Estoppel in Pais

It is the principle by which a party who knows or should know the truth is absolutely precluded from
denying, or asserting the contrary of, any material fact which, by his words or conduct, affirmative or negative,
intentionally or through culpable negligence, he has induced another, who was excusably ignorant of the true facts
and who had a right to rely upon such words or conduct, to believe and act upon them thereby, as a consequence
reasonably to be anticipated, changing his position in such a way that he would suffer injury if such denial or
contrary assertion was allowed.

The principle of estoppel in pais applies wherein one, by his acts, representations or admissions, or by his
own 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. (Hanopol v. Shoemart, Inc., G.R. No. 137774, October 4,
2002, 390 SCRA 439; Phil. Realty Holdings Corp. v. Firematic Phils. Inc., G.R. No. 156251, April 27, 2007,
Callejo, J).

For the party to be estopped, such party (1) commits conduct amounting to false representation or
concealment of material facts or at least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are inconsistent with
those which the party subsequently attempts to assert; (2) has the intent, or at least expectation that his conduct
shall at least influence the other party; and (3) has knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.

On the party claiming the estoppel, such party (1) has lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge
of the truth on the facts in question; (2) has relied, in good faith, on the conduct or statements of the party to be
estopped; (3) has acted or refrained from acting based on such conduct or statements as to change the position or
status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice.

(PNB vs. CA, 308 SCRA 229; Kalalo vs. Luz, 34 SCRA 337; PBC vs. CA, 289 SCRA 178; Republic Glass Corp.,
et al., vs. Qua, G.R. No. 144413, July 30, 2004).

Example:

A creditor unofficially informs a debtor that the creditor forgives the debt between them. Even if such forgiveness
is not formally documented, the creditor may be estopped from changing its mind and seeking to collect the debt,
because that change would be unfair.

A landlord informs a tenant that rent has been reduced, for example, because there was construction or a lapse in
utility services. If the tenant relies on this statement in choosing to remain in the premises, the landlord could be
estopped from collecting the full rent.

Estoppel by deed

It is the principle prevents a party to a deed from denying anything recited in that deed. Where rules
of evidence prevent a litigant from denying the truth of what was said or done. A party creating an appearance of
fact which is not true is held bound by that appearance as against another person who has acted on the faith of it
(Strong v. Gutierrez Repide, 6 Phil. 685). Under estoppel by deed, a party to a deed and his privies are precluded
from denying any material fact stated in the deed as against the other party and his privies. ( Go, et al., vs. BSP,
G.R. No. 202262, July 8, 2015).  A written instrument is necessary for there to be estoppel by deed

1. If the deed or instrument is null and void because of the contract, there is no estoppel
 2. Ordinarily, the person estopped must be capacitated; but a minor is clever enough to deceive others,
estoppel may result

3. If a person, who is not a party to the instrument, notarizes the same, he is not in estoppel

Example:

Suppose a father conveys a plot of land to his son by deed. Unbeknownst to the son, the father actually does not
own the plot of land at the time of the conveyance; the father acquires title to the property only after the
conveyance. Technically, the son is not the legal owner of the property because his father did not own and did not
have the right to transfer the real estate at the time of the conveyance. But under the doctrine of estoppel by deed,
the court may "make good" the imperfection of the poorly timed conveyance by finding the son to be the rightful
owner of the plot of land.

Estoppel by laches

Estoppel by laches is considered an equitable estoppel wherein a person who failed or neglected to assert
a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time is presumed to have abandoned or otherwise declined
to assert such right and cannot later on seek to enforce the same, to the prejudice of the other party, who has no
notice or knowledge that the former would assert such rights and whose condition has so changed that the latter
cannot, without injury or prejudice, be restored to his former state. (Co Chien vs. Sta. Lucia Realty &
Development, Inc., G.R. No. 162090, January 31, 2007).

Silence or inaction which 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.

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:

1. Conduct on the 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;
4. Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant.

Example:

When the plaintiff delays in bringing suit simply because they are waiting for a key witness to pass away. After
the death of the witness, the plaintiff then files suit knowing that the defendant’s case is severely limited because
they have lost a key witness. In such an instance, a court is likely to find laches in favor of the defendant.