G.R. No. L-29678. July 18, 1975.
JOSEFINA LODOVICA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO ROXAS, respondents.

FACTS

The dispute involves a 254-square-meter lot in Quezon City. Pedro Roxas first occupied and built a house on the lot in 1947, declared it for taxation, and was officially recommended by the PHHC for award of the lot in 1953. However, the award’s implementation was delayed due to administrative requirements. In 1957, Josefina Lodovica, whose house was originally on a road area, claimed a right to the same lot after acquiring a house from another occupant. The PHHC subsequently awarded Lot 11 to Lodovica in 1958, executing a conditional contract to sell. Meanwhile, Roxas was persuaded to accept the adjacent Lot 12 instead, but only on the explicit condition that the PHHC would deliver it free from occupants, including Lodovica’s cousin. The PHHC failed to fulfill this condition.
Roxas filed an action seeking the annulment of the award and sale to Lodovica and the enforcement of his original award. The trial court dismissed his complaint, finding that his acceptance of Lot 12 constituted conformity. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Roxas’s acceptance of Lot 12 was conditional and that his prior award for Lot 11 took precedence. Lodovica appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether Pedro Roxas is estopped from claiming Lot 11 and contesting its sale to Josefina Lodovica due to his prior acceptance of Lot 12.

RULING

No, Roxas is not estopped. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic centers on the conditional nature of Roxas’s acceptance of Lot 12 and the precedence of his vested rights. The 1953 award to Roxas created a superior right. His subsequent agreement to accept Lot 12 was not a waiver but a conditional compromise, expressly dependent on the PHHC delivering vacant possession. The PHHC’s failure to satisfy this condition nullified Roxas’s acceptance, freeing him to insist on his original award. Lodovica and the PHHC entered into their conditional sale with full notice of Roxas’s outstanding claim; thus, they could not assume an indefeasible right. Estoppel does not apply because Roxas never assented to the award to Lodovica, which was made without his knowledge after a sub rosa reinvestigation. Furthermore, Roxas, as a person prejudiced by a contract to which he was not a party, had the legal standing to seek its annulment. The Court also denied a contempt charge against Lodovica and the PHHC manager, finding their actions during the appeal, while ill-advised, not contemptuous.