Scribd
Upload
102 views2 pages

395 - Hanopol vs. SM 390 SCRA 439

SM extended a line of credit to the Hanopol spouses to purchase items using SM credit cards. In exchange, the spouses executed a real estate mortgage. When the spouses failed to pay the principal amount owed, SM initiated foreclosure proceedings. The spouses claimed SM breached the contract by failing to provide invoices and purchase records, but the Court found no such requirement in the contract. The contract only required SM to provide statements of account, and the spouses failed to object to any discrepancies within the allotted time period, raising claims of overpayment only later. The Court ruled the spouses were estopped from questioning the statements of account and that SM could presume acquiescence based on the spouses' silence and in

Uploaded by

ana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
102 views2 pages

395 - Hanopol vs. SM 390 SCRA 439

SM extended a line of credit to the Hanopol spouses to purchase items using SM credit cards. In exchange, the spouses executed a real estate mortgage. When the spouses failed to pay the principal amount owed, SM initiated foreclosure proceedings. The spouses claimed SM breached the contract by failing to provide invoices and purchase records, but the Court found no such requirement in the contract. The contract only required SM to provide statements of account, and the spouses failed to object to any discrepancies within the allotted time period, raising claims of overpayment only later. The Court ruled the spouses were estopped from questioning the statements of account and that SM could presume acquiescence based on the spouses' silence and in

Uploaded by

ana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

TITLE: Hanopol vs.

SM, 390 SCRA 439

TOPIC: Estoppel in Pais – Representation and Positive Acts

PRINCIPLE: The principle of estoppel in pais applies wherein 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.

FACTS:

SM, through its Executive Vice President, and Spouses Hanopol executed a Contract pf
Purchase on Credit.

The contract agreement included that SM extended credit accommodations in the


amount of P300,000.00 for purchases on credit made by the holders of SM Credit Card
issued by the spouses for one year and renewable yearly. In consideration of such
credit accommodations, the spouses executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage. The
Spouses were given a discount on all purchases made by their cardholders, deductible
from the semi-monthly dues of SM to the petitioners.

The spouses failed to pay the principal amount and SM right then instituted extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings against the mortgaged properties.

Petitioners alleged that SM breached the contract when the latter failed to furnish them
with the requisite documents by which their liability may be determined, namely: charge
invoices, purchase booklets and purchase journal, as provided in their contract -- We
have thoroughly perused the contract between the parties and found that nowhere is it
stated therein that SM is obliged to provide spouses Hanopol with charge invoices and
purchase booklets. The contract simply provides for a provision relative to the
Statement of Account.

ISSUES:

WON the failure of SM to furnish the petitioners with documents constitutes a breach of
contract.

RULING:

No. The Court have thoroughly perused the contract between the parties and found that
nowhere is it stated therein that SM is obliged to provide spouses Hanopol with charge
invoices and purchase booklets. From the terms of the provision, the Spouses had three
days to question the correctness of the Statement of Account and the failure to do so
would render the Statement conclusive.

Petitioners failed to explain their failure to question or take action regarding any
discrepancies in the Statement of Account they received, doing so only when they had
difficulty settling their account with SM. They never raised their claim of overpayment
throughout the entire duration of the contract.

By their silence and inaction, petitioners are deemed to have admitted the correctness
of the Statement of Account of SM. They are estopped from questioning the veracity of
the same and claim overpayment. SM has in its favor the presumption that
acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the
law or fact. Petitioners should not be allowed to later disown the arrangement with
belated allegations of overpayment when the terms thereof ultimately would prove to
operate against their hopeful expectations.

You might also like