Persons and Family Relations

Case Digest
CASE Number (including date): G.R. No. L-1720 // March 4, 1950
CASE Name: SI SUAN AND GAW CHIAO v RAMON ALCANTARA
Ponente: Justice Paras

FACTS
8/3/1931 Rufino Alcantara and his sons Damaso and Ramon EXECUTED A
DEED OF SALE, conveying FIVE parcels of land to Si Suan. Ramon was 17
years, 10 months, and 22 days old
8/27/1931 Gaw Chio, Si Suans husband, received a letter from Atty. Alfonso,
Ramons lawyer, saying that Ramon was a minor and accordingly disavowing
the contract.
o After Gaw Chiao contacted Ramon about this, Ramon executed an
affidavit in the office of Atty. Gomez, Gaw Chiaos lawyer, RATIFYING
THE DEED OF SALE and received P 500
o In the meantime, Si Suan sold ONE of the lots to Nicolas Azores w/c
Antonio inherited
8/8/1940 Ramon went to CFI Laguna to have the deed of sale annulled (re:
his undivided share in TWO parcels of land) and the action was against
everyone (Si Suan, Gaw Chiao, his father, his brother, and the Azores father
and son)
CFI dismissed the case and CA reversed the decision: Deed of sale is NOT
binding against Ramon because he was a minor. Si Suan sentenced to pay
Ramon; must cover interest from Antonios share (he was absolved from the
complaint) so Si Suan and Gaw Chiao went to the SC.
CA: b/c Si Suan and Gaw Chiao took no steps to protect their interest after 9
years insinuates that they knew of his minority when the deed of sale was
executed. The SC disagrees: appellees were informed of his minority within
one (1) month after the transaction was completed.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not Ramons execution of the sale was valid
HELD
1. YES. Appellee's previous misrepresentation had already estopped him from
disavowing the contract. The appellants invoked the decision in MERCADO
AND MERCADO v ESPIRITU:
o The courts have laid down the rule that the sale of real estate, made
by minors who pretend to be of legal ageis valid, and they will not be
permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfillment of the obligations
contracted by them, or to have them annulledand the judgment that
holds such a sale to valid and absolves the purchaser from the
complaint filed against him... (applying Las Sietes Partidas)

RULING:
CA decision reversed, appellants absolved from complain, with costs against the
appellee, Ramon

CONCURING OPINION | Justice Padilla | Moran and Bengzon concur

The fact that Ramon, for and in consideration of P500, executed an affidavit,
whereby he ratified the deed of sale, is of no moment. He was still minor.
The law in force on MAY 17 1910 was not Las Siete Partidas, which was the in
force at the time the cases decided by the Supreme Court of Spain referred
to, but the Civil Code which took effect in the Philippines on 8 December
1889.
The Civil Code requires the consent of both parties for the valid execution of a
contract (art. 1261, Civil Code).
A minor cannot give his consent, the contract made or executed by him has
no validity and legal effect. There is no provision in the Civil Code similar to
that of Law 6, Title 19, of the 6th Partida w/c is equivalent to the common law
principle of estoppel. If there be an express provision in the Civil Code similar
law 6, Title 19, of the 6th Partida, I would agree to the reasoning of the
majority.
He should have brought it up within 4 years from when he turned 18 (Art
1310 Civil Code).