing from participating in
association meetings, elections and referenda;
e. To deny any member due process in the imposition of administrative
sanctions;
f. To exercise rights and powers as stated in Section 10 of the Act in
violation of the required consultation and approval of the required
number of homeowners or members;
g. To unreasonably fail to provide basic community services and facilities
and maintain, repair and replace their residential abode.
Section 73. Penalties and Sanctions. Any person who, intentionally or
by gross negligence, violates any provision of law, rules and regulations, fails to
perform duties and functions mandated by law and/or violates the rights of the
members, shall be punished with a fine of not less than Five Thousand Pesos
(Php5,000.00) but not more than Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) and
permanent disqualification from being elected or appointed as member of the
board, officer or employee of the association, without prejudice to being charged
before a regular court for violations of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code,
Civil Code and other pertinent laws.
If the violation is committed by the association, the members, officers,
directors or trustees of the association who have actually participated in,
authorized, or ratified the prohibited act shall be held liable.

If the violation is committed by the employees and agent who acted in

gross violation of the provisions of the Act, the officers, directors or trustees, or
incorporators of the association shall be jointly and severally liable with the
offending employees, agents, and the association.