Sia Suan & Gaw Chiao vs Alcantara
"Minor entered into a contract"
NCC 1327: The following cannot give consent to
a contract:
1. Unemancipated minors
2. Insane or demented persons, and deaf mutes
who do not know how to write
NCC 1390 (par. 1): The following contracts are
voidable or annullable, even though there may
have been no damage to the contracting parties:
1. Those where one of the parties is incapable
of giving consent to a contract.
NCC 1397: The action for the annulment of
contracts may be instituted by all who are
thereby obliged principally or subsidiarily.
However, persons who are capable cannot
allege the incapacity of those with whom they
contracted; nor can those who exerted
intimidation, violence or undue influence,or
employed fraud, or caused mistake base their
action upon flaws.
NCC 1489: All persons who are authorized in
this Code to obligate themselves, may enter into
a contract of sale, saving the modifications
contained in the following articles.
Art. 1426. When a minor between eighteen and
twenty-one years of age who has entered into a
contract without the consent of the parent or
guardian, after the annulment of the contract
voluntarily returns the whole thing or price
received, notwithstanding the fact the he has not
been benefited thereby, there is no right to
demand the thing or price thus returned.
Art. 1427. When a minor between eighteen and
twenty-one years of age, who has entered into a
contract without the consent of the parent or
guardian, voluntarily pays a sum of money or
delivers a fungible thing in fulfillment of the
obligation, there shall be no right to recover the
same from the obligee who has spent or
consumed it in good faith. (1160A)
FACTS:
On August 3, 1931, a deed of sale was
executed by Rufino Alcantara and his
sons Damaso Alacantara & Ramon
Alcantara conveying to Sia Suan five
parcels of land.
Ramon Alcantara was then 17 years,
10 months and 22 days old.
On August 27, 1931, Gaw Chiao
(husband of Sia) received a letter from
Francisco Alfonso, attorney of Ramon
Alcantara, informing them was a minor
and accordingly disavowing the
contract.
Ramon Alcantara then executed an
affidavit in the office of Atty Gomez
(attorney of Gaw Chiao), wherein
Ramon ratified the deed of sale. Ramon
received Php500.
On August 8, 1940, an action was
instituted by Ramon in the Court of the
First Instance for the annulment of the
deed of sale as regards his undivided
share in two parcels of land.
ISSUE: Whether or not the deed of sale is valid
even though vendor was a minor.
HELD: Ramon Alcantara was a minor during the
time when the deed of sale was executed, it's
not allowed under the civil code. But his act of
ratification gave the contract a binding effect.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the
Court of Appeals, with costs against Ramon.
Other Important Details:
It is not here claimed that the deed of
sale is null and void on any ground
rather than the appellee's minority.
Appellee's contract has become fully
efficacious as a contract executed by
parties with full legal capacity.
According to the court of appeals, the
said notice shielded the appellee from
laches and consequent estoppel. This
position is untenable since the effect of
estoppel in proper cases is unaffected
by the promptness with which such
notice to disaffirm is made.
The doctrine of Mercado vs Espiritu was
used in the case at bar "The courts in
their interpretation of the law, have laid
down the rule that the sale of real estate
made by minors who pretend to be of
legal age, when in fact they are not, is
valid and they will not be permitted to
excuse themselves from the fulfillment
of the obligations contracted by them."