Case Digest: JESUS CALDO v. VICTORIA CALDO-ATIENZA et al.

JESUS CALDO v. VICTORIA CALDO-ATIENZA et al.

485 SCRA 504, (2006)

Estoppel is not one of the modes of acquiring ownership.

Petitioner Jesus Caldo is the only child of Francisco Caldo to his first wife Pilar Sayaman. Francisco Caldo filed an ―Application to Purchase Friar Lands‖ covering Lot No. 5749-D of the Municipality of Dasmariñas, Cavite. Pilar Sayaman later died and Francisco Caldo subsequently married Juana Manareza, with whom he had three children, herein respondents Victoria Caldo-Atienza and Feliciana Caldo-Sabado, and the now deceased Alberto Caldo−father of respondent Zosimo Caldo. Juana (deceased) and the Republic of the Philippines forged a private sale, covering Lot No. 5749-D. After Juana had fully paid for the lot, she registered it in her name.

Petitioner Jesus Caldo and respondents Victoria Caldo-Atienza, Feliciana Caldo-Sabado and Zosimo Caldo‘s executed a Salaysay ng Pag-aari ng Iba’t-Ibang Lupa. Atienza et al. thereafter executed a ―Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Waiver‖ adjudicating the lot to themselves, prompting Jesus Caldo to file a Complaint against Atienza et al. for Annulment of Title before the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite. The Court ruled that Jesus Caldo is entitled to inherit a share of the lot which was subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atienza, et al. are in estoppels to deny the claim of Jesus as co-owner

HELD:

Under the New Civil Code, the modes of acquiring ownership are as follows: (a) occupation; (b) intellectual creation; (c) donation; (d) succession; and (e) prescription. Estoppel is not one of them x x x. The recognition by the defendants-appellants Victoria Caldo-Atienza, Feliciana Caldo-Sabado and Zosimo Caldo of the plaintiff-appellee Jesus Caldo as co-owner of the subject parcel of land in the ―Salaysay ng Pag-aari ng Iba‘t Ibang Lupa‖ was based on the mistaken belief that the said land was a conjugal property of Francisco Caldo and Juana Manaresa. To rule otherwise, will not only cause injustice to the vested right of the defendants-appellants but also will run counter to the provisions of the law and applicable jurisprudence. In accordance with the settled rule, an innocent mistake on the part of the defendants-appellants as to the legal right does not estop them to assert the same

In estoppel, a person, who by his deed or conduct has induced another to act in a particular manner, is barred from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that thereby causes loss or injury to another. It further bars him from denying the truth of a fact which has, in the contemplation of law, become settled by the acts and proceedings of judicial or legislative officers or by the act of the party himself, either by conventional writing or by representations, express or implied or in pais.

It can only be invoked between the person making the representation and the person to whom it was addressed, the latter having relied upon the misrepresentation and having been influenced and misled thereby intentionally. Since it was Juana who allegedly made the representation to petitioner to the effect that he is a co-owner of the land, estoppel cannot be invoked against respondents.

As for the invocation of estoppel against respondents in light of their execution, together with Jesus, of the Salaysay, the following pronouncement of the Court is instructive.
The doctrine of estoppel is predicated on, and has its origin in equity which, broadly defined, is justice according to natural law and right. It is a principle intended to avoid a clear case of injustice. The term is hardly distinguishable from a waiver of right. Estoppel, like its counterpart, must be unequivocal and intentional for, when misapplied, it can easily become a convenient and effective means of injustice. Estoppel is not understood to be a principal that, as a rule, should prevalently apply but, as it concededly is, a mere exception from the standard legal norms of general application that can be invoked only in highly exceptional and justifiable cases.

Share this:

Leave a Reply