This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-01-10 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Santiago Syjuco, Inc. v. Castro,[30] the Court stated that "estoppel may arise from silence as well as from words." `Estoppel by silence' arises where a person, who by force of circumstances is obliged to another to speak, refrains from doing so and thereby induces the other to believe in the existence of a state of facts in reliance on which he acts to his prejudice.[31] Silence may support an estoppel whether the failure to speak is intentional or negligent.[32] | |||||
|
2005-04-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We have ruled that the intention of a tenant to surrender the landholding cannot be presumed, much less determined by implication. Otherwise, the right of a tenant to security of tenure becomes an illusory one. Tenancy relations cannot be bargained away except for the strong reasons provided by law which must be convincingly shown by evidence.[34] We are convinced beyond cavil that because of his illness which rendered him physically incapable of cultivating the landholding, Ruperto Puyat, Sr., indeed, abandoned the landholding, sold his improvements thereon to the petitioner. The resounding silence of Ruperto Puyat, Sr. since 1963 until his death and the respondent for thirty years since 1963 even when P.D. No. 27 took effect is daunting evidence of such abandonment and surrender. If one maintains silence, when in conscience he ought to speak, equity will debar him from speaking when in conscience he ought to remain silent. He who remains silent when he ought to speak cannot be heard to speak when he should be silent.[35] We cannot, in law and in conscience, condone the eviction of the petitioner who, for the same period of time, tenanted the property without any plaint from Ruperto Puyat, Sr. and/or his son and dutifully paid the amortizations of the land. | |||||