This appeal is taken from the  decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in its Civil Case No. 15711 sentencing Dalmacio  Catipon  to pay  the  Philippine National Bank the principal sum of P3,050.83 with interest thereon from September 1, 1951  until full payment  plus costs. The facts are set forth in the judgment appealed from to be as follows:

"The parties stipulate, among other things, that defendant affixed his  signature on the Trust Receipt, Exhibit "A" because  of his strong desire to get the onions purchased by him from J. V. Ramirez & Co., Inc., and which were  duly paid  for to said J.  V. Ramirez &. Co., Inc., and  not to plaintiff Bank, as evidenced by receipts marked Exhibits 1, 2  and 3;  that his signature  was  affixed  at the Divisoria Market when a son  of  J. V. Ramirez  came- to him  and  explained that  the only way to  get onions which he bought  was  to  sign the said  Trust Receipt Exhibit  "A"; that  the  signature of  Dalmacio Catipon  (defendant) was affixed long after the trust receipt Exhibit A was signed by .1. V. Ramirez; that J. V. Ramirez, who is the President and General Manager of J. V. Ramirez & Co., Inc., is the indentor and importer and that Dalmacio Catipon is only a customer of J. V. Ramirez & Co., Inc.;  that  "plaintiff filed  a claim  against J. V. Ramirez in the Insolvency  Proceedings of J. V. Ramirez & Co., Inc.  (Civil Case No. 3191 of  the Court  of First Instance of Manila) long  before the present complaint was filed";  and that "plaintiff did not  realize  any  cent out of its claim  filed in the insolvency proceedings as J. V. Ramirez & Co.  has no sufficient assets  to meet all claims  of  the creditors  including that of the  plaintiff."  (Rec. App. pp. 92-93.)

It is also of record  that at  the instance  of  the  bank, Catipon was charged with estafa (Criminal Case No. 8190) for having misappropriated, misapplied and converted the merchandise covered  by the trust receipt; but after  due trial was acquitted from the charge.   Shortly thereafter, the bank commenced the present action to recover the value of the goods.

Dalmacio  Catipon  rests  Ms  present  appeal on  three points,  the same ones invoked by him in the court below. They are:  (1) That his acquittal in  the estafa case is a bar to the Bank's  instituting the present  civil  action, because the Bank did not reserve in the criminal case its right to separately enforce the civil liability of the appellant; (2) That under the facts  stipulated, the  defendant was not liable^under the trust receipt;  and (S) That if at all, he should be held liable only for one-half of the value of the  goods  under trust, there  being  no stipulation that he would be solidarily liable with his  co-signer.

We agree with the trial court that the appellant's case has  no  merit.   The decision acquitting appellant Catipon of the charge of estafa does  not  preclude or bar the filing of this  action to enforce his liability as one of the signers of the trust receipt Exhibit "A", for several reasons:

(a) Because the acquittal was predicated on the conclusion "that the guilt of the defendant, Dalmacio  Catipon has not  been satisfactorily  established",  as expressly recited by the  decision of acquittal of Judge  Alejandro Banlilio Exhibit 4-b, p. 4) and this  acquittal being equivalent to one on reasonable doubt, does not'preclude a suit to enforce the  civil liability  for the same  act or omission, under Article  29 of the new Civil  Code; it does not finally determine nor expressly declare that the fact from which the  civil action might  arise  did not  exist  (Rule  107, section  1 [d]) ;

(b) Because the declaration in the decision  of  acquittal to the effect that "if any responsibility was incurred by the  accused that is  civil in nature   and not  criminal" amounts to a reservation of the  civil  action  in  favor of tne  offended party, for  the  court  in its decision had no reason  to  dwell on  a civil  liability  that it intended to extinguish  by the same decision;  and

(c) Because if the appellant executed the trust receipt (that the present action seeks to enforce),, he is liable ex contractu for its breach, whether he did or he did not "misappropriate,  misapply or convert the said  merchandise" as  charged  in the  information  filed in the criminal case.

The second issue raised by appellant is likewise unmeritorious.  Whether or not Catipon appended  his signature to the trust receipts at the request of the son of his cosigner J. V. Ramirez, and regardless  of the arrangements between them,  the fact remains that  by signing the trust receipt the  appellant caused the Bank to believe he assumed the obligations  thereunder together with his co-signer;and the Bank having acted on that assumption, induced by the appellant, Catipon, the latter cannot, in equity,  be heard now to deny his liability, under the well  known principle of  estoppel.  There is no finding  that the Bank was not warned, or had reason to believe that the  appellant, in signing the trust  receipt, nevertheless did not intend to be bound by its terms, or that there were  special arrangements between Ramirez and the appellant.

As to the third defense, it appearing from the stipulation that the merchandise (onions) covered by  the trust receipt were delivered  by Ramirez to  the,appellant herein, who disposed thereof, it is  but right that  he should be the one to,  answer for their  value. Appellant's payments to Ramirez can not diminish the rights of the Bank, since the trust receipt expressly obligated herein .appellant to pa  the Bank and not to his co-signer.

The decision  appealed from is affirmed, without prejudice to the appellant's  rights against his co-signer J, V. Ramirez & Co., Inc.   Costs against appellant.  So ordered.

Parás, C. J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista, Angela, Labrador, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ.,  concur.