You are on page 1of 3

Other Causes of Extinguishment of Obligation

1. Prescription:
a. The acquisition of a right by the lapse of time, known as acquisitive prescription or adverse possession and usucapcion.
b. The loss of a right of action by the lapse of time, known as extinctive prescription, or limitation of actions.

PRESCRIPTION
- Rights may be acquired or extinguished by mere lapse of time provided for by law.
- Retroactivity of prescription: The acquisition of ownership or other real rights through prescription is retroactive. Once the period is completed, the
new owner is considered as having acquired the thing or right from the moment the period began to run.

Kinds of Prescription:
1. Acquisitive: The acquisition of a right by the lapse of time, also known as adverse possession and usucapcion.
2. Extinctive: The loss of a right of action by the lapse of time, also known as limitation of actions.

ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION
- Requisite:
1. Capacity to acquire by prescription
2. A thing capable of acquisition by prescription
3. Possession of the thing under certain conditions
4. Lapse of time provided by law
- Kinds:
1. Ordinary acquisitive prescription: requires possession of things in good faith and with just title for the time fixed by law.
2. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription: if not ordinary.

EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION
- “Prescription of actions” or “limitation of actions”
- Definition: It refers to the time within which an action may be brought, or some act done, to preserve a right.
- Effect of lapse of time: extinguishment of the action
- Prescription to be pleaded: The bar of the statute of limitations cannot be asserted as a defense unless it is specially pleaded in the answer and proven
with the same degree of certainty by which any essential allegations in the pleadings is established.
- May be waived or renounced: It is deemed waived if not timely raised or pleaded before or during the hearing of the case.

Statute of limitations:
- Are acts limiting the time within which actions shall be brought.
- Not right of action: It does not confer any right of action, but are enacted to restrict the period within which the right, otherwise unlimited, might be
asserted.
- As defense: They are not matters of substantive right, but are available only as defenses.
- Purpose: To protect the diligent and vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.
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 (Art. 1431)
- Concept: 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 truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers or by his own deed or representation, either expressed or implied.
- Bars others: It bars not just the person causing estoppel but also successors-in-interest, etc.
- Binds privies: in blood like heirs, and in estate, like grantees
- When not applicable:
1. If the act, conduct or representation of the party sought to be estopped is due to ignorance founded on INNOCENT MISTAKE.
2. A party who had NO KNOWLEDGE of nor GAVE CONSENT to a transaction.
3. It is not applicable on ILLEGAL ACTS or those prohibited by law or are against public policy.
4. No estoppel against the government, as the same is not estopped by mistake or error on the part of its officials or agents.

Kinds of Estoppel:
1. Estoppel by Record
- Definition: is the preclusion to deny the truth of matters set forth in 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. Thus, if there has been litigation between parties that resulted to final judgment, all
matters decided on said case are conclusive between the parties.
- No rebuttal: No testimony on that case can be rebutted on another case.
2. Estoppel by Deed
- Definition: is 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.
- Art. 1436: A lessee or a bailee is estopped from asserting title to the thing leased or received, as against the lessor or bailor.
- Estoppel of Tenant: A tenant will not be heard to dispute his landlord’s title. Same rule on bailee when he borrowed a thing from the bailor.
3. Estoppel in Pais (Equitable estoppel)
- Definition: is a term applied to a situation where, because of something which he has done or omitted to do, a party is denied the right to plead or
prove an otherwise important fact.
- Distinguished from technical estoppel: It arises out of the acts and conduct of the party estopped and not from the record or a deed.
- Elements in relation to the party sought to be estopped:
1. 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 inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert.
2. Intent or at least expectation that this conduct shall be acted upon by, or at least influence, the other party.
3. Knowledge, actual or constructive, of real facts.
- Elements in relation to the party claiming the estoppel:
1. Lack of knowledge or of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in question
2. Reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped
3. 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.

