This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-07-31 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| By the doctrine of estoppel, petitioner is now barred from impugning the contract. A party who performs affirmative acts on which another person bases his subsequent actions cannot thereafter refute his acts or renege on the effects of the same to the prejudice of the latter.[15] Under this doctrine, an admission or representation is conclusive on the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.[16] By accepting respondents' advance payments, petitioner led them to believe that the period of redemption had in fact been extended and that the redemption price was that appearing in the contract. It cannot now renege on its obligations under the contract just to be able to resell the property at a much higher price. | |||||
|
2004-11-10 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner, having performed affirmative acts upon which the respondents based their subsequent actions, cannot thereafter refute his acts or renege on the effects of the same, to the prejudice of the latter. To allow him to do so would be tantamount to conferring upon him the liberty to limit his liability at his whim and caprice, which is against the very principles of equity and natural justice…[44] | |||||