Case No. 2: SIA SUAN and GAW CHIAO, Petitioners, vs. RAMON ALCANTARA, Respondent G.R. No.

L-1720; Ma !" #, 1$%0 1.W"a& a e &"e 'a&e (a) *a!&s o* &"e !ase and &"e (ss+es a (s(n, &"e e* o'

On August 3, 1931, appellant Sia Suan executed a deed of sale with Rufino Alcantara and his sons Damaso Alcantara and appellee Ramon Alcantara, conveying five parcels of land to said petitioner Ramon Alcantara was then 1! years, 1" months and ## days old On August#!, 1931, $aw %hiao &hus'and of SiaSuan( received a letter from )rancisco Alfonso, attorney of Ramon Alcantara, informing $aw %hiao that Ramon Alcantara was a minor and accordingly disavowing the contract After 'eing contacted 'y $aw%hiao, however, Ramon Alcantara executed an affidavit ratifying the deed of sale On said occasion Ramon Alcantara received from $aw %hiao the sum of *+"" ,n the meantime, Sia Suan sold one of the lots to -icolas A.ores from whom Antonio A.ores inherited the same On August /, 190", an action was instituted 'y respondent Ramon Alcantara in the %), &%ourt of )irst ,nstance( of 1aguna for the annulment of the deed of sale as regards his undivided share in the two parcels of land covered 'y certificates of title -os !+1 and !+# of 1aguna 2he %), of 1aguna rendered a decision in favor of appellee Alcantara in view of his minority during the execution of the contract 2he issue then that has to 'e resolved is that 3hether or not the Deed of Sale executed on August 31, 1931 is null and void

2. .o /"a& 0+ 0ose d(d Ga/ C"(ao (n&end &o +se &"e a&(*(!a&(on 12 Ra'onWas &"a& 0+ 0ose a&&a(ned- 340)a(n. 2a4ing into account the action ta4en 'y $aw %hiao in suggesting his wife, Sia Suan, to let Ramon Alcantara sign an affidavit ratifyng the sale, gives aan impression that they intend to ma4e it appear that Ramon was in estoppel 2he purpose is to protect their interest should time comes that Ramon would disaffirm the sale 'y reason of his minority 2hough the court decided in favor of the appellants, the purpose of the latter to protect their interest were not the 'asis of the court in its decision

5. Was (& ne!essa 2 *o S(a S+an &o 0a & /(&" !as" so as &o 1(nd &"e vendo /"o e0 esen&ed &o 1e o* )e,a) a,e- 340)a(n. -o 2o 'ind a minor & the vendor( who represents himself to 'e of legal age , it is not necessary for his vendee to actaully part with cash, as long as the contract is supported 'y a valid consideration Since appellee5s conveyance to the appellants was admittedly for and in virtue of a pre6 existing inde'tedness &un7uestiona'ly a valid consideration(, it should produce its full force and effect in the a'sence of any other vice that may legally inviolate the same

#. Ho/ does &"(s !ase d(**e * o' &"a& o* Me !ado and Me !ado vs. 3s0( (&+6(s!+ss &"e d(**e en!e, (* an2.

,n the case 8ercado and 8ercado vs 9spiritu, Domingo and :osefa 8ercado, who were minors and made a misrepresetation with regard their age let the 'uyers to 'elieve that they were of legal age, received a sum of

money and then later on invo4ed that the deed of sale which they executed 'e annulled on the ground of their minority ,n the case at 'ar, however there is no sum of money involced and that the Deed of Sale executed was it a Dacion en pago to settle a pre6existing de't

%. T"e !on!+ (n, o0(n(on o* 7+s&(!e 8ad())a 1e,(ns /(&" &"e *o))o/(n, s&a&e'en&: 9I !on!+ (n &"e es+)& no& +0on &"e , o+nds s&a&ed (n &"e 'a:o (&2 o0(n(on 1+& *o &"e *o))o/(n, easons:; 6(s!+ss 1 (e*)2 on /"a& d(**e en& , o+nds "e !on!+ ed. Was "(s !on!+ (n, o0(n(on an o1:e!&(on &o &"e , o+nds o* &"e 'a:o (&2 de!(s(on- 340)a(n 1 (e*)2. <See A00end(4 9=; *o & ans)a&(on o* d(ssen&(n, o0(n(on o* 7+s&(!e 8a1)o.>

:ustice *adilla, in his concurring opinion presented some grounds that were different from that of the ration of the case ;is reasons were< 2he deed of sale executed 'y Ramon Alcantara is null and void 'ecause of his minority A minor, such as Ramon Alcantara could not give consent for a contract 2he misrepresentation as to the age of Ramon was the statement appearing in the instrument that he was of age $aw%hiao, was advised 'y Atty )rancisco Alfonso of the fact that his client Ramon Alcantara was a minor 2he fact that the latter, for and in consideration of *+"", executed an affidavit, where'y he ratified the deed of sale, is of no moment 2he ma=ority opinion invo4es the rule laid down in the case of 8ercado et al vs 9spiritu 2he contract of sale involved in the case of Mercado vs. Espiritu, was executed 'y the minors on 1! 8ay 191" 2he 1aw in force during said time was not Las SietePartidas,'ut the %ivil %ode which too4 effect in the *hilippines on / Decem'er 1//9 As already stated, the %ivil %ode re7uires the consent of 'oth parties for the valid execution of a contract As a minor cannot give his consent, the contract made or executed 'y him has no

validity and legal effect 2here is no provision in the %ivil %ode similar to that of 1aw >, 2itle 19, of the >th *artida which is e7uivalent to the common law principle of estoppel ,f there 'e an express provision in the %ivil %ode similar law >, 2itle 19, of the >th Partida, :ustice *adilla would have agreed to the reasoning of the ma=ority 2he a'sence of such provision in the %ivil %ode is fatal to the validity of the contract executed 'y a minor ,t would 'e illogical to uphold the validity of a contract on the ground of estoppel, 'ecause if the contract executed 'y a minor is null and void for lac4 of consent and produces no legal effect, how could such a minor 'e 'ound 'y misrepresentation a'out his age? ,f he could not 'e 'ound 'y a direct act, such as the execution of a deed of sale, how could he 'e 'ound 'y an indirect act, such as misrepresentation as to his age? -evertheless, as the action in this case was 'rought on / August 190", the same was 'arred, 'ecause it was not 'rought within four &0( years after the minor had 'ecome of age, pursuant to article 13"1 of the %ivil %ode