Cases (Conclusive Presumptions) Flashcards
Respondent spouses entered into a Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage of the lots in question from its original owner Spouses Reyes. As, Private respondents failed to pay the loan and the bank extra-judicially foreclosed on the mortgaged lots. At the public auction, the bank was the sole bidder. Consequently, a certificate of sale was issued. The said certificate stated that redemption period expires two (2) years from the registration of the sale. Certificate of sale was registered on October 16, 1979. Within the two (2) year period, private respondents offered to redeem the foreclosed lots and tendered the redemption amount. However, petitioner Bank refused and argued that the right to redeem had prescribed, as more than one year had elapsed from the registration of the Certificate of Sale. Private respondents filed a complaint to compel the bank to allow their redemption of the foreclosed lots. They argued that they were entitled to redeem the foreclosed lots because they offered to redeem and tendered the redemption price before October 16, 1981, the deadline of the 2-year.
ISSUE: Whether or not failure to previously contest the redemption period stated on the certificate of sale precludes the bank from asserting it as a defense to oppose the exercise of right of redemption.
By its silence and inaction, petitioner misled private respondents to believe that they had two years within which to redeem the mortgage. After the lapse of two years, petitioner is estopped from asserting that the period for redemption was only one year and that the period had already lapsed. Estoppel in pais arises when 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. When petitioner received a copy of the Certificate of Sale registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Lipa City, it had actual and constructive knowledge of the certificate and its contents. For two years, it did not object to the two-year redemption period provided in the certificate. Thus, it could be said that petitioner consented to the two-year redemption period specially since it had time to object and did not. When circumstances imply a duty to speak on the part of the person for whom an obligation is proposed, his silence can be construed as consent.
Petitioners leased a building from Respondent’s predecessor (Virginia). At the time of the perfection of the contract, the petitioner spouses, as lessees, were aware that the NHA, and not Virginia, the lessor, owned the land on which the rented house stood yet they signed the same, obliged themselves to comply with the terms thereof for five years and performed their obligations as lessees for two years. After two years from the effectivity of the lease contract, Respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer, with damages against petitioner for failure to pay rent. On the other hand, the petitioner spouses alleged that they paid the rent to the new owners (Virgilio and Angelita) of the lot where the building stood and not to respondents since the latter supposedly no longer had the legal right to collect rentals. Petitioner claimed that the lease contract ceased to be effective because Virgilio’s assumption of ownership of the land stripped the respondents of ownership of the building.
MTC rendered a decision in favor of plaintiffs. MTC ruled that petitioner failed to show that the subject house belonged to Virgilio. On the other hand, the respondents proved that the property in question is registered in their name. On appeal, the RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC based on the petitioner’s failure to present any documentary evidence modifying or amending the contract of lease to justify the transfer of payment of the monthly rental to Virgilio Tanga-an who claims only as the registered owner of the lot on which the leased house is located.
ISSUE: Whether or not a defendant is a suit, to which the cause of action arises from a contract may assailed the operation of such contract by disputing a previously affirmed fact
No. Section 2, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides as a conclusive presumption that: Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive presumptions: (a) 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;
Petitioner were aware that the lot in question was not owned by the lessors at the time the lease contract was entered into. After recognizing the validity of the lease contract for two years, the petitioner spouses are barred from alleging the automatic cancellation of the contract on the ground that the respondents lost ownership of the house after Virgilio acquired title over the lot.
