Estoppel

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.

by: Kristia Capio


Kapag ang kontrata sa pagitan ng ikatlong partido na may pananagutan sa mga pag-aaring may matibay na pinanghahawakan, kapag ang alin mang sa kanila ay hindi napagbigyan bilang respeto sa kanilang pagmamay-ari o karapatan sa mga ito, ang mga ito ay maaaring hadlangan kung ang mga sumusunod ay narito:

1) Kung mayroong panlilinlang sa representasyon o maling pagtatago ng mga katunayan sa partido na nagkasundo ng estoppel.

2) Kapag mayroong partido na kakatawan at maninindigan na mayroong maling interpretasyon sa mga katunayan.

3) Kung ang partido na nilinlang ay walang alam sa totong katotohanan.

4) Kung ang partido na nilinlang ay umaksyon ng nararapat sa mga maling interpretasyon.


COMMENT:
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.

 

EXAMPLE
Untitled.jpg
To misled others, two brothers, Loki and Thor, drew up a plan whereby Loki, although the registered owner of a parcel of land, admitted that Thor was really the owner.
Question: May Thor or his successors-in-interest claim ownership over the land by virtue of such written admission by Loki?
Answer: No, because Thor was a party to the collusion, and therefore, he could not have been misled. Had third parties been misled, there would have been estoppel.

Leave a comment