Epifanio sold a property with pacto de retro to Yangco. It was stipulated that the property is redeemable within five years. When the period expired, Yangco extended it. In order to redeem, Epifanio asked Banas for a loan. Banas agreed, with the condition that Marcelino and  Telesfora be responsible for the loan. The two entered into a private partnership in participation which stipulated that the property shall be returned to Epifanio as soon as the capital employed have been covered. Epifanio died. He left Paulina and their children. Marcelino acquired exclusive rights over the property when Telesfora conveyed her interest to him. Marcelino sold the property to Banas, with pacto de retro, redeemable within five years. He redeemed it from Banas. Marcelino submitted a notarial document wherein Epifanio certifies that Marcelino had requested him to draw up a notarial act showing the properties which Marcelino was known to be the true owner. Marcelino relies upon this instrument as proving title in him, contending that Epifanio and his successors are estopped from claiming said lot.

Issue:

Are the heirs of Epifanio estopped from claiming the property?

Held:

No. Estoppel may not be invoked by a person party to the collusion, by reason that he could not have been misled. The document executed by Epifanio was merely laying the basis of a scheme to defeat Yangco’s rights under his contract of purchase of 1891, or to defeat Epifanio’s other creditors.