Kinds:
1. By Representation/Positive Acts
a. Art. 1434: When a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers it, and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such
title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee.
- Subsequent Acquisition of Title: A person who sells property when he did not have title to it, cannot deny validity to the sale after he has acquired the
title. The vendee is also deemed a purchaser in good faith.
b. Art. 1435: If a person in representation of another sells or alienates a thing, the former cannot subsequently set up his own title as against the buyer or
grantee.
c. Art. 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. - Estoppel Against Owner: The rule is that the title to a land or real property may pass by an
equitable estoppel, which is effectual to take the title to land from one person and vest it in another where justice requires that such an action be done. -
Example: Where a true owner of real property holds out another as the owner thereof, or with knowledge of his own title, allows the latter to represent
himself as the owner having full power of disposition over the property, and innocent third persons are led into dealing with such person with apparent
title, the true owner cannot, to the prejudice of such third persons, nullify the act of the apparent owner.
2. By Admission
- 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 has previously
made and in reliance upon which the other party has changed his position.
- Examples:
a. Where one admits in a will that a certain property belonging to his son had been sold by his son to a third person, said testator was estopped from
claiming the same lot from the vendee on the ground that his son had sold the same lot to him a month after said testator made the will.
b. Admissions in pleadings or facts agreed to by stipulation of the parties are conclusive between the parties and cannot be contradicted, unless it be
shown that the admissions were made through palpable mistake, for parties are not allowed to gainsay their own acts or deny rights which they have
previously recognized.
- Limitations:
a. It cannot cure the constitutionality of admission of guilt made extra-judicially without Miranda warning.
b. It cannot create civil status or legal relationship between persons unless made in accordance with the Family Code.

3. By Promise (Promissory Estoppel)


- An estoppel may arise from the making of a promise, even though without consideration, if it was intended that the promise should be relied upon, and
in fact it was relied upon, and if a refusal to enforce it would be virtually to sanction the perpetuation of fraud or would result in other injustice.
4. By Silence
- An estoppel may arise under the circumstances of silence and inaction.
- “One who is silent when he ought to speak will not be heard to speak when he ought to be silent.” Mere innocent silence will not work an estoppel.
- Torpitude or negligence: There must also be some element of turpitude or negligence connected with the silence by which another is misled to his
injury.
5. By Acquiescence
- It is closely related to estoppel by silence. In estoppel by acquiescence, a person is prevented from maintaining a position inconsistent with one in which
he has a acquiesced.
- Example: When the owner of a piece of land merely keeps silent and makes no objections, although he knows that a railroad corporation has entered
upon his land without authority and is constructing a railway therein, he cannot later on recover his land or prevent its use by the railroad after the
railway is completed at much expense.
4. Estoppel from Benefits
- Art. 1438: One who has allowed another to assume apparent ownership of personal property for the purpose of making any transfer of it, cannot, if he
received the sum for which a pledge has been constituted, set up his own title to defeat the pledge of the property, made by the other to a pledgee who
received the same in good faith and for value.
- Application: Applicable to a case where the owner of personal property has allowed another to assume apparent ownership of the thing for the purpose
of making any transfer of it, and the latter pledges it to a third person who receives the same in good faith and for value. The person is precluded from
setting up his own title to defeat the pledge of the property if he received the sum for which the pledge has been constituted.
- Principle: The receipt of the sum for which the pledge has been made, estops the party benefited from questioning the validity and effectiveness of the
matter or transaction.
- Even if benefits not received by owner: Notwithstanding the fact that the owner never received the proceeds of the pledge, he may be estopped from
questioning the pledge if he clothed the agent with apparent authority to dispose of it and when the person setting up the estoppel acted and parted
with value or extended credit on the faith of such apparent ownership or authority.
5. Estoppel by 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 a 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.
- Binds lazy and delay without valid cause: It binds those who are lazy in exercising their rights, but the inaction must be UNEXPLAINED so that delay
must not be justified by a valid cause.
- Elements:
1. Conduct on part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation complained of.
2. Delay in asserting complainant’s rights after he had knowledge of the defendant’s conduct and after he has had an opportunity to sue.
3. Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit.