G.R. No. 17877; July 10, 1922
ADRIANO MIRASOL, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE MUNICIPALITY OF TABACO, ALBAY, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff Adriano Mirasol owned a building lot. In 1916, the defendant Municipality of Tabaco decided to drill an artesian well in the town center. Three landowners, including Mirasol, initially offered sites without compensation. The municipal engineer selected Mirasol’s lot as most suitable. The acting municipal president informed Mirasol, who renewed his assurance of no objection. Drilling machinery was installed. Mirasol then objected, and work was suspended. The president confronted Mirasol, stating the well would be placed on another donor’s lot if he refused. Mirasol then consented again, and the well was completed without further objection. Mirasol received benefits from the well. In 1919, Mirasol filed an ejectment suit, claiming the municipality bored the well without his consent, rendering his land unserviceable. The trial court absolved the municipality.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff is estopped from revoking the license he granted to the municipality to drill and maintain the artesian well on his land.

RULING

Yes. The plaintiff is estopped from revoking the license. The municipality’s interest is a mere license, not an estate or easement, as there was no valid written donation. However, a license can be created by parol or implied from the owner’s acquiescence. While generally revocable, a license becomes irrevocable under the doctrine of estoppel when the licensee, with the express or implied consent of the licensor, has expended money or labor on the land in reliance on the license. Here, Mirasol gave express consent, leading the municipality to believe the license would not be revoked. Relying on this, the municipality incurred substantial expense to complete the well. Mirasol also participates in its benefits. To allow revocation would sanction fraud and deception. Equity and subsection 1, section 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure estop Mirasol from revoking the license without first reimbursing the municipality’s expenditures. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.