Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Melegrito
RATIO: The principle of equitable estoppel would now operate
to prevent petitioner from asserting her alleged ownership over
the structure and defeating the alias writ of execution issued in
execution of the decision in the Civil Case. 2(a), Rule 131 of
the Rules of Court states: 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.
Thus, we have held: The principles of equitable estoppel,
sometimes called estoppel in pais, are made part of our law by
Art. 1432 of the Civil Code. Coming under this class is
estoppel by silence, which obtains here and as to which it has
been held that: x x x an estoppel may arise from silence as
well as from words. 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.
Phil. Savings Bank vs. Chowking Food Corp.
RATIO: The doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais
finds no application in the present case. The equitable doctrine
of estoppel was explained by this Court in Caltex, Inc. v. CA,
(1992): Under the doctrine of 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. A party may not go back on his
own acts and representations to the prejudice of the other
party who relied upon them. In the law of evidence, whenever
There is no question that the testimony of a single
witness, when it is reasonable and credible, is sufficient to
convict. Corroborative evidence is necessary when there are
reasons to suspect that the witness falsified the truth, or there
exist inherent incongruities in his testimony, or there is
probability that his observation has been inaccurate. We find
no fact or circumstance that would detract from the credibility
of Regalado's testimony.
People vs. Asis
RATIO: Certainly, it is not only by direct evidence that the
accused may be convicted of the crime charged.
Circumstantial evidence is resorted to when direct
testimony would result in setting felons free and deny
proper protection to the community. The former is not a
weaker form of evidence vis--vis the latter. The accused
may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence,
provided the proven circumstances constitute an
unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion
pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